As Genghis Khan might say, nothing is sweeter than to hear the lamentations of the losers ... The New York Times Editorial Board whines:
Racial Equality Loses at the Court
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD APRIL 22, 2014
A blinkered view of race in America won out in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, when six justices agreed, for various reasons, to allow Michigan voters to ban race-conscious admissions policies in higher education.
In 2003, the court upheld such a policy at the University of Michigan law school because it furthered a compelling governmental interest in educational diversity. Opponents of affirmative action moved to amend the state’s constitution to ban any consideration of race or sex in public education and employment. In 2006, voters passed the amendment by a wide margin.
Affirmative action supporters sued to strike down the amendment, arguing that by changing the rules of the game in a way that uniquely burdened racial minorities, the amendment violated the equal protection clause. A closely divided federal appeals court agreed.
You know, all proponents of affirmative action then had to do was what Ward Connerly and Co. had done in Michigan: persuade a simple majority of voters to repeal the amendment to the state constitution. How is that not equal protection?
In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling and allowed the amendment to stand. Among other things, the justices disagreed about whose rights were at issue: the minorities who would be affected by the ban or the majority of the state’s voters who passed it.
This is actually a massive issue in 21st Century jurisprudence: when the Constitution says "equal protection," does that really apply to white people? It's nice to see that notion got six votes on the Supreme Court, but it's crazy that it went all the way to the Supreme Court.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a three-member plurality, sided with the voters, who he said had undertaken “a basic exercise of their democratic power” in approving the amendment. He cautioned that the ruling took no position on the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies themselves. “This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it.”
Not so, Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded in a stinging 58-page dissent. “Our Constitution places limits on what a majority of the people may do,” she wrote, such as when they pass laws that oppress minorities.
That’s what the affirmative action ban does, by altering the political process to single out race and sex as the only factors that may not be considered in university admissions.
While the Constitution “does not guarantee minority groups victory in the political process,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, “it does guarantee them meaningful and equal access to that process. It guarantees that the majority may not win by stacking the political process against minority groups permanently.”
All that By Any Means Necessary has to do is do what Ward and friends did. But that's not equal enough for the Wise Latina. To her, all people are equal, but some people should be more equally protected than others.
Posts
82 comments:
This is so awesomely convoluted. At the bottom of it, they are seriously trying to say that it is racist to be race blind and it's oppressive to not give special treatment to nonwhites.
Their whole fairness shit is exposed as never before. They openly do not want a "level playing field".
You mean like Ghenghis Khan said in an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. Sinbad said a lot of shit in Jingle All the Way. Do you use that as a basis for your understanding of human psychology too. And understand when the NYT wins, and they win a heck of a lot more than you do they probally feel just the same way about your impotent lamentations.
I see why Steve is so sympathetic to the Russian cause. Because with steve like the Russians its all why do they have to pick on poor old me can't they show some class and grace in victory until the slightest break goes their way then its all we are number one, take that suckers.
"I see why Steve is so sympathetic to the Russian cause. Because with steve like the Russians its all why do they have to pick on poor old me can't they show some class and grace in victory until the slightest break goes their way then its all we are number one, take that suckers."
Naah, it's like Red Sox fans: they'll root for the Sox and anyone who's playing New York.
Similarly, it's whoever's playing the Jews. Palestinians, Russians, etc.
Dump all the victory shouts, now that we know what works to restore the playing field to level for all, let's get moving to put affirmative action referenda on all of our states' ballots.
But, truth be told, personal slights aside: this is a victory for the good guys. I thought affirmative action was wrong when I heard about it at 5, and I think it's wrong at 35. There are so few victories these days I can't blame Steve for cherishing the few ones.
Will other programs of forced assimilation/integration come under scrutiny?
Now if my fellow Asians will hold the line and not get suckered into voting for affirmative action in Cali in 2016, we might just be able to stick a fork in this issue and call it done.
I propose that the 13th Amendment is unconstitutional, as it burdens aspiring slaveholders with amending the Constitution in order to conduct their business. This clearly violates their right to equal protection, as it places an unfair burden on the minority of citizens wishing to engage in this specific economic activity.
I hate the anonymous comments (even the ones I agree with). Pick a moniker would ya?
The Anons like the one at 3:35 have been getting very agitated lately, making appearances here and on some HBD twitter accounts.
Looks as if it's getting hotter and hotter in the PC Kitchen.
You mean like Ghenghis Khan said in an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie.
It's a quote attributed to Genghis Khan and used by the character Conan in an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, if you want to be all picky and pedantic and smart-asser-than-thou.
