tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post2649032252048152177..comments2024-03-28T16:22:14.888-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Down the affirmative action rabbit hole at the Supreme Court Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-31620993259453056952012-10-11T09:12:54.738-07:002012-10-11T09:12:54.738-07:00Hamilton Burger must be Garre's role model. T...Hamilton Burger must be Garre's role model. There is no other explanation for this level of risible incompetence.Kylienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-17792995153922985622012-10-11T06:44:44.620-07:002012-10-11T06:44:44.620-07:00Garre's logic will lead to every smart white o...<i><br />Garre's logic will lead to every smart white or asian kid searching their genealogy for some kind of arguably Spanish or Latino ancestor. Future mothers from China may want to give birth in Puerto Rico."</i><br /><br /><br />If Asians were anything like whites, they would just say forget all this crap. We will just build our own universities. We have the money, the talent and the skills. We don't need your Ivy League, we will build our own Lemon grass league and you will come begging us someday. Look how many US institutions were founded exactly that way. The outsiders got tired of the gatekeepers and just built their own stuff. Just read the histories of the top US universities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-63498937295306506932012-10-11T05:32:35.668-07:002012-10-11T05:32:35.668-07:00Interesting. The lawyer is tap-dancing as fast as ...Interesting. The lawyer is tap-dancing as fast as he can on the facts, doing his best to obfuscate what the university actually does (to the extent he understands it). Instead, he continually throws back bits of the Court's prior opinions that he thinks will allow them to rule his way, without getting real specific as to what use the university makes of an applicant's race. Embarassing. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-28650341712432553042012-10-11T04:46:21.027-07:002012-10-11T04:46:21.027-07:00"Garre's logic will lead to every smart w..."Garre's logic will lead to every smart white or asian kid searching their genealogy for some kind of arguably Spanish or Latino ancestor. Future mothers from China may want to give birth in Puerto Rico."<br /><br />I laughed so hard reading that. They might actually start doing that if things continue going the way they are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-92030899828927538292012-10-10T22:13:06.454-07:002012-10-10T22:13:06.454-07:00We, the People, pay these robed geniuses how much,...We, the People, pay these robed geniuses how much, exactly, to go through this "You can't make this stuff up" exercise in obscurantist gibberish?<br /><br />Having read that silliness I now understand the reason for the origin of the exclamation, "Just shoot me!"<br /><br />Cut the crap! Just admit those who earn admission because they qualify! But we could wait for that like two characters I know of who waited for Godot.Auntie Analoguenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-29341260793176540112012-10-10T20:35:11.477-07:002012-10-10T20:35:11.477-07:00Legal eagles, huh.
You know, when I read discussi...Legal eagles, huh.<br /><br />You know, when I read discussion forums on bridge (the card game), I'm often blown away by the intelligence of the contributors and their ability to build logical constructs. Likewise when I read computer programming discussions, or when someone like Derb talks about math. Really smart people sound really smart when they talk within their fields.<br /><br />But when I read these transcripts, I get none of that. Oh, some of the justices, especially Scalia, are clearly sharp and can make a good point, but nothing I couldn't have thought of with a few minutes' ruminations. No one says anything that's both honest and not completely obvious. They're pretty good at turning a phrase, but they sure don't give off any impression of great mental skills.Cail Corishevnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-46993889204084083612012-10-10T20:15:15.080-07:002012-10-10T20:15:15.080-07:00This is the world we're supposed to regard as ...This is the world we're supposed to regard as normal and go out and be successful in.<br /><br />The people who do so, without engaging in criminal activity, are gifts that mankind has no right to expect.<br /><br />But these saints are part of the problem. They give this insane society legitimacy. Instead of continuing to work in this society, they might consider rioting in the streets. But never fear; they won't rebel, except, at most, in quiet, unseen ways.<br /><br />What is more troubling is the dilemma of the younger generations. They are not yet fully hooked into the Establishment. They aren't bought yet. They have no real allegiances (just the vague one of keep the parents happy, maybe). So, what must they think when the evil become clear to them? (Especially in a personal way, e.g., the defendant in this case and everyone represented by the defendant.) Their choices then are fundamentally two: either unplug totally from the culture (forget college, start a dry cleaning business and keep your head way down) or become apparatchiks. This means, over time, the further corruption of the society.<br /><br />This mechanism is part of what makes an empire rot and finally expire.<br /><br />This case is at least being addressed in highest court. So we can rest assured that fair-minded legal eagles like Ginsberg and Sotomayor will straighten it all out definitively. (sarcasm)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-52390908164351163842012-10-10T20:13:37.080-07:002012-10-10T20:13:37.080-07:00It is rather amusing. First the Supreme Court says...It is rather amusing. First the Supreme Court says they can't use numerical quotas, and then the Justices question them on what numerical quotas would be necessary to declare victory. It's obscuritanism meets scientific rationalism. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-64389509818215476292012-10-10T19:47:28.283-07:002012-10-10T19:47:28.283-07:00Garre's logic will lead to every smart white o...Garre's logic will lead to every smart white or asian kid searching their genealogy for some kind of arguably Spanish or Latino ancestor. Future mothers from China may want to give birth in Puerto Rico. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-66320309540086434562012-10-10T19:31:01.674-07:002012-10-10T19:31:01.674-07:00Pure comedy gold. Like an Abbott and Costello rout...Pure comedy gold. Like an Abbott and Costello routine.