T1B

In the Harvard/UNC case, the SCOTUS said the 14th Amendment doesn’t mean what it says. You can discriminate on the basis of race as long as it’s to get black kids killed. The GQP are happy.

In the Colorado website case, the SCOTUS said that the 1st Amendment somehow means speech is commerce. You can refuse a black person lodging. Again, GQP are happy.

Why? Because GQP love the robed oracles of their choosing dictating to the supposedly self-governed what the laws are. When they do get to force the People to do as they dictate, they are happy.

If the GQP truly believed in self governance, then it ought to be really fucking easy to use the political processes readily available to enshrine those views into law. But that won’t be possible because the self-governed do not consent, so they use robes oracles nominated by people who didn’t even have the most votes and block the one who was nominated by just such a person.

The same is true for forced speech. If the self-governed think it is a good idea to allow government to force you what to say and to punish you if you do not toe the line, then enshrine that into law. Of course this has nothing to do with commerce but the Nazis don’t care. There are mechanisms in place that allow political decisions of that sort to be enacted. Why don’t they just re-legalize slavery like they want to? Because the self-governed are not buying that flaming bag of shit. But if the GQP cannot force it on the self-governed they will turn to violence like they did on 1-6. Bunch of butt hurt projectionists.

It’s funny how you sit in the weeds and wait till you think you have a topic you are knowledgeable in and then you prance in here and absolutely get your teeth kicked in, time after time. Oh well, at least we don’t beat you as bad as your wife does.

Fuck off nazi.

The great Thomas Sowell has been arguing this for 40+ years. 40+ years too late.

Racists gonna racist.

Nice projection Nazi.

“Judge a man not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.”

He would be disgusted by today’s liberals.

Harvard isn’t judging people you backwards hick. They are deciding who is part of their team, and they have clearly signaled nothing is going to change. This is just a bit of red meat for dumb fucks like you and 88nazis.

And WTF is up with the website case being a troll job on the USSC? There was no LGBT potential client? Great job douchebags.

Jsc810 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:33 am

This has jack shit to do with legacy admissions and you fukking know it.

Your daughter had advantages growing up that the daughter of a poor white person didn't have.

Should those advantages be withheld by government?

Should those advantages be restored, but only when the recipient has sufficient melanin levels? Because that is what AA is.

If you want to discuss government favor based solely on one's financial situation, then fine. I think most people are in agreement that it is justifiable.

Both Barry and Michelle grew up in middleclass households, yet they both were able to take advantage of opportunities not available to a white kid of similar means. Hell, they had advantages not offered to poor white kids. So, the argument that they needed a handup because they started behind, never applied to them. The argument that LBJ used in the mid sixties has not aged very well. Actually, the result of his actions to be a substitute father for poor families has absolutely decimated the black family structure. He did more to wreck the lives of balck folks than Jim Crow ever could.

Jsc810 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 5:23 pm

in her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote:The court has come to rest on the bottom line conclusion that racial diversity in higher education is only worth potentially preserving insofar as it might be needed to prepare Black Americans and other underrepresented minorities for success in the bunker, not the boardroom.

Props to the law clerk who came up with that one.

So your defense is that if racism is still good for the military, it is good everywhere? Really?

I think this decision doesn't go far enough. It should have stomped out racism where ever it is. Infact, IMO, the government has the duty to stomp it out in government institutions (military) before it worries about private institutions such as Harvard.

Kierland wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 2:43 am And WTF is up with the website case being a troll job on the USSC? There was no LGBT potential client? Great job douchebags.

The Court is illegitimate and in desperate need of reform. Biden doesn't want to admit it, but he should.

This woman is so pitiful and so hateful that it's not that she doesn't want to do business with gay folk (which is bad enough), it's that she wants to put a sign on her website telling the world she won't do business with gay people.

Sick stuff. Next thing you know some restaurant owner or hotelier is going to put up a sign saying balck people stay out, and Clarence Thomas will be OK with that.

smackaholic wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 12:26 pm
This has jack shit to do with legacy admissions and you fukking know it.

Your daughter had advantages growing up that the daughter of a poor white person didn't have.

Should those advantages be withheld by government?

Should those advantages be restored, but only when the recipient has sufficient melanin levels? Because that is what AA is.

If you want to discuss government favor based solely on one's financial situation, then fine. I think most people are in agreement that it is justifiable.

Both Barry and Michelle grew up in middleclass households, yet they both were able to take advantage of opportunities not available to a white kid of similar means. Hell, they had advantages not offered to poor white kids. So, the argument that they needed a handup because they started behind, never applied to them. The argument that LBJ used in the mid sixties has not aged very well. Actually, the result of his actions to be a substitute father for poor families has absolutely decimated the black family structure. He did more to wreck the lives of balck folks than Jim Crow ever could.