"You mean like Ghenghis Khan said in an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. Sinbad said a lot of shit in Jingle All the Way. Do you use that as a basis for your understanding of human psychology too."
The Conan the Barbarian quote is from a popular book on Genghis Khan:
http://categoryzero.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/recycled-and-adapted-what-is-best-in-life/
"In his 1927 work entitled Genghis Khan: The Emperor of All Men, Author and Historian Harold Lamb describes Genghis Khan’s frustration at administering his empire. Before embarking on his conquest of eastern Europe the great Khan speaks to one of his Mongol officers about what brings greatest happiness in life:
One day in the pavilion at Karakorum he asked an officer of the Mongol guard what, in all the world, could bring the greatest happiness.
“The open steppe, a clear day, and a swift horse under you,” responded the officer after a little thought, ” and a falcon on your wrist to start up hares.”
“Nay,” responded the Khan, “…to crush your enemies, to see them fall at your feet to take their horses and goods and hear the lamentation of their women. That is best.”
Also
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-456789/Genghis-Khan-The-daddy-lovers.html
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/174247-the-greatest-happiness-is-to-scatter-your-enemy-and-drive
have no idea if Ghenghis Khan ever said it, but it or something similar was attributed to him.
Red team should realize that the affirmative action team is a very good way to poach some of the blue team's voters. MCRI won in the same state on the same day at the hands of the same voters who voted for mostly Democrats for statewide elected offices, (2006 was also a blue wave year nationally), the only Republican of any consequence who supported it, Attorney General Michael Cox, was coincidentally (or not) the only Republican to win statewide that day; all the other major Republicans vocally opposed it.
it doesn't matter that much, since the powers that be have their ways around affirmative action bans, but it's a rare victory for the good guys.
"Now if my fellow Asians will hold the line and not get suckered into voting for affirmative action in Cali in 2016, we might just be able to stick a fork in this issue and call it done."
it's pretty obvious the UC system ignores the ban on affirmative action. although officially restoring affirmative action in CA would whack east asians a lot harder than the stealth AA system which UC employs currently.
"Red team should realize that the affirmative action team is a very good way to poach some of the blue team's voters"
they never do though.
also notice libertarians NEVER talk about this issue. they are perfectly fine with discrimination, as long as it's the liberals and cultural marxists doing it - they know which side to not engage in a battle. libertarians only help the left and are self contradictory goofs.
I wasn't being pedantic I was simply pointing out how silly it is to take Genghis Khan as the basis of your understanding of human psychology. I've never seen Conan the Barbarian and admittedly apparently incorrectly thought he ran into GK on his adventures. Thanks for the correction I guess. The point stands that what its provenance that kind of attitude is a real counterproductive attitude to adopt if you are, like Steve and I for instance, on the side that usually loses.
The Harold Lamb book is a fictional book. I have a set of three of his fictional biographies I got at a garage sale one time. He is like the secular (i.e. non-Catholic) Louis De Wohl.
Remember: Strangling democracy to mandate racist discrimination is anti-racist.
Sotomayor really hates white people.
Asians will get themselves moved from Column A to Column B soon enough. Get ready for a whining campaign about the Chinese Exclusion Act, WW 2 internment, the Julie Chen atrocity, etc. Then they'll get back on board with affirmative action.
But, truth be told, personal slights aside: this is a victory for the good guys. I thought affirmative action was wrong when I heard about it at 5, and I think it's wrong at 35.
What's so wrong with affirmative action? It's fair for various ethnic groups to have proportional representation in the power alleys of a country.
I wasn't being pedantic I was simply pointing out how silly it is to take Genghis Khan as the basis of your understanding of human psychology.
Oh, get over yourself. If pop culture references upset you so much find a different blog to read. Nobody is taking Genghis Khan as the basis of their understanding of human psychology.
Can someone please explain to me why Hispanics were regarded as entitled to special treatment? When were they ever oppressed as Africans were?
The 6-2 vote upholding the law mean affirmative action rollbacks will continue even if Hillary wins. Even if one of the elderly conservatives die, there is still at least one vote to spare.
The decision was so typical of recent cases. Roberts wrote an opinion that gutted but did not overturn an old liberal decision (Seattle School District No 1), Thomas and Scalia went further and argued for a complete overturn of Seattle.
Breyer's vote was the huge surprise, he argued for a narrower trimming of Seattle, but basically rejected the foundation for any attack on conservative ballot initiatives.
Can someone please explain to me why Hispanics were regarded as entitled to special treatment? When were they ever oppressed as Africans were?
Compensation is only one justification for quotas. A different, arguably better, justification is that it is healthy and fair for the various ethnic groups in a country to be represented at important spheres in a country's politics and economy.
