November 15, 2012

Asian Obama supporters continue to be rewarded

All racial groups are legally equal, but some are more legally equal than others.

From Reuters:
Michigan Affirmative Action Ban Unconstitutional, Appeals Court Rules 
A Michigan law that bans affirmative action in public college admissions violates the Constitution, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday, adding to a growing debate on preferential treatment for minorities.

A sharply divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati found that a 2006 amendment to the Michigan Constitution imposed burdens on racial minorities in violation of the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

Voters passed this initiative to ban racial preferences 58-42 in November 2006, an election day that was otherwise quite pleasant for Democrats.
The decision comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether colleges and universities can continue to give special preference to minority candidates in admissions policies, specifically in a case involving the University of Texas. 
In Thursday's ruling, the 6th Circuit said that, unlike the Supreme Court, it was not considering whether race-conscious admissions policies were constitutional or worthwhile. 
Rather, the only issue before the court was whether the Michigan law violated the constitution by barring university officials from considering race as a factor in admissions decisions, Judge Guy Cole wrote for the 8-7 majority. 
Michigan voters passed the measure, known as Proposition 2, in 2006, prohibiting public educational institutions from giving a preference to any applicant based on race. 
A coalition of supporters of affirmative action sued that same year, saying the change harmed racial minorities in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. 
A district court upheld the law in 2008, ruling for Michigan's attorney general. 
The affirmative action supporters appealed and a divided three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit reversed that decision last year. At the request of the state, the full appeals court reheard the case. 
The majority of the court on Thursday said the Equal Protection Clause does more than guarantee equal treatment under the law. It also prevents laws from being passed that change the political process to impose extra burdens on minorities, the court said.

In other words: Who? Whom? And anti-majority rule.
A child of alumni trying to get a school to adopt a policy that favors legacy applicants could lobby the admissions committee or petition the school's leadership, the court said. In contrast, a black student advocating for a race-conscious admissions policy would have to amend the state's constitution. 
"The existence of such a comparative structural burden undermines the Equal Protection Clause's guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change," wrote Cole. 
Seven judges dissented, with Judge Richard Griffin calling the majority's decision the "antithesis" of the Equal Protection Clause. 
"The post-Civil War amendment that guarantees equal protection to persons of all races has now been construed as barring a state from prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race," Griffin wrote. ...
The case is Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action et al v. Regents of the University of Michigan et al, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 08-1387.

I wrote about this case in VDARE last year.

The name of the case is coyly shortened. The full name of the victors in this case is "COALITION TO DEFEND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INTEGRATION AND IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND FIGHT FOR EQUALITY BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY (BAMN)".

"By Any Means Necessary," the group's preferred form of address, is a not-so-veiled threat of violence.

50 comments:

Severn said...

The majority of the court on Thursday said the Equal Protection Clause does more than guarantee equal treatment under the law. It also prevents laws from being passed that change the political process to impose extra burdens on minorities, the court said.


By this logic the 1990's welfare reform bill was unconstitutional. In fact any change in existing law which might result in worse outcomes for blacks is unconstitutional.

Maybe they should start calling it the "Unequal Protection Clause"?

Simon in London said...

Banning discrimination by race violates the Constitutional ban on discrimination by race... beautiful.

Well, at least they're not subtle about it.

Anonymous said...

Are non-East-Asians favored in AA? If not, why would Filipinos vote Democratic?

Anonymous said...

If AA is to be allowed, it should ONLY be on the basis of admitting real differences among groups.

AA on the basis of 'racism' is bogus today.

Anonymous said...

Any estimate on the percentage of vote fraud? For instance, dozens of districts are 100% Obama? You would get some Romney votes in error if nothing else.

Anonymous said...

Obama just appointed an openly gay black judge. Hmmmm. Wonder what kind of rulings he'll hand down in the future.

abe fortas said...

Why not just hand out Big Blue diplomas to all blacks in Michigan? Then let the private sector sort out who gets hired.

Snapperhead Soup said...

"Obama just appointed an openly gay black judge."

Morality used to be matter of individual conscience. Now, it's a matter of Identity. Some groups are more moral simply because they are Jewish, black, or gay. Or a 'wise Latina'.

Negro is naturally filled with 'profound humility' and a Latina is naturally willed with 'wisdom'.

Morality of Identity than Individuality. A lazy way to be moral.
"I'm wiser than you cuz I'm a Latina."
"I'm nobler than you cuz I'm gay."
"I can do whatever I want and always be right because I'm a Jew."

Anonymous said...

White Ambition is 'racist'. It makes whites rise above others.

All whites should be laid-back and unambitious like Southern redneck whites. More equality.