Mediocre white men hate affirmative action. Film at 11.

Harvard has enough money that they can do what the fukk they please. That is how the world works.

Being a private institution, I actually do support their right to practice racism. But at least call it what it is.

As for business owners being able to not participate in activities they find objectionable, it is common sense. As for your usual what about racism cries, we are not talking about racism, but once again, I am for it, so long as it is out in the open. If some idiot wants to run a whites only establishment or blacks only, for that matter, let him. He will regret it as decent people would not patronize such a place.

Jsc810 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 12:51 pm What I'm saying is that racism, and the affect of generations of institutional racism, still exists today. Equality doesn't exist.

Would you switch races now? Why not?

Yes I'm quite aware there are exceptions. Look at Oprah and Michael Jordan and others. But if you compare income and wealth among the races, you will see there is quite a difference.

And no, I'm not arguing for reparations. But considering the inequality that still exists, considering race as one factor in college admissions just isn't that offensive to me.

Whatever. Harvard already has figured out a way to comply with the decision and still pursue their goals.

The only "institutional racism" or systemic racism, if you prefer, that has existed over the last half century or so, is AA. It is, by definition, racism.

Are there still the effects of racism from over a half century ago?

Sure. It is why LBJ could rationalize AA when he put it into affect. But, it was a half century ago. We are well past due to retire it. I would say that it should have been retired after a generation or two. Certainly no later than the turn of the century.

You are right about equality not existing. AA is inequality. It is a misguided attempt to get to equity, but equity does not and never will exist. It is a utopian fantasy used as an excuse to favor one group over another.

smackaholic wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 6:19 pm He will regret it as decent people would not patronize such a place.

Gee why did we need all these laws when the market was going to fix it all along. You hate history don’t you?

If doing away with AA was so important why did the "fake news" crowd push through the courts a fake case?

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 12:39 pm

smackaholic wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 12:26 pm
This has jack shit to do with legacy admissions and you fukking know it.

Your daughter had advantages growing up that the daughter of a poor white person didn't have.

Should those advantages be withheld by government?

Should those advantages be restored, but only when the recipient has sufficient melanin levels? Because that is what AA is.

If you want to discuss government favor based solely on one's financial situation, then fine. I think most people are in agreement that it is justifiable.

Both Barry and Michelle grew up in middleclass households, yet they both were able to take advantage of opportunities not available to a white kid of similar means. Hell, they had advantages not offered to poor white kids. So, the argument that they needed a handup because they started behind, never applied to them. The argument that LBJ used in the mid sixties has not aged very well. Actually, the result of his actions to be a substitute father for poor families has absolutely decimated the black family structure. He did more to wreck the lives of balck folks than Jim Crow ever could.

Mediocre white men hate affirmative action. Film at 11.

Care to actually argue the points?

Of course you don't. All you have are your hollow cries of racism.

Kierland wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 7:04 pm

smackaholic wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 6:19 pm He will regret it as decent people would not patronize such a place.

Gee why did we need all these laws when the market was going to fix it all along. You hate history don’t you?

The laws had their time and place. Actually the abolishment of laws passed by your party in the Jim Crow south were the problem.

We don't live in 1963 Alabama anymore, despite your fantasy that we do. In today's environment, no business owner would dream of whites only policy. Blacks only prolly would fly, sadly.

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 7:57 pm If doing away with AA was so important why did the "fake news" crowd push through the courts a fake case?

How many people are going to be disbarred over this?

smackaholic wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 8:17 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 7:04 pm

smackaholic wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 6:19 pm He will regret it as decent people would not patronize such a place.

Gee why did we need all these laws when the market was going to fix it all along. You hate history don’t you?

The laws had their time and place. Actually the abolishment of laws passed by your party in the Jim Crow south were the problem.

We don't live in 1963 Alabama anymore, despite your fantasy that we do. In today's environment, no business owner would dream of whites only policy. Blacks only prolly would fly, sadly.

You have no idea what party I’m a member of do you?
I thought you said the market would fix it? But in 63 the market wouldn’t have fixed it? Make up your mind.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 9:38 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 7:57 pm If doing away with AA was so important why did the "fake news" crowd push through the courts a fake case?

How many people are going to be disbarred over this?

For what? Explain.

Jsc810 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 8:19 pm Our legislature only would draw 5 majority white districts with 1 majority black district.

Some people describe that as institutional racism, in 2023.

Unless there is some evidence showing that those districts were drawn using race as a criteria (and that could be the case - I don’t know how congressional districts are drawn in Louisiana), the jury is still out on whether the people who describe that as institutional racism are racists or not. If those people believe that representation must be by race, then they are racists. My district is 65% white, 7% black and 25% Hispanic, and we are blessed to be represented by Byron Donalds.