This is a Pyrrhic victory for the diverse white American nation. Affirmative action or quotas--for all ethnic groups--will help whites take a place at the table among East Asians, Indians, and Jews in future America's schools, universities, political organs, and economic sectors.
Okay, so the Supremes said that state voters get to decide whether race can be considered in admissions to public institutions of higher learning. In other words, the citizens of a state get to tell a public entity what factor they may or may not consider (through their vote in a referendum.)
Why, then, did the same justices also not say that state citizens get to tell the state what factors may or may not be considered in defining a marriage?
Does affirmative action for blacks really harm European-derived Americans?
Suppose a quota for blacks of 10%, roughly their proportion of the population. Even if half of that number owe their position to affirmative action, that's only 5% of the total pie. At worst, it would drop white representation in a particular entity from, say, 65% (their share of the population) to 60%. Is that a significant cost compared to the benefits of affirmative action.
>Get ready for a whining campaign about the Chinese Exclusion Act [etc.]<
Right now, as we sigh with relief in this victory, all over Hollywood, Asian actors are going nuts demanding that their agents get them readings for what will be the "Roots" or "Schindler's List" of this decade: some big A-list extravaganza about the Japanese Internment Camps. WHO will play Butterfly, the aspiring singer forced at riflepoint to live on only fruits and berries after a death march across Burbank? WHAT director will make his name at last with the searing drama of White Evil (tm) unleashed on the Asian population? WHICH classic old white actor will return to the screen to snarl or spit the memorable line: "Macht schnell, Slant Eyes"? WILL Morgan Freeman get to play the kindly mentor, or will he have to settle for playing the sidekick of the mentor, who will be played by Seth Rogen in a surprise breakout role?
The thing has probably been in option hell for years, and just got the green light today. Or maybe yesterday. Or earlier.
OSCLAR GOAD!
(I'm afraid to check if such a film is actually in the works. It probably is.)
>it is healthy and fair for the various ethnic groups in a country to be represented at important spheres in a country's politics and economy<
Nothing is healthier or fairer than a meritocracy under the rule of law. A country's various ethnic groups get all the consideration they need from stringent immigration restrictions. Look into Sailer's "Citizenism" articles.
>Is that a significant cost compared to the benefits of affirmative action.<
There are no benefits to affirmative action.
>it is healthy and fair for the various ethnic groups in a country to be represented at important spheres in a country's politics and economy<
Nothing is healthier or fairer than a meritocracy under the rule of law.
It is unhealthy for one racial group to hold all the political and economic power in a country. It is unhealthy for the excluded groups. And it is unhealthy for society overall, as such power arrangements are often unstable.
It is perfectly fair for all groups to have roughly proportional representation as part of their mutual social compact.
>Is that a significant cost compared to the benefits of affirmative action.<
There are no benefits to affirmative action.
Representation of disadvantaged racial groups in the power alleys of America is one benefit, especially to such groups. Giving voice to voices that might otherwise not be heard is another.
A country's various ethnic groups get all the consideration they need from stringent immigration restrictions.
We don't have stringent immigration restrictions.
Assume a can opener...
It is unhealthy for one racial group to hold all the political and economic power in a country.
I would revise this statement to: "It is unhealthy for one or several racial groups to hold all the political and economic power in a country, to the exclusion of other racial groups."
--Original Commenter
>We don't have stringent immigration restrictions.<
We need them.
Still waiting to hear why a racial spoils system is fair. Walk us through it.
A good first step, but hardly the last.
I am ethnically Asian (and an immigrant) and I take it as a person affront that the federal government provides for favorable contracting benefits to Asians (yes, yes, I know elite universities discriminate against Asians... and non-Jewish whites per Ron Unz).
Asians have done well in this country. They do not need the preference for government business.
And I am very distressed that talented white pupils in poverty-stricken Appalachia (I live in VA and frequently visit WV) are woefully underrepresented, undertuilized and ignored by our elite institutions.
When I voice these concerns, many people seem to think that I am crazy as if I were confused about my ancestry. Why is it wrong to worry about my fellow Americans whose ancestors settled and built this country and who are being ignored and discriminated by ideology?
BTW, this is not a victory for "democracy." It is a victory for limited constitutionalism.
Even oppressed majorities have rights!
I'll be a pessimist here and note that where in Backe the issue was whether Affirmative Action was *permissible*, today the issue was whether it should be *mandatory*. That's a bad trend.
Not so, Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded in a stinging 58-page dissent. “Our Constitution places limits on what a majority of the people may do,” she wrote...