Vanilla Jones said...

Asians by and large keep their heads down and obediently follow the state. In the US that means supporting the Dems.

Anonymous said...

I'm not exactly sure how this benefits Asians, exactly. It probably does, I just need it explained.

Cerebus' Coke Habit said...

"Banning discrimination by race violates the Constitutional ban on discrimination by race... beautiful.

Well, at least they're not subtle about it."

-About as bright as the rationale in Bakke for letting it occur in the first place.

desert lady said...

steve complains again about "anti-majority rule." Steve, the designer of the constitution wrote that he designed the constitution specifically to prevent majority rule. He wrote that he did so in order to keep the majority from taking the wealth of the rich.

Of course this anti-democratic constitution that you adore not only prevents the majority from using the government to tax the wealth of the rich, but it also allows the rich to use the govt to import mass numbers of immigrants to drive down wages and fragment the unity of the populace.

Learn how to read the federalist papers and the notes to the constitutional convention, steve. That way you can speak with authority and knowledge on these matters....

Rev. Right said...

A Michigan law that bans affirmative action in public college admissions violates the Constitution

Because suspending the central concept of equal treatment under the law is no longer considered a temporary exception in order to provide a remedy for past discrimination, but is now is permanently enshrined in our laws to the point that not maintaining a system of favortism is prohibited by the Constitution.

Glad we got that cleared up.

This century is really starting to suck.

Miniskirt Mustache said...

""Obama just appointed an openly gay black judge."

Morality used to be matter of individual conscience. Now, it's a matter of Identity. Some groups are more moral simply because they are Jewish, black, or gay. Or a 'wise Latina'.

Negro is naturally filled with 'profound humility' and a Latina is naturally willed with 'wisdom'.

Morality of Identity than Individuality. A lazy way to be moral.
"I'm wiser than you cuz I'm a Latina."
"I'm nobler than you cuz I'm gay."
"I can do whatever I want and always be right because I'm a Jew." "


All the more reason to sign the state petitions....

Anonymous said...

Hmm.. isn't the most common meme here at I steve that all racial groups except whites just care about their own racial group's best interest?

Not interested in the common good of the nation as a whole, only interested in their own race?

Meme is that only whites sacrifice the interests of their own race for a larger cause?

I seem to remember hearing that over and over

Yet clearly Asians are sacrificing their own racial interests by voting for affirmative action. As everyone knows, affirmative action mostly takes spaces away from asians

in fact, in every good college that abolishes affirmative action, number of asians goes way up. The most elite school within driving distance of steve is UCLA. As soon as affirmative action went away, the number of asians shot up.

Look up the figures

Asians are voting for the greater good, against the interests of their own race in college admissions.

Once again the exterminationists are proven wrong

Hammerhead Mike said...

" Anonymous said...

White Ambition is 'racist'. It makes whites rise above others.

All whites should be laid-back and unambitious like Southern redneck whites. More equality."


Don't know about that- the SE seems to be about the most productive and growing area of the US. Certainly more ambition there than in the Unionized NE where people sit on their 'can't fire me' asses all day and it takes 3 people to do a task that 1 could normally do.

Anonymous said...

So aside from the ruling itself, unelected federal judges overruling a popular referendum. The same judges now comparing blacks to rich legacies and complaining they deserve the same treatment. In other words policies that the left has been complaining about for around the last 80 or 90 years are now the reason to keep AA. Legacies keeping Uncle Max and Grandpa Leo from Harvard are now used preserve reverse discrimination, no doubt Max and Leo are turning in their graves.

Severn said...

steve complains again about "anti-majority rule." Steve, the designer of the constitution wrote that he designed the constitution specifically to prevent majority rule.


There was no "designer of the Constitution". It was the work of something called the Constitutional Convention. And it was not written "specifically to prevent majority rule". If that was the goal then the Articles of Confederation would have worked fine.

Any restoration of the Republic would have to begin with teaching the children real history instead of the nonsense they think they know.

Severn said...

clearly Asians are sacrificing their own racial interests by voting for affirmative action


Asians have never voted for affirmative action. Nice work, "Anonymous".

Anonymous said...

We have an elite that is simply doing what it wants- their agenda roles on and on, no matter what law is passed, whom is 'elected' or what the 'will of the people' is.

When they rob us of democracy, the rule of law and basic civic trust what is left?

Auntie Analogue said...


It's past time we call Affirmative Action what it really is: Affirming Apartheid.

We need to call "Disparate Impact" what it truly is: Despotic Infringement. Dismissing Intelligence. Disruptive Imbecility. Decline Instigation. Dissolution Initiative. Demolish Individuality. Destroying Industriousness. Degrading Intellect. Doom Incorporated. Drearily Insipid. Disgusting Insult. DAMN IT!

