Does Sotomayor even care what is in the Constitution?

[PtldPlatypus]

Possibly. Unknown, though, as with Sotomayor. The Court tends to be fastidiously closed about anything beyond actual decisions. Who voted in which direction in a tie, who voted to accept a case, why they didn't accept a case--they generally don't release those details.

And in the absence of actual details, of course it's best to make wild baseless assumptions.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

It pisses me off that the justices never actually go out and fight crime. Those robes are pretty similar to capes. All the best crime fighters wear capes.

 

[julius]

Shouldn't a better title for this thread be "Do most Americans even understand what is in the constitution?"

 

[Denny Crane]

Possibly. Unknown, though, as with Sotomayor. The Court tends to be fastidiously closed about anything beyond actual decisions. Who voted in which direction in a tie, who voted to accept a case, why they didn't accept a case--they generally don't release those details.

4 of 9 justices required to grant certiorari.

 

[Minstrel]

4 of 9 justices required to grant certiorari.

Sure, and maybe four did. And maybe zero did. We don't know, nor do we know who (if any) did.

Nor do we know why they voted against accepting the case. As I said, there are a lot of reasons why they don't accept a case. Sometimes they want certain issues clarified in the lower courts first. Sometimes they want further evidence to emerge in lower court proceedings. They don't always, or even usually, turn down cases because they're uninterested or inimical to the issue.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sure, and maybe four did. And maybe zero did. We don't know, nor do we know who (if any) did.

Nor do we know why they voted against accepting the case. As I said, there are a lot of reasons why they don't accept a case. Sometimes they want certain issues clarified in the lower courts first. Sometimes they want further evidence to emerge in lower court proceedings. They don't always, or even usually, turn down cases because they're uninterested or inimical to the issue.

The Riley decision was unanimous. Surely there are 4 justices who'd hear a case filed by a US Senator on a much more significant matter.

 

[Minstrel]

The Riley decision was unanimous. Surely there are 4 justices who'd hear a case filed by a US Senator on a much more significant matter.

It would be nice if the Supreme Court were more open about these types of choices they make. In the absence of details, you can, of course, interpret their collective decisions to mean anything you want--I prefer to judge individual Justices by actual votes and words that we see, not ones that you or I imagine.

 

[Denny Crane]

It would be nice if the Supreme Court were more open about these types of choices they make. In the absence of details, you can, of course, interpret their collective decisions to mean anything you want--I prefer to judge individual Justices by actual votes and words that we see, not ones that you or I imagine.

We know they didn't accept a case brought by a US Senator (which is kind of their job, to hear those kinds of cases). If they needed an excuse to live up to their words, they had it.

 

[MarAzul]

This is the case that came to mind when reading SotoMayor's words. She voted in favor of using race to in admissions in this case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/u...irmative-action-university-of-texas.html?_r=0

It seems like discrimination to me. It seems like using race to make up for something!

Last month dviss posted in here the discrimination is always wrong. I commented that my daughter was denied admission to Stanford, for reasons of diversity. He said it never happened. Well it did, but Stanford is a private school and as such, can do as it pleases, at least I think so. Public schools are another matter, but now the court says that is ok too.

Sotomayor's word seems to fit the case spot on! "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination."

Translation. Discrimination is ok if you do it to white kids.


This sort of crap is why we need Trump!

 

[Minstrel]

We know they didn't accept a case brought by a US Senator (which is kind of their job, to hear those kinds of cases). If they needed an excuse to live up to their words, they had it.

But we don't know who voted against accepting the case or why.

 

[Minstrel]

This is the case that came to mind when reading SotoMayor's words. She voted in favor of using race to in admissions in this case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/u...irmative-action-university-of-texas.html?_r=0

It seems like discrimination to me. It seems like using race to make up for something!

Last month dviss posted in here the discrimination is always wrong. I commented that my daughter was denied admission to Stanford, for reasons of diversity. He said it never happened. Well it did, but Stanford is a private school and as such, can do as it pleases, at least I think so. Public schools are another matter, but now the court says that is ok too.

Sotomayor's word seems to fit the case spot on! "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination."

Translation. Discrimination is ok if you do it to white kids.


This sort of crap is why we need Trump!

 

[Denny Crane]

But we don't know who voted against accepting the case or why.

We know that 9 justices, unanimously, struck down a much lesser violation of our privacy. We know it takes 4 to grant cert.

All 9 of them have let us all down, so far.