And the majority is absolutely forbidden from participating in the political process, it would seem.
I propose that the 13th Amendment is unconstitutional, as it burdens aspiring slaveholders with amending the Constitution in order to conduct their business. This clearly violates their right to equal protection, as it places an unfair burden on the minority of citizens wishing to engage in this specific economic activity.
Nicely done.
It is perfectly fair for all groups to have roughly proportional representation as part of their mutual social compact.
That is ludicrous. The different groups have no social compact. They did not agree to live together.
Compensation is only one justification for quotas. A different, arguably better, justification is that it is healthy and fair for the various ethnic groups in a country to be represented at important spheres in a country's politics and economy.
You can't use that justification. That justification implies that Hispanics need to be deported since that's what is healthy and fair to the ethnic groups who were in the country when they crashed the party.
It is unhealthy for one racial group to hold all the political and economic power in a country.
No, it is ideal for one racial group to hold all the political and economic power in a country.
It is unhealthy for the excluded groups.
What excluded groups?
And it is unhealthy for society overall, as such power arrangements are often unstable.
And how is "unstable" supposed to be bad? Philanthropes want ethnic groups to have their own countries. If imperial governments break down, that's a good thing.
Asian actors are going nuts demanding that their agents get them readings for what will be the "Roots" or "Schindler's List" of this decade
It was called "The Joy Luck Club." The underlying message was that Asian men are awful and that Asian women should marry understanding white men (in reality, the likes of Jed Rubenfeld).
The folks of influence in Hollywood don't seem to care much for Asian sop stories or Asians in general (except for their women). You'd think that they feel a bit threatened... or something.
The nearest thing to the internment camp story that ever made it big in Hollywood was "Snow Falling on Cedars" based on David Guterson novel of the same name.
“Our Constitution places limits on what a majority of the people may do”
The Constitution does nothing of the sort. The Constitution quite explicitly permits a two-thirds majority to do whatever it wants.
Of course when a leftist like Ginsberg says "the Constitution" she does not actually mean the Constitution as it is written, she means "the Constitution as interpreted by we leftist judges".
Don't confuse equality before the law with affirmative action. The first is a lack of oppression. The second is oppression.
It isn't oppression that some people just don't want to listen to you because they think you're a dumbass. Ganging up with a lot of other perceived dumbasses behind the front of the race you may have in common and demanding attention for your "voice" or else it's "racism," is pathetic and usually a hustle for money.
Self-improvement and sticking close to your own kind is good advice for everyone. As is defending equality before the law.
A good argument against splintering your population into competing ethnic factions--racial and ethnic diversity are unhealthy for democracy generally. Politics becomes dominated by the consequet power and economic imbalances.
Another Japanese internment movie was Come See the Paradise in 1990. I think my neighbor Bill was in that one.
In 1951, there was "Go for Broke," about the fighting 442nd Japanese-American regiment fighting Germans in Italy. I saw that on TV when I was a kid:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043590/
I feel that to some extent this decision was a decision by GOP judges that was designed to save the GOP. THe GOP has implicitly promised to stand up for whites for decades now, but then stabbing us in the back at every turn.
Now it looks like the white working class has to some extent decided to give up on the GOP at the national level.
So the SCOTUS has to ride to the rescue of the GOP.
Great decision for whites, although for white males, college is probably not the place to be anyway.
Another Japanese internment movie was Come See the Paradise in 1990. I think my neighbor Bill was in that one.
In 1951, there was "Go for Broke," about the fighting 442nd Japanese-American regiment fighting Germans in Italy. I saw that on TV when I was a kid:
Those weren't exactly hits or critically well-received. But I remember Van Johnson well in "Go for Broke!"
BTW, 442nd was a "Regimental Combat Team" (RCT), not a regiment. Another 442nd RCT trivia: one of the most celebrated members of the 442nd RCT was Col. Young-Oak Kim, an ethnic Korean. He was asked whether he wanted to be transferred from a Nisei unit, seeing as he was an ethnic Korean and his parents' country was occupied brutally by Japan and he answered "There is no Japanese nor Korean here. We're all Americans and we're fighting for the same cause." Quite the "citizenist," eh?
That guy was a mensch and a hero (he earned a DSC, two Silver Stars, two Bronze Stars, three Purple Hearts and even a LdH).
There is irony or something in the fact that Ichiro was God-like in Western Washingon state for a good few years. I think "Snow Falling on Cedars" takes place on a fictional island that stands in for either Whidbey or Bainbridge Isle.