Anonymous said...

steve complains again about "anti-majority rule." Steve, the designer of the constitution wrote that he designed the constitution specifically to prevent majority rule.

Attention to procedural formalities aside, the Constitution itself is of little or no relevance. It's just about all Who? Whom?

Why the Constitution had to be destroyed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDyDxgJuaDY

Who killed the Constitution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ83x9rn2o4

Justice Antonin Scalia: The US Constitution is 'Dead':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTRe5xDLfXw

Anonymous said...

"I'm not exactly sure how this benefits Asians, exactly. It probably does, I just need it explained."

Blacks will hate them less.

Kaz said...

How many asians even voted this year? Isn't the turnout usually extremely low since they're a very low marketed to group? What if it was the pro-obama asians that only got out to vote.

Regardless, it's not like this is indicative of a larger trend, Romney wasn't really that great of a candidate for anyone after the Republican primaries. If he was able to stick with the same platform he had as a Massachusetts governor he would probably be better off.

But nope, just another unashamedly pro-war, pro-bullshit candidate.

Not saying Obama is any different, they just have the privilege of being able to dress him up differently because he's a Democrat.

Anonymous said...

obama must have power of mubobobo on whites.

http://bulawayo24.com/index-id-news-sc-regional-byo-21215-article-Man+arrested+after+being+caught+using+mubobobo+at+bus+terminus.html

Anonymous said...

Hey - that Desert Lady account - it's fake, right?

'Cause if it's real, then I need a phone number.

Like now.

Anonymous said...



in fact, in every good college that abolishes affirmative action, number of asians goes way up. The most elite school within driving distance of steve is UCLA. As soon as affirmative action went away, the number of asians shot up.


Okay but in what majors?

Anyway a perhaps unintended but no doubt desired outcome of AA is the funding of positions for professors of nonsense classes that AA enrollees can pass. If more Asians and white males were accepted they would disproportionally fill some departments while almost ignoring others. That would hurt the feelings and economic interests of professors of nonsense and the university employees.

rightsaidfred said...

veiled threat of violence

The most violent often win. The willingness to suffer violence is a type of violence.

Anonymous said...

Why should Asians vote republican?

Because republicans would have stopped affirmative action? Because republicans have made affirmative action a major issue?

Because republicans are for small govnment? Because republicans are against nepotism?

Didn't think so.

Anonymous said...

http://www.suntimes.com/16416240-761/feds-going-down-every-rat-hole-in-jesse-jackson-jr-probe-source.html

Anonymous said...

http://www.suntimes.com/16416240-761/feds-going-down-every-rat-hole-in-jesse-jackson-jr-probe-source.html

I HAVE A.... BIPOLAR DEPRESSION.

King also spent his finances on hookers and booze.

Anonymous said...

"All whites should be laid-back and unambitious like Southern redneck whites."

or become cartoonists like scott adams.

desert lady said...

I wrote:
steve complains again about "anti-majority rule." Steve, the designer of the constitution wrote that he designed the constitution specifically to prevent majority rule.

severn replied:
"There was no "designer of the Constitution".

Now you are going to tell me the words on the shrine to james madison.

severn wrote:
"It was the work of something called the Constitutional Convention. And it was not written "specifically to prevent majority rule". "

I paraphrase and quote james madison (aka ' the father of the constitution') in his notes to the convention and federalist paper 10: the structure of the government that would be created by this new constitution is designed to fragment the unity of the people so that they cannot unite and discover their common interest. The structure of the govt is such that it is designed to 'protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.'

severn wrote:
'If that was the goal then the Articles of Confederation would have worked fine.'

my response: the so called founding fathers were determined to get rid of the articles of confederation because they allowed the majority to control the govt. Founding father elbridge gerry called this 'an excess of democracy.' So the other rich people in america got together and got rid of articles and illegally installed our present constitution (using illegal tactics such as kidnapping to gain a quorum at a critical vote).

the articles of confederation allowed small electoral districts, which allowed for fewer factions, fewer factions allowed greater unity, which allowed the majority to better unite and control their govt. You can see this same principle at work in places like denmark, sweden, norway, etc--small and homogeneous==highly democratic.

for more info read dr fresia's book TOWARD AN AMERICAN REVOLUTION and dr holton's book UNRULY AMERICANS.


severn wrote:
"Any restoration of the Republic would have to begin with teaching the children real history instead of the nonsense they think they know."

IRONY OVERLOAD!! IRONY OVERLOAD!! DANGER! DANGER!

Anonymous said...