 

[MarAzul]

You do realize that there were only about 1 million people in this country that owned a slave. Most people came here much later than slavery.
But I suppose you do know the cute little cartoon hardly characterizes the kid today being targeted for discrimination. Don't you?

 

[Minstrel]

You do realize that there were only about 1 million people in this country that owned a slave. Most people came here much later than slavery.

The cartoon white guy isn't meant to only depict slave owners. You do know that there was oppression of black people in this country long after slavery was abolished, right?

 

[julius]

You do realize that there were only about 1 million people in this country that owned a slave. Most people came here much later than slavery.
But I suppose you do know the cute little cartoon hardly characterizes the kid today being targeted for discrimination. Don't you?

what a simple way to look at the issue.

 

[julius]

The cartoon white guy isn't meant to only depict slave owners. You do know that there was oppression of black people in this country long after slavery was abolished, right?

liar! once the great Republican President Abraham Lincoln freed the slaved (he was a Republican, so obviously Republicans can't be racist, and Democrats are the real racists!), racism ended.

After all, I'm not a racist so therefore ipso facto, quid pro quo, carpe diem and e pluribus unum!

 

[MarAzul]

The cartoon white guy isn't meant to only depict slave owners. You do know that there was oppression of black people in this country long after slavery was abolished, right?

And how many 18 year old white kids owe a debt because of it? How long will this shit last? About 40 years now and counting.
I think perhaps it last until we get a court the puts stop to this bunk.

 

[MarAzul]

what a simple way to look at the issue.

Really! Well how many of your kids and grandkids do you want to see, go to the back of the line? How many great grandkids?

 

[Minstrel]

And how many 18 year old white kids owe a debt because of it? How long will this shit last? About 40 years now and counting.

No white kids owe a debt. The purpose of affirmative action types of programs are to ensure that more qualified minority students are represented in higher education. Because when, say, 13% of the population is a certain race, but only 2% of university students are that same race, there's a problem. Not that the percentages have to be identical, but having that sort of discrepancy just continues to further an almost "underclass" situation, as education is the best way to lift an individual or a group out of poverty.

The whole point, here, is not that white people need to be punished. It's that certain minorities have been artificially set at a lower level in society and saying, "Well, tough luck...that was back then," and waiting for it to fix itself over time is both morally and intellectually bankrupt. The white majority experienced a form of "affirmative action" for generations and it's had huge and lasting effects on society. Ignoring that and taking the viewpoint that no one today was at fault for that is convenient but does nothing to undo that damage. No one today is at fault for that (mostly--there are obviously still some racists in powerful positions) and the AA concept is not punitive. It's an artificial solution to an artificially created damage.

And, today, no university uses anything amounting to strict racial quotas. Courts haven't looked favorably on that for years and if the University of Texas were using racial quotas, the Supreme Court would certainly have struck it down. The University of Texas was allowing racial diversity to be a factor, not just (or even primarily) due to the concept of affirmative action but because they believe a diverse student body (again, of qualified applicants) is more conducive to a learning environment than a very heterogeneous student body. More differing backgrounds, experiences and viewpoints improve the quality of education for everyone.

I understand that you think that this is aimed at hurting white people; it does, at the margins, negatively affect white students--not due to targeting, but due to opportunity cost. There isn't a spot for everyone and any minority student that ends up with a spot that they might not have gotten in the absence of such policies means one less for a white student. But you should think about how we should undo the damages that have been done to minority communities--and it needs to be something beyond "Let it work itself out," because that's not a suitable answer for people who actually have to live with the consequences, easy as it may be for those who don't have to live with them.

I don't think you have to agree with me, but I do think that when you disagree with these types of solutions, you need to put some effort into thinking about (whether you discuss it with me/us or not) how this gets fixed in another way. Ways of fixing this that have no negative effect on anyone would be ideal. Punting the issue, though, isn't very compelling.

 

[jlprk]

In the cartoon, whites obtain a middle class standard of living on the backs of blacks, who remain in the lower class.

This goes on now as much as in the past. The only reason whites live as well as they do is that a racial underclass supports them from having to do the killing physical jobs that shorten black life expectancy.

Even if you think it doesn't happen anymore...let's say you're right. Then the cumulative effect from the past still gives whites a head start in life. White parents impart a more educated, leisurely attitude to their kids than stressed-out black parents who are barely surviving. Even if you think that laws are now equal, the cultural accumulations from the past are not.

So the cartoon can symbolize present-day whites springing ahead of current blacks, or it can symbolize current whites benefiting from past whites having leapfrogged ahead of past blacks.