The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that Geroge Orwell was perhaps *the* greatest author of the 20th century - forget your Gabriel Garcia Marquez and all the rest of that nonsense - Orwell was the man on the money who managed to describe the nascency of the tyranny that we now live under - in all of its grotesquery, awfullness, hypocrisy, smugness, self-righteousness, deceit and lying. Orwell spoke more of the 'human condition' as it is now lived by billions in so-called 'democracies' than any of those pretentious tossers.
Orwell got his opinions by closely observing the British left -a group that he was part of. In the end, he couldn't stand them.
Justice Elena Kagan sat this one out. I wonder if that affected the dynamics of the court.
The ballot initiative only passed narrowly in Michigan in 2006. Two years later Obama won 44% of the WHITE vote in Michigan.
What is 'crazy' is to think that the real problem for white identity is something other than the nature of white people; at least, the ones that really matter. They haven't changed.
Extending the argument made by three justices, that a majority of voters may decide whether minorities are entitled to equal protection under the laws, then we must ask what other protections are now at risk? Can this reasoning be correct? Hasn't the majority abandoned the essential role of the Court to decide constitutional issues? Once the Legislature has decided a policy is necessary and "furthers a compelling governmental interest", may voters negate such an interest with no showing whatsoever? There is no constitutional dimension to this question? The argument made on behalf of "uniquely burdened racial minorities" asserts their constitutional right to equal protection under the laws. This decision basically says that such minorities aren't entitled to equal protection, if a majority of voters says they aren't. Sad day for the Court and for all of us.
This decision is aligned with a loose sociological trend since Obama was elected. The covert racism that replaced our nation's foundational overt racism is yet again being replaced. Now prejudice is couched in post-racial ideology led by the Roberts creed: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Arguably, Obama's election and the subsequent mainstream portrayal of the black experience as "equal" has allowed prejudiced Americans to internally justify resentment and hostility towards policies aimed at reducing inequity, like affirmative action, voting rights protections, and ANY form of wealth redistribution.
Whereas folks used to acknowledge their own racism internally, a powerful shift toward colorblind racism has occurred. What's most troubling is that this shift has occurred in younger generations of Americans, and as long as the trend continues, we can be sure that prevailing forces will keep ethnically predetermined swaths of the population impoverished, uneducated, and imprisoned. Colorblind acceptance of America as post-racial necessarily accepts the status quo, and any scientific measure of equality easily dispels an assumption that it exists.
Justice Sotomayor's dissent was courageous and a needed reality check on racism in this country. Blocking access to education is blocking opportunity, and the drops in minority enrollment that have resulted from laws against affirmative action. America is a diverse country, and higher education benefits from a diverse student population.
Just as the court did when it gutted the Voting Rights Act, it is refusing to recognize that this is not past history but a current condition. I am proud that Justice Sotomayor and her colleague Justice Ginsburg have gone on record in this dissent. Perhaps the Roberts Court can continue to champion inequality in terms of wealthy, privilege and race, but hopefully justice will prevail in the long run. The future of the country is in its youth. Their education matters, and race matters.
The majority got it right, of course. Race doesn't matter, as long as you're white. Sex doesn't matter either, as long as you're male. Sexual orientation doesn't matter, as long as you're straight. Free speech is no problem, as long as you can buy as much of it as the Koch brothers. And concerns about voting rights are so yesterday, as long as the votes of "those" people can be suppressed or gerrymandered away. Openness and candor are indeed the hallmarks of the Roberts court: they openly and candidly want to turn the clock back to the 1950s, and they are well on their way to doing it.
This is a minor case. As Justice Kennedy took pains to put it,
This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it.
And the funny thing is, Schuette isn't even about that. Michigan voters did not prohibit affirmative action when they passed Proposal 2. They only thought they did. Michigan public universities are continuing to practice affirmative action; the sole effect of this case is that they must continue to be dishonest about what they will continue to do.
All victories by opponents of affirmative action are minor. Ricci was trivial. Police and fire departments around the country are implementing aggressive affirmative action plans.
Anonymous said...
It is perfectly fair for all groups to have roughly proportional representation as part of their mutual social compact.
OK. Starting from where we are right now, you would agree that greatly reducing the grotesque over-representation of Jews in elite position is job 1, right? And job 2 is greatly improving the grotesque under-representation of devout, Christian whites, right? Job 3, I guess, would be dealing with the Hindu menace.
Or, if this isn't your view, how would you distinguish your view from gibsmedat or "die, whitey?"
"Jean Cocteausten said...