Leftists aren't even pretending very hard anymore. Basically this ruling says, "We judges are in charge, and we don't give a shit what the law says, what the Constitution says, or what the overwhelming majority of Michigan voters say."

Where's the outrage? Oh for the voters of Iowa who threw all those judges out on their asses.

Anonymous said...

http://www.neh.gov/humanities/2012/marchapril/feature/who-was-westbrook-pegler

Anonymous said...

Hmm. Elite colleges demand different test scores from different racial groups. Whites with lower scores are routinely let in instead of asians with higher scores. All covered in numerous books


Google " the price of admission"

Anonymous said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/9672393/Thieves-produce-shopping-list-of-paintings-at-South-African-art-gallery.html

Anonymous said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/9653920/Jacob-Zuma-backs-traditional-courts-instead-of-white-mans-way.html

sa ahead of us.

Anonymous said...

the end is near... or here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/celebrity-news-video/9663669/Psy-teaches-Oxford-students-how-to-dance-Gangnam-Style.html

Anonymous said...

desert lady's avatar is Chloe Vevrier. Unless she's moved to Arizona from Germany, desert lady is not in fact Chloe Vevrier. It's the same anonymous, almost certainly male, Federalist Papers obsessed commenter/troll.

Why choose such a misleading name and avatar? My guess is "her" argument is as genuine as "her" avatar and handle.

Severn said...

Now you are going to tell me the words on the shrine to james madison

You'll be quoting the words on the Statue of Liberty to me next. They have as much legal relevance as the words on some "shrine" to James Madison.


I paraphrase and quote james madison (aka ' the father of the constitution') in his notes to the convention and federalist paper 10

Federalist Number 10 was not voted on at the Constitutional Convention. It represents the opinion of one man, not the distilled essence of the Constitution of the United States.


my response: the so called founding fathers were determined to get rid of the articles of confederation because they allowed the majority to control the govt

Then you're an ignoramus of epic proportions.

Anonymous said...

"Steve, the designer of the constitution wrote that he designed the constitution specifically to prevent majority rule."

majority rule is not synonymous with the tyranny of majority.
A search brought this article:

"Madison stressed "concern for protection of the rights of minorities, as well as opportunity for expression of the majority will". "

and,

He went on to express his hope that the newly forming nation would be large enough, with enough "different interests and parties... that no common interest or passion will be likely to unite a majority of the whole number in an unjust pursuit."


I don't think he was thinking of the sect of gimmedats when talking of sects establishing majority. or that a common hatred of white man will coalesce them.


Glaivester said...

desert lady - to the extent that the Constitution was against majority rule, it was against letting a majority impose its will upon a minority, it was not supporting the minority forcing its will upon the majority; in other words, it tended to favor protecting groups from government oppression by either a majority or a minority.

What we are getting here is not just opposition to tyranny of the majority, we are getting tyranny of the non-white minority.

Reg C├Žsar said...

Asians have never voted for affirmative action. --Severn

Severn went to bed early the night of the 6th, and apparently hasn't woken up yet. Just like his Asians.

Unless they hate us more than they love their own children.

Anonymous said...

"In contrast, a black student advocating for a race-conscious admissions policy would have to amend the state's constitution."

As would anybody advocating for a race-conscious restroom admissions policy.

Svigor said...

I thought the Articles had to go mostly because of "insufficient" central power; i.e., the power to tax.

Morality of Identity than Individuality. A lazy way to be moral.
"I'm wiser than you cuz I'm a Latina."
"I'm nobler than you cuz I'm gay."
"I can do whatever I want and always be right because I'm a Jew."


A natural extension of libtard thinking; they think voting Dem means they're more moral.

Hyderbad said...

When Asian politicians get it right:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-with-singapore-s-lee-kuan-yew-it-s-stupid-to-be-afraid-a-369128.html

Anonymous said...

When Asian politicians get it right:

Just read the interview with Lee Kwan Yew, Wow, it still astounds me that someone that smart and honest is actually a politician, unfortunately nothing like him will ever emerge in the land of the free and the home of the brave. He even backed down a German journalist, who tend to do their homework. We want political elites to spew empty platitudes that make us feel good about ourselves instead. This is also the reason why western academics hate him, and until recently worshiped Robert Mugabe instead. In other words, hate the man who turned a poverty stricken basket case into an economic powerhouse, and praise the won who took over a reasonably well off third world country and turned into the land of murder, rape, and hyperinflation, because having the right beliefs or pretending to have them is the most important thing, results? phhhhh.....

Anonymous said...

Lee Kwan Yew has always been brilliant. You can tell how smart he is just by looking at him. But he's 89 this year, so not much time left. He stepped down from the Singapore's cabinet in 2011 and left his son in charge.