<br /><br />I like the "you can't feel like your the spokesman for your race" standard. What if you are Burmese-American or Australian Aborigine-American or some other rare ethnic group? How many more of you do they have to get on campus before you don't feel like you are the designated spokesperson? Or, as the UT lawyer hints, is it close enough if there are a bunch of Asians on campus even if Burmese have nothing in common with Koreans? Also what if you are a rare combination - say 1/2 Japanese and 1/2 Tutsi. Do they have to find more Japanese/Tutsis or even more Asian/Black people (Tiger Woods?) so you don't have to assume the dreaded spokesperson role? The clever administrators will KNOW when this level is reached, even though they can't tell you what the number is. It is like pornography - they will know it when they see it.<br /><br />Pure comedy gold I tell you. You can't make this stuff up.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-46374653012608070242012-10-10T19:09:34.393-07:002012-10-10T19:09:34.393-07:00Heck, even Sotomayor pointed out the obvious probl...Heck, even Sotomayor pointed out the obvious problem with his claim that they can somehow reach this magical "enough diversity" level when they insist the can't even put a measurement on it. She seemed to be trying to get him off the quota hook that Scalia and Roberts were hanging him on, by giving him a chance to offer some other standard, but that's not possible because any standard would have to be a quota at heart. Maybe she can't see that.<br /><br /><em>JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Garre, I think that the issue that my colleagues are asking is, at what point and when do we stop deferring to the University's judgment that race is still necessary? That's the bottom line of this case. And you're saying, and I think rightly because of our cases, that you can't set a quota, because that's what our cases say you can't do. So if we're not going to set a quota, what do you think is the standard we apply to make a judgment?</em>Cail Corishevnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-73610798909888903392012-10-10T19:02:42.949-07:002012-10-10T19:02:42.949-07:00This stuff is hilarious. I've never argued be...This stuff is hilarious. I've never argued before the SCOTUS, so I'm wondering: are you required to say "Your Honor" every time you open your trap, or is this guy just being a kiss-ass?<br /><br />This is great: "First, if you just looked at the numbers - we don't think it's the numbers, but if you looked at the numbers after 7 years..." Look at the numbers, even though it's definitely not about the numbers, because you told us it couldn't be about the numbers last time, but look at the numbers, but don't ask us for numbers that would make us happy, because we're not allowed to put a number on that, just look at the current numbers which are definitely too low....<br /><br />Hilarious how he keeps trying to appeal to precedent, basically telling them, "Hey, you ruled for us last time, and the other side hasn't asked you to overrule that, so you have to stick with what you said then, whether it was stupid or not." Too bad that actually works as often as it does.<br /><br />He's lying through his teeth, and everyone in the room knows exactly what he's lying about and why, and what's really going on here. If there were any common sense or justice involved, they'd have stopped him about two minutes into this and told him to stop wasting their time and get out before they put him in stocks outside so people could throw rotten fruit at him. What nonsense. How can anyone take our government seriously anymore?Cail Corishevnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-83895067190059200082012-10-10T18:58:40.919-07:002012-10-10T18:58:40.919-07:00Truly hilarious!
W-w-wait a minute. This is rea...Truly hilarious!<br /><br />W-w-wait a minute. This is <i> real</i>???TontoBubbaGoldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15084529465502345934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-88643381159359077452012-10-10T18:53:05.905-07:002012-10-10T18:53:05.905-07:00That is some funny stuff!!
Wait a minute... That...That is some funny stuff!!<br /><br /><br />Wait a minute... That was real?? !!<br /><br />We have come a long way from Marbury v Madison...TontoBubbaGoldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15084529465502345934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-44419432005885070882012-10-10T18:38:58.320-07:002012-10-10T18:38:58.320-07:00I went to the University of Texas and I am current...I went to the University of Texas and I am currently in academia. Many, if not most professors it seems to me are quite aware of the limitations of affirmative action, at least as it is currently practiced. They may spout the correct lines when they have to about supporting it more and more no matter what, but behind closed doors it is different. They're liberal, but not generally blind. However, I will never forget one class in the Communications Department. Intercultural communication. There were students wanting to add the class at the beginning of the semester. Of those already registered for the class were at least half were minority. The professor was only going to let three or so more students in (he could have let in more but he wanted to limit his work, it seemed). He stood up there and said he would only let in minorities so the class wouldn't be so white. Everyone-minorities included-were laughing at him. He just could not see past his ideological blinders. Blacks and Hispanics could, but he couldn't.BNnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-56583501316424504512012-10-10T18:35:05.370-07:002012-10-10T18:35:05.370-07:00Reads like Ionesco.Reads like Ionesco.chuchonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-26985543698722994312012-10-10T18:27:16.525-07:002012-10-10T18:27:16.525-07:00So, it all comes down to what the students feel?Ho...So, it all comes down to what the students feel?How many of the students have to feel "like ethnic spokesmen?" A majority? A plurality?One third?<br /><br /><br />Off topic, Steve, but do you have any reaction on the race-traitor rhetoric being dumped on Stacey Dash after she endorsed Romney?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-284008320702329742012-10-10T17:51:05.565-07:002012-10-10T17:51:05.565-07:00Oh my god, I couldn't even get to the end of t...Oh my god, I couldn't even get to the end of that. It was too maddening. <br /><br />Does this Garre fellow really believe the muddled, incoherent insanity he's spewing? Or is he just a hired gun thrown into a hopeless situation? <br /><br />Curious how the court will go, though. The four Commies will vote in favor of Aff Action no matter what (Constitution be damned). But Roberts is the interesting one. Will he try to win back the hearts of Conservatives and vote the way he knows damn well the Constitution would have him vote? Or has the Left corrupted him utterly? <br /><br />I guess we'll known eventually.peterikenoreply@blogger.com