Asians will get themselves moved from Column A to Column B soon enough. Get ready for a whining campaign about the Chinese Exclusion Act, WW 2 internment, the Julie Chen atrocity, etc. Then they'll get back on board with affirmative action"
lol if you want the Chinese to not whine about the Chinese Exclusion Act you need to get liberals in Cali to stop trying to pass the new Chinese Exclusion Act (SCA-5).
Its kinda like guns and liberals. If liberals want gun owners to stop worrying about gun confiscation, liberals should not talk about confiscating guns.
Its the same problem.
It is unhealthy for one racial group to hold all the political and economic power in a country.
It's an exaggeration to say that the Ashkenazis "hold all the political and economic power" in the USA.Though clearly they're the single most powerful group.
Where are all these anonymous trolls who read like they're college freshman Slate readers coming from? Is it just me or was the comment section not always like this?
The ‘greatest joy in life’ quote is attributed to Genghis Khan already in the history book Compendium of Chronicles (“Jami al-tawarikh”), finished about 1310 AD.
This is one of the most important history books about Mongols, written by Persian historian Rashid-al-Din when the Il-Khan Mongols ruled Persia.
An English translation of the book by Wheeler M. Thackston exists, though not online
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/jame-al-tawarik
One of several translations is “The real greatest pleasure of men is to repress rebels and defeat enemies, to exterminate them and grab everything they have; to see their married women crying, to ride on their steeds with smooth backs, to treat their beautiful queens and concubines as pajamas and pillows, to stare and kiss their rose-colored faces and to suck their sweet lips of nipple-colored.”
The fact that the historian Rashid-al-Din attributed this quote to Genghis Khan doesn’t prove that Genghis actually said it. However the same could be said about most quotes attributed to historical figures. How do we know Ceasar actually say Alea iacta est as Suetonius claimed when writing a century later?
The Ghenghis quote has some historic basis; it is not merely invented by a Schwarzenegger movie or Harold Lamb as smugly claimed.
“I was simply pointing out how silly it is to take Genghis Khan as the basis of your understanding of human psychology”
Nothing silly about it. The dark enjoyment from destroying and humiliating your enemies and taking their females is hardly unique to Genghis Khan. If there is no psychological appeal, why do you think this is this the only line from Conan the Barbarian which people still remember?
One thing you've got to say about Sotomayor--she's really up on her microaggressions. Here are some grievances she lists in her dissent (and by the way, how could affirmative action possibly eradicate these tiny slights and indignities from our society?):
"Race matters to a young man’s view of society when he spends his teenage years watching others tense up as he passes, no matter the neighborhood where he grew up. Race matters to a young woman’s sense of self when she states her hometown, and then is pressed, 'No, where are you really from?', regardless of how many generations her family has been in the country. Race matters to a young person addressed by a stranger in a foreign language, which he does not understand because only English was spoken at home. Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: 'I do not belong here.'"
Extending the argument made by three justices, that a majority of voters may decide whether minorities are entitled to equal protection under the laws, then we must ask what other protections are now at risk?
Your gripe is with the US Constitution and the entire concept of representative self-government. You desire rule by a minority, supposedly for the good of everyone.
Hasn't the majority abandoned the essential role of the Court to decide constitutional issues?
In other words, you think the Constitution is what the courts say it is and not what the people say it is. You're a totalitarian at heart.
The argument made on behalf of "uniquely burdened racial minorities" asserts their constitutional right to equal protection under the laws.
But they - and you - do not want "equal protection under the law". They - and you - want preferential treatment under the law. The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative creates "equal protection under the law", and you're squealing like a stuck pig about that.
Compensation is only one justification for quotas. A different, arguably better, justification is that it is healthy and fair for the various ethnic groups in a country to be represented at important spheres in a country's politics and economy.
You've actually extruded this shyte into this thread twice now, so I suppose you're serious.
It's healthy and fair for shareholders to get proportional representation, too; blacks are net tax recipients so they are the opposite of shareholders, and should get no say. I'm not sure about mestizos, but they're probably only a shade better, so they should get only a little say.
What's healthy and fair about parasites getting an equal say? Let alone special treatment...
They get their votes, like everyone else, even though they're parasites. They get their equal treatment under the law, just like everyone else, even though they're parasites.
That's more than they deserve, so they have no gripe to make about "fairness."
It is unhealthy for one racial group to hold all the political and economic power in a country. It is unhealthy for the excluded groups. And it is unhealthy for society overall, as such power arrangements are often unstable.
It is perfectly fair for all groups to have roughly proportional representation as part of their mutual social compact.
In other words, America is the healthiest country in the world, and the rest of the world is in the national equivalent of the critical care ward? You're a laff.
You're probably the same wog with the fantasies of being a black guy. Don't you know how much living in a multicultural society has messed you up?
