Supreme Court Upholds Michigan Affirmative Action Ban

[nehalem256]

You didn't read the dissent, clearly. Her argument is that Michigan's directors are free and clear to decide that religion, sex, sexual preference, etc should not be considered. Her issue is that there has been a two tiered system for making those decisions put in place.

So you are against the idea of protected classes?

 

[Newell Steamer]

Man, the government is forcing me:
- to be responsible for the baby I created
- to contribute to highways and roads I use
- to contribute to social security I will use
- to work in an equal opportunity environment
- abide by laws (when I want the laws enforced only when they aren't applied to me, but, rather others that I don't like,..)

,.. I mean, why can't the government do whatever I want, and not what could be good for others??

It's like, the government is serving more than just myself, instead of a small group of people... what kind of fucked up system and set up is THAT?!

 

[fskimospy]

So you are against the idea of protected classes?

No. The state just needs a good reason for choosing to differentiate. I'm not sure how you missed this basic facet of civil rights law.

Again, for someone who spends as much time on civil rights law as you do, you seem to know almost nothing about it. Maybe you can help and link us some more irrelevant SCOTUS cases that you didn't understand like you do in most other civil rights threads.

 

[smackababy]

No, the argument is that Michigan has created a two tiered system for how people running universities can admit people preferentially. If you want to give admittance preference to legacies, you can do that very easily. If you want to give admission preference to geographic minorities you can do that very easily. If you want to give admission to racial minorities, you need a constitutional amendment.

I'm not sure what I think about this argument, but that's what it is. It is the difference in standards that she seems to take issue with, not that legacies exist.

The problem is that is essentially "we can't make admissions based on race illegal because other 'inequalities' exist in the system!" That is pretty much the worst argument you can think of.

 

[nehalem256]

No. The state just needs a good reason for choosing to differentiate. I'm not sure how you missed this basic facet of civil rights law.

So then you appear to be fine with the creation of a two tiered system :sneaky:

Seems that the SC has consistently ruled that the government is free to create laws to prevent discrimination on the basis of race.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem is that is essentially "we can't make admissions based on race illegal because other 'inequalities' exist in the system!" That is pretty much the worst argument you can think of.

That's actually not the argument in any way, shape, or form. The argument is that Michigan should use the same standards for determining whether or not to implement a change in admissions requirements in all cases.

 

[Texashiker]

No. The state just needs a good reason for choosing to differentiate.

Wow, just wow.

So it is ok to discriminate when it suits you?

You sir are a troll and a hypocrite.

 

[fskimospy]

So then you appear to be fine with the creation of a two tiered system :sneaky:

You're a moron.

 

[nehalem256]

You're a moron.

Creating protected classes is creating a two-tiered system.

Not sure why that is hard for you to understand.

And the SC has pretty clearly consistently ruled it is fine to put race as a special class that cannot be discriminated against.

For example if I am running a restaurant I am perfectly free to say that people in suits(rich people) are prohibited from eating there. But I am not free to say black people can't eat there.

 

[smackababy]

Wow, just wow.

So it is ok to discriminate when it suits you?

You sir are a troll and a hypocrite.

You are an idiot. Legal discrimination happens all the time. Ever tried to buy alcohol before you're 21 (or 18, if you're older)? Guess what? Legal age discrimination!

As has been explained to you in multiple threads, laws that discriminate for one reason or another are scrutinized and if found the discrimination has merit, they are upheld.

That's actually not the argument in any way, shape, or form. The argument is that Michigan should use the same standards for determining whether or not to implement a change in admissions requirements in all cases.

She is dissenting the decision that Michigan cannot practice affirmative action. If she thinks the laws don't go far enough, that is another debate. This was about a specific issue and she disagrees because there are other systems set up that discriminate as well. Have someone challenge those laws, as they don't pertain to this issue.

 

[Texashiker]

For example if I am running a restaurant I am perfectly free to say that people in suits(rich people) are prohibited from eating there. But I am not free to say black people can't eat there.

Nor can the owner tell a white person to leave because a black needs a seat. Which is basically what affirmative action does, it discriminates against qualified people on basis of race.

Could we imagine the horror if a black man was at a cafe eating, the waitress walks up and tells him to leave because a white man needs a seat.

For some reason reverse discrimination is ok?

You are an idiot. Legal discrimination happens all the time. Ever tried to buy alcohol before you're 21 (or 18, if you're older)? Guess what? Legal age discrimination!

No, you are the idiot.

Various studies prove the negative effect alcohol has on the developing mind.

 

[nehalem256]

Nor can the owner tell a white person to leave because a black needs a seat. Which is basically what affirmative action does, it discriminates against qualified people on basis of race.

Could we imagine the horror if a black man was at a cafe eating, the waitress walks up and tells him to leave because a white man needs a seat.

Pretty much exactly analogous. Would anyone dispute that a state could pass a law forbidding preferential seating of restaurant patrons on race?

If a state can regulate private businesses why can't it regulate a public college the same?

 

[Knowing]

For some reason reverse discrimination is ok?

"Reverse discrimination" is cheating at scrabble.

 

[smackababy]

No, you are the idiot.

Various studies prove the negative effect alcohol has on the developing mind.

