Affirmative Action is now dead

Affirmative action wasn't actually killed. It only applies to a few states and there are easy ways to get around it. But this was a good first step. Need follow through now at the state level. Same with abortion. Same with DEI.
 
Monahorns said:
Affirmative action wasn't actually killed. It only applies to a few states and there are easy ways to get around it. But this was a good first step. Need follow through now at the state level. Same with abortion. Same with DEI.
Click to expand...

There are ways to get around it with proxies for race, but the Court suggests that they aren't sympathetic to such mechanisms. The key is that the Right needs to keep the lawsuits coming. The time for litigiousness is now.
 
Mr. Deez said:
There are ways to get around it with proxies for race, but the Court suggests that they aren't sympathetic to such mechanisms. The key is that the Right needs to keep the lawsuits coming. The time for litigiousness is now.
Click to expand...

Yes. A barrage of law suits at each of the cultural fault lines. Above I forgot to add against LGBT privileges like obscenity at pride parades.

Another things that must be done by the Right is to set up a system of patronage. The Left has had it for decades. That way as those on the Right get fired, doxed, canceled, jailed etc because they are on the front lines of the battle they will have a safety net for a new job or bail to get out of jail quickly.
 
Mr D
"Litigiousness" :coolnana: Great word
How many people on here could throw that into casual conversation.
mb could and she'd know the over and under.
Yes That is exactly what WE need to do.
I hope it happens.
 
So I've now read the opinion and given it some thought.

1. My worries about the opinion were not warranted. Roberts wrote a reasonably good opinion. As shaky as he is on some things, he has very little tolerance for race hustling and race-driven virtue signaling. He takes no prisoners on them.

2. The legal case for affirmative action was always rubbish. It was in flagrant violation of the 14th Amendment, and the Court didn't "strike down" affirmative action. It simply stopped ignoring the 14th Amendment. It became illegal the day the 14th was ratified. The case for segregation was stronger than the case for affirmative action.

3. The Left's comparison to legacy admissions is weak and in bad faith. It's weak, because though I oppose legacy admissions, they aren't illegal. AA is very clearly illegal. It is in bad faith, because they only bring them up in this context. Where is the push to get rid of legacy admissions? We don't see it, because they won't really support it. Too many of them and theirs friends benefit from it.

4. This fight is nowhere near over. The Left is going to do everything it can to circumvent this opinion. Get read for a flurry of proxies for race to try to force the same outcomes. The Right needs to go full Ralph Nader - the lawsuits need to fly and just keep coming in every sector - admissions, government contracting, government employment, and private employment. Be relentless.

This issue seriously makes me want to come home, start a law practice, and dedicate it to this. I'm not going to because of family commitments, but it massively makes me want to.
 
AA may be technically illegal now, but, it should still be a fairly simple work around for black applicants. And, lets be honest, black students are all the Universities really need. It looks great in their pamphlets and web sites, and the stats are important.

All a student would need to do is write an essay that includes stories about their struggle to fit in, not be unfairly judged, love their mama because she worked 3 jobs as a single woman, blah, blah. Plenty of code words and stories to reveal your race.

And what I can't understand is how POC don't see this entire AA situation as a slap in their face, and racist itself. By this point, we shouldn't need to adopt a lower standard, especially in critical professions.
I don't want a physician,or an airline pilot, for example, who was given a spot due to a lower bar.
And, if I were black, I would be angry that anyone implied that I needed that lower bar.

Mr. Deez, I think you would make a killing taking on cases from more qualified Asians, Caucasians, and Indians who still weren't accepted to a University due to skin color because I believe that while the ruling may change things a bit, Universities will do an end run to keep their numbers looking good.
* Indians are like Asians, pretty much place in the "white" category, but they make some damn fine physicians.
 
Holland
Good points
This is something what I too can't understand , " And what I can't understand is how POC don't see this entire AA situation as a slap in their face, and racist itself.
And this "
And, if I were black, I would be angry that anyone implied that I needed that lower bar."


I HOPE the majority of black people would prefer to be considered on their own merit
 
Last edited:
Mr D
Great idea.
Couldn't you find someone who has an office and make a deal. Then pick and choose the ones you think important and do most of it by Zoom?
 
SN
Of course I had to look your word up.
Nicely done. Street Cred!!!
Could we say Mr D has litigosity tendencies?
 
Horn6721 said:
Holland
Good points
This is something what I too can't understand , " And what I can't understand is how POC don't see this entire AA situation as a slap in their face, and racist itself.
And this "
And, if I were black, I would be angry that anyone implied that I needed that lower bar."


I HOPE the majority of black people would prefer to be considered on their own merit
Click to expand...
For the most part, this ruling only applies to admissions to elite universities where the admission bar is high - so a fairly small percentage of the population. I think that is why support for AA never polls well. Thus, there is a split in the Dem party regarding who really support AA (rich liberals and fairly well to do legally protected minorities).
 
Even though I’m hoping Trump isn’t the nominee, I’ll always be grateful for his SCOTUS appointments. If Roberts was half the justice that Scalia or even Thomas, the USA would be better off.
 
Horn6721 said:
Mr D
Great idea.
Couldn't you find someone who has an office and make a deal. Then pick and choose the ones you think important and do most of it by Zoom?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I homeschool our son and wouldn't have the time. Since Mrs. Deez didn't have to make any compromises (like she would in the public school setting), she built a beast of a curriculum -very rigorous and extensive. It's a time-sucker. It's a very worthwhile time-sucker, but it is a time-sucker.

Can I really look my kid in the face and tell him I'm going to dumb down his education and stop taking him on cool field trips just because I want to make more money? Yes, I'd be serving a good cause, but I'd be ignoring another good cause to serve one that others can easily serve.
 
mchammer said:
Brutal:

Click to expand...


That's interesting. We'll just have to watch him over the next few years. If he's starting to realize that the Left is never going to respect him (or fake respect for him) absent a total surrender of his philosophy, interject, and ethics, then good for him.

And the loss of Ginsburg and Breyer has hurt the intellectual legal left. I despised their judicial philosophies (weren't always identical), but I could respect their brains. They were smart people. (However, even they were downgrades from liberals like William O. Douglas, William Brennan, and Hugo Black, who were truly brilliant, if evil.) Kagan is reasonably sharp, but it's hard to be an intellectual leader by yourself.

Sotomayor is a ****-flinger and not much more. It's like Joy Behar or one of those paid liberal trolls on Twitter got on the Supreme Court. I'm not going to judge Jackson based on one opinion, but she isn't off to a great start.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Perhaps, but I homeschool our son and wouldn't have the time. Since Mrs. Deez didn't have to make any compromises (like she would in the public school setting), she built a beast of a curriculum -very rigorous and extensive. It's a time-sucker. It's a very worthwhile time-sucker, but it is a time-sucker.

Can I really look my kid in the face and tell him I'm going to dumb down his education and stop taking him on cool field trips just because I want to make more money? Yes, I'd be serving a good cause, but I'd be ignoring another good cause to serve one that others can easily serve.
Click to expand...
Translation: I just want to stay at home and drink Rainbow Beer and tell Deez Junior jokes about junk and talk bad about Farrah.

Does that about cover it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top