Representation of disadvantaged racial groups in the power alleys of America is one benefit, especially to such groups. Giving voice to voices that might otherwise not be heard is another.
Rewarding one set of people for their racial or ethnic origins is the same as punishing the others for theirs.
When I voice these concerns, many people seem to think that I am crazy as if I were confused about my ancestry. Why is it wrong to worry about my fellow Americans whose ancestors settled and built this country and who are being ignored and discriminated by ideology?
Because most people are herd animals and think there's something wrong with you if you defy the herd mentality. They're sheep, wolves and sheep dogs confuse them.
Of course when a leftist like Ginsberg says "the Constitution" she does not actually mean the Constitution as it is written, she means "the Constitution as interpreted by we leftist judges".
Heh, more like "the Constitution as tortured as it can be by leftists."
This decision is aligned with a loose sociological trend since Obama was elected. The covert racism that replaced our nation's foundational overt racism is yet again being replaced. Now prejudice is couched in post-racial ideology led by the Roberts creed: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Arguably, Obama's election and the subsequent mainstream portrayal of the black experience as "equal" has allowed prejudiced Americans to internally justify resentment and hostility towards policies aimed at reducing inequity, like affirmative action, voting rights protections, and ANY form of wealth redistribution.
Whereas folks used to acknowledge their own racism internally, a powerful shift toward colorblind racism has occurred. What's most troubling is that this shift has occurred in younger generations of Americans, and as long as the trend continues, we can be sure that prevailing forces will keep ethnically predetermined swaths of the population impoverished, uneducated, and imprisoned. Colorblind acceptance of America as post-racial necessarily accepts the status quo, and any scientific measure of equality easily dispels an assumption that it exists.
Justice Sotomayor's dissent was courageous and a needed reality check on racism in this country. Blocking access to education is blocking opportunity, and the drops in minority enrollment that have resulted from laws against affirmative action. America is a diverse country, and higher education benefits from a diverse student population.
Just as the court did when it gutted the Voting Rights Act, it is refusing to recognize that this is not past history but a current condition. I am proud that Justice Sotomayor and her colleague Justice Ginsburg have gone on record in this dissent. Perhaps the Roberts Court can continue to champion inequality in terms of wealthy, privilege and race, but hopefully justice will prevail in the long run. The future of the country is in its youth. Their education matters, and race matters.
The majority got it right, of course. Race doesn't matter, as long as you're white. Sex doesn't matter either, as long as you're male. Sexual orientation doesn't matter, as long as you're straight. Free speech is no problem, as long as you can buy as much of it as the Koch brothers. And concerns about voting rights are so yesterday, as long as the votes of "those" people can be suppressed or gerrymandered away. Openness and candor are indeed the hallmarks of the Roberts court: they openly and candidly want to turn the clock back to the 1950s, and they are well on their way to doing it.
Want to make this cretin scream in horror and pain? Tell it YT is leaving; YT realizes how bad he is for everyone else, so he's going to lock himself away in his own country, for the good of everyone else.
"NNNNNNNNNNNNNnnaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
That's how you know it's a liar and a parasite.
"Blocking access to education is blocking opportunity" - Good reason to support our own then.
If you genuinely wanted to do something about the fact that everyone is required to have a university education to get ahead these days, attack disparate impact.
Hahaha! The lawyer against AA, Richard Blum, is one of my not-so-odious relatives!
FINALLY!
Supreme court gonna "turn the clock back to the 1950s"?
To do that they would all have to resign in favour of WASPs. And we already know what WASPs will do with that kind of unlimited power over society.
""Police and fire departments around the country are implementing aggressive affirmative action plans."
Those from communities eligible for affirmative action, who are capable of effectively doing those jobs, are aiming far far higher now. Parallel structures will be increasingly have to be created to provide well paid non-jobs.
Nothing silly about it. The dark enjoyment from destroying and humiliating your enemies and taking their females is hardly unique to Genghis Khan. If there is no psychological appeal, why do you think this is this the only line from Conan the Barbarian which people still remember?
Maybe because Conan the Barbarian is one of the least quotable movies ever made? Great movie, but singularly un-quotable.
It's an exaggeration to say that the Ashkenazis "hold all the political and economic power" in the USA.Though clearly they're the single most powerful group.
I see what you did there.
"A different, arguably better, justification is that it is healthy and fair for the various ethnic groups in a country to be represented at important spheres in a country's politics and economy."
That can never be, for it would require discrimination against Jews.
"Asians will get themselves moved from Column A to Column B soon enough"
That can never be. For if Asians were enrolled on their academic merits, it would require discrimination against Jews or the virtual elimination of white students at elite universities (ie the virtual elimination of white students at elite universities).