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 11:54 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 9:38 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 7:57 pm If doing away with AA was so important why did the "fake news" crowd push through the courts a fake case?

How many people are going to be disbarred over this?

For what? Explain.

You must have lost a lot of cases considering your dismal record at doing simple research.

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2023 12:59 am You must have lost a lot of cases considering your dismal record at doing simple research.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

--Upton Sinclair

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2023 12:59 am

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 11:54 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 9:38 pm

How many people are going to be disbarred over this?

For what? Explain.

You must have lost a lot of cases considering your dismal record at doing simple research.

If what your article suggests is true, then the defense did a shit job preparing their side of the case. They would have to show that what is alleged now could not have been discovered during the district court proceedings in order to get relief from the judgment. That is further complicated by the stipulation of facts on which the case was tried. You are wading in a libtard piss puddle again.

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2023 12:03 am

Jsc810 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 8:19 pm Our legislature only would draw 5 majority white districts with 1 majority black district.

Some people describe that as institutional racism, in 2023.

Unless there is some evidence showing that those districts were drawn using race as a criteria (and that could be the case - I don’t know how congressional districts are drawn in Louisiana), the jury is still out on whether the people who describe that as institutional racism are racists or not. If those people believe that representation must be by race, then they are racists. My district is 65% white, 7% black and 25% Hispanic, and we are blessed to be represented by Byron Donalds.

Translation: I have no idea what I’m talking about but I have a firm opinion on waiting to see if there is any evidence that LA is racist.

Sin,
88kkklansmen

Byron Donalds: The with the felony bribery conviction.

Kierland wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2023 1:29 amByron Donalds: The with the felony bribery conviction.

It is my general policy not to respond directly to racist liars… but I’ll bend the rule this time:

https://www.floridapoliticalreview.com/ ... dismissed/

Your general policy is to be a yellow Nazi POS, your other policy is to provide links that say exactly what I said all while trying to say the opposite. You absolutely suck at life you projecting piece of crap.

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2023 1:43 am

Kierland wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2023 1:29 amByron Donalds: The with the felony bribery conviction.

It is my general policy not to respond directly to racist liars… but I’ll bend the rule this time:

https://www.floridapoliticalreview.com/ ... dismissed/

He got special favors by getting that pretrial diversion deal!!

Sincerely,
repugnantcans saying that Hunter got special favors by getting a pretrial diversion deal

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 9:38 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 7:57 pm If doing away with AA was so important why did the "fake news" crowd push through the courts a fake case?

How many people are going to be disbarred over this?

Apparently one will be the wife of Capitol jogger Josh Hawley.

Jsc810 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 12:51 pmEquality doesn't exist.

Never has. Never will. It's about opportunity not outcome.

If you can't make a decent living for yourself in this country, it's your fucking problem. It's not that hard. Illiterate dirt eaters who don't even speak the language do it all the time. I ran out of fucks for weak excuses years ago.

Get a fucking job and shut the fuck up.

Yeah if you can’t make it just move to Bugaha, if an omelette head like pedokkkal can survive there it’s got to be a breeze for people with more than shit for brains to make it.

Need a job?

mvscal wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 5:33 pm

Jsc810 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 12:51 pmEquality doesn't exist.

Never has. Never will. It's about opportunity not outcome.

If you can't make a decent living for yourself in this country, it's your fucking problem. It's not that hard. Illiterate dirt eaters who don't even speak the language do it all the time. I ran out of fucks for weak excuses years ago.

Get a fucking job and shut the fuck up.

Fukken RACK

Suck more Nazi dick loser.

Sven Golly wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 6:43 pm Final recognition that AA is, and has always been, unconstitutional.

I'm sure it's a dark day for you libs.

And please, all you lawyers out there, explain how quotas were a GOOD thing.

With much respect, your take is idiocy.

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 12:11 am

Sven Golly wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 6:43 pm Final recognition that AA is, and has always been, unconstitutional.

I'm sure it's a dark day for you libs.

And please, all you lawyers out there, explain how quotas were a GOOD thing.

With much respect, your take is idiocy.

You were expecting something different?


There is no respect due here.

How is respecting the 14th Amendment, idiocy?

Not expecting a solid answer from you lib turds.

Because all laws discriminate, ones that discriminate on race must meet a compelling state interest. It’s like Con Law 101. One of the easiest concepts we learned in law school, no wonder it has you stumped.

I think you may need to retake your law classes. You obviously weren't paying attention. No surprise.

Oh ok Nancy.

Sven Golly wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 5:17 pm How is respecting the 14th Amendment, idiocy?

Not expecting a solid answer from you lib turds.

So you agree that tRump is ineligible to run for office again under the 14th Amendment, Section 3?