Again, you've proven just how stupid you really are. How about the age restriction for driving a car? Voting? Consenting to sexual intercourse? Retirement? Military eligibility? All legal forms of age discrimination, yet it is still illegal to not hire someone because of their age.

 

[Texashiker]

Again, you've proven just how stupid you really are. How about the age restriction for driving a car? Voting? Consenting to sexual intercourse? Retirement? Military eligibility? All legal forms of age discrimination, yet it is still illegal to not hire someone because of their age.

Which ones of those discriminate based on race?

What are you, like 10 years old or something?


AA is like this,

White man shows up at a restaurant early and gets in line. The server at the counter says there is going to be a wait.

Black man walks up behind white guy, gets in line.

Asian walks up behind black guy, gets in line.

Hispanic gets in line behind asian.

Server bypasses white guy who was first in line, seats the black guy.

Same thing happens to asian and hispanic.

Before long all the seats are taken. The white guy who was there first has to leave and go to another restaurant.

If that happened to a gay couple there would be a civil rights lawsuit. The news would have a field day how a gay couple was discriminated against.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

I'm very surprised and happy that it was a 6-2 decision.

 

[smackababy]

Wow, just wow.

So it is ok to discriminate when it suits you?

You sir are a troll and a hypocrite.

In response to eskimospy saying the state has to have a valid reason, thus legal discrimination.

So, in the immortal words of the internet: wat?


Also, your understanding of how affirmative action works is the same on your understanding of pretty much everything else you post about: nonexistent.

 

[trenchfoot]

If I understand this ruling correctly, it very narrowly ascribes to the precedent that gives each state the choice of whether they want to implement affirmative action or not.

Is this so?

With that, I can see where the phrase "Be careful what you wish for..." comes into play, as certain minorities, especially asian minorities with their culture pushing full on hard for their children to excel at academics will be disproportionately represented at certain universities of their choosing should affirmative action with its system of quotas be eliminated there.

edit - Personally, I'm perfectly OK with the USSC's decision.

 

[Texashiker]

In response to eskimospy saying the state has to have a valid reason, thus legal discrimination.

So, in the immortal words of the internet: wat?

Also, your understanding of how affirmative action works is the same on your understanding of pretty much everything else you post about: nonexistent.

Are you going to post insults, or are you going to debate me?

 

[JockoJohnson]

Are you going to post insults, or are you going to debate me?

When you can't win the debate, resort to name calling.

Back to the topic: I see it as a good thing that AA is banned. Go on merit to get in. There are already plenty of fucking laws against discrimination. Do we really need another law saying to not break those laws and in fact do the opposite when it comes to minorities? (Sorry for the run-on sentence).

As was stated earlier, someone should pursue Michigan on the legality of their discrimination of sex, religion and sexual preference. I think we have come far enough as a society that we don't need AA. What is the big fear if AA goes away?

 

[HomerJS]

Are you suggesting that poor white students are not harmed by legacy admissions?

are you suggesting white people never avail themselves of admissions by means other then SAT scores??

 

[HomerJS]

Which ones of those discriminate based on race?

What are you, like 10 years old or something?


AA is like this,

White man shows up at a restaurant early and gets in line. The server at the counter says there is going to be a wait.

Black man walks up behind white guy, gets in line.

Asian walks up behind black guy, gets in line.

Hispanic gets in line behind asian.

Server bypasses white guy who was first in line, seats the black guy.

Same thing happens to asian and hispanic.

Before long all the seats are taken. The white guy who was there first has to leave and go to another restaurant.

If that happened to a gay couple there would be a civil rights lawsuit. The news would have a field day how a gay couple was discriminated against.

Sounds like a black guy trying to catch a cab, get a loan, get a job, et al.

BTW - Are you aware it is easier for a white male who has been in jail to get a job then a black male with a clean record?

 

[smackababy]

If I understand this ruling correctly, it very narrowly ascribes to the precedent that gives each state the choice of whether they want to implement affirmative action or not.

Is this so?

With that, I can see where the phrase "Be careful what you wish for..." comes into play, as certain minorities, especially asian minorities with their culture pushing full on hard for their children to excel at academics will be disproportionately represented at certain universities of their choosing should affirmative action with its system of quotas be eliminated there.

edit - Personally, I'm perfectly OK with the USSC's decision.

I think this is setting a precedent that states can make laws against race discrimination (because that is what AA is).

 

[Texashiker]

What is the big fear if AA goes away?

There are people out there who have been told their entire lives they are being oppressed because of their race.

It is because of their race they live in poverty.

It is because of their race they can not find a good job.

One of the welding shops I worked at there was a man would would say stuff like "the white man is trying to keep me down", he was referring to the company owner. I told him straight up, you are black, I am white, we are both making the same wage. Why do you think the owner is keeping you down because of your race?

The only thing holding someone back is their own laziness. Laziness is not a race problem, it is a personal problem that spans all races, religions and sexes.

Rather than saying we live in poverty because I never applied myself, never learned a skill, never learned a trade, never furthered my education, people just blame it on their race.

 

[ElFenix]

No, you are the idiot.

Various studies prove the negative effect alcohol has on the developing mind.

which is the good reason behind the age discrimination involved in limiting alcohol sales to people who are 3 years older than the minimum qualification to be an adult.

you just made his argument and you didn't even realize it.