>Race doesn't matter, as long as you're white. Sex doesn't matter either, as long as you're male. Sexual orientation doesn't matter, as long as you're straight.<
Inequality of outcome by itself does not prove inequality before the law.
Anonymous wrote:
"The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that Geroge Orwell was perhaps *the* greatest author of the 20th century - forget your Gabriel Garcia Marquez and all the rest of that nonsense - Orwell was the man on the money who managed to describe the nascency of the tyranny that we now live under - in all of its grotesquery, awfullness, hypocrisy, smugness, self-righteousness, deceit and lying. Orwell spoke more of the 'human condition' as it is now lived by billions in so-called 'democracies' than any of those pretentious tossers."
Nah Huxley was the one who nailed it in "Brave New World." That is a really chilling book.
I was on faculty at the school in question 15 years after Bakke. Despite being slapped by the SC in a historical ruling, the admissions committee was obviously letting thru AA admits.
There was a special considerations process, which -surprise- looked mostly at NAM's. So technically there was no affirmative action, but we all knew otherwise. I thought it astonishingly egregious in view of the SC ruling.
Similarly, Michigan schools will have to do some run-arounds, but there will be affirmative action.
"Drew said...
Where are all these anonymous trolls who read like they're college freshman Slate readers coming from? Is it just me or was the comment section not always like this?"
Oh affirmative action was mentioned on the blog. The race wars are hard to keep up with these days but you're seeing the results of Democrats trying to overturn the affirmative action ban in California.
Pissed off Asians from California are commenting on message boards against affirmative action and a mix of affirmative action activists and Asian academics/politicians commenting for it. Google any Asian name supporting affirmative action and you'll often discover UC faculty or staff for the Asian American Legal Defense Fund. Ex politicans also pop up a lot.
On a side note any other pro-gun Asians in Cali around? Maybe we can start a PAC called Asian Americans for Gun Rights and get our assault weapons back or something while all the activists are busy. This is a great time to push a completely unrelated conservative cause hard on a local level. Lots of Asian tacticool shooters in the bay area and theres a rising interest in politics in the Asian community.
It is unhealthy for one racial group to hold all the political and economic power in a country
Ive just had a crazy idea! Why not have a country that only had one racial group?
this ruling only says that it's not illegal to make affirmative action illegal.
any state can still officially institute affirmative action at any time. and some of them will, in the future. the ruling did not make affirmative action illegal. it only returns it to a states rights issue.
previously there was disagreement about whether the rule of law in the united states REQUIRES affirmative action IE that it is illegal to make affirmative action illegal. that's all this case resolves. discrimination against europeans was not wiped out by the supreme court here. in fact, voters in any state can vote to discriminate against europeans any time the issue comes up again. affirmative action can be enacted, repealed, enacted again, repealed again, back and forth, as the electorate decides.
if we were going by what guys like retired supreme court justice john stevens thinks though, to gauge the attitudes and direction of what liberals think, as liberals come to dominate the nation, what they'll eventually do is go after the constitution itself and amend it to require AA. state amendments to require AA will come first, then the final play for the constitution.
stevens, kagan, sotomayor, and ginsburg are all on the same page here. the US constitution is crap, and has to be changed fundamentally. both ginsburg and stevens have spoken out forcefully about this now.
"It is unhealthy for one racial group to hold all the political and economic power in a country. It is unhealthy for the excluded groups. And it is unhealthy for society overall, as such power arrangements are often unstable."
Based on money earned providing goods and services minus government handouts received, blacks and Mexicans deserve no political power, not even the right to vote.
"The nearest thing to the internment camp story that ever made it big in Hollywood was 'Snow Falling on Cedars' based on David Guterson novel of the same name."
Wow, I'm still trying to clear the stench of that movie from my DVD player, tripe so putrid that my wife, who loves her some sentimental tearjerk, was gagging by the middle of this shitsandwich and had to shut it off.
I've only been aware of Mr Sailer's site for about 4 months and know exactly what you mean. I'm anonymous only because I can't be bothered with creating an account. I do, however, comment at châteauheartiste on a regular basis. Fewer frosh trolls there.
As a 5-year daily reader, I can unequivocally say that there has been an uptick in George Soros Juice Box Typing Club types posting here.
Maybe people are following you back from the NYT and Vox, Steve!
Is it just me or was the comment section not always like this?
It's just you.
Depends on what you mean by libertarian. The Cato and Koch brothers false libertarians don't, but I have seen plenty from the mises related types and Walter Williams
Post a Comment