 

[MarAzul]

No white kids owe a debt. The purpose of affirmative action types of programs are to ensure that more qualified minority students are represented in higher education. Because when, say, 13% of the population is a certain race, but only 2% of university students are that same race, there's a problem. Not that the percentages have to be identical, but having that sort of discrepancy just continues to further an almost "underclass" situation, as education is the best way to lift an individual or a group out of poverty.

The whole point, here, is not that white people need to be punished. It's that certain minorities have been artificially set at a lower level in society and saying, "Well, tough luck...that was back then," and waiting for it to fix itself over time is both morally and intellectually bankrupt. The white majority experienced a form of "affirmative action" for generations and it's had huge and lasting effects on society. Ignoring that and taking the viewpoint that no one today was at fault for that is convenient but does nothing to undo that damage. No one today is at fault for that (mostly--there are obviously still some racists in powerful positions) and the AA concept is not punitive. It's an artificial solution to an artificially created damage.

And, today, no university uses anything amounting to strict racial quotas. Courts haven't looked favorably on that for years and if the University of Texas were using racial quotas, the Supreme Court would certainly have struck it down. The University of Texas was allowing racial diversity to be a factor, not just (or even primarily) due to the concept of affirmative action but because they believe a diverse student body (again, of qualified applicants) is more conducive to a learning environment than a very heterogeneous student body. More differing backgrounds, experiences and viewpoints improve the quality of education for everyone.

I understand that you think that this is aimed at hurting white people; it does, at the margins, negatively affect white students--not due to targeting, but due to opportunity cost. There isn't a spot for everyone and any minority student that ends up with a spot that they might not have gotten in the absence of such policies means one less for a white student. But you should think about how we should undo the damages that have been done to minority communities--and it needs to be something beyond "Let it work itself out," because that's not a suitable answer for people who actually have to live with the consequences, easy as it may be for those who don't have to live with them.

I don't think you have to agree with me, but I do think that when you disagree with these types of solutions, you need to put some effort into thinking about (whether you discuss it with me/us or not) how this gets fixed in another way. Ways of fixing this that have no negative effect on anyone would be ideal. Punting the issue, though, isn't very compelling.

We have been doing this stuff for 40 years now. We have also had hiring AA programs for about that long.
How long will this go on? Yes white kid get pushed aside. Then when you go to hire the college kids, they get pushed aside again, but it doesn't mean a Black kid gets hired for each white kid that gets pushed aside.

I think you are wrong and the court is wrong. This isn't fixing anything. Probably making things worse.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

When did white people become such victims? It's sad.

 

[MarAzul]

In the cartoon, whites obtain a middle class standard of living on the backs of blacks, who remain in the lower class.

This goes on now as much as in the past. The only reason whites live as well as they do is that a racial underclass supports them from having to do the killing physical jobs that shorten black life expectancy.

Even if you think it doesn't happen anymore...let's say you're right. Then the cumulative effect from the past still gives whites a head start in life. White parents impart a more educated, leisurely attitude to their kids than stressed-out black parents who are barely surviving. Even if you think that laws are now equal, the cultural accumulations from the past are not.

So the cartoon can symbolize present-day whites springing ahead of current blacks, or it can symbolize current whites benefiting from past whites having leapfrogged ahead of past blacks.

Geez! That makes my ass ache! Many white people immigrated to this country with out any benefit from what happen to Black people. How the fuck is it justice to turn the tables on their offspring? Bull Shit, it ain't.

 

[MarAzul]

When did white people become such victims? It's sad.

It started about 40 years ago. The question is, when does it end?

On second thought, don't worry about it! Vote for Trump!

 

[jlprk]

Geez! That makes my ass ache! Many white people immigrated to this country with out any benefit from what happen to Black people. How the fuck is it justice to turn the tables on their offspring? Bull Shit, it ain't.

The offspring benefit from the past. Current white newborns inherit a system which gives them advantages, and which make many blacks suffer. It's irrelevant that the current generation wasn't alive in the 1800s.

By the way, you should see a proctologist.

 

[MarAzul]

Current white newborns inherit a system which gives them advantages, and which make many blacks suffer.

Man, you have been brain washed. Who can you see to help that?

 

[jlprk]

Depends on the insurance. Can I use your unused proctology benefits?

 

[MarAzul]

Depends on the insurance. Can I use your unused proctology benefits?

Actually I lost all benefits when Obama put a tax on the provider for providing them. Sorry, no have anymore.

 

[Denny Crane]

Depends on the insurance. Can I use your unused proctology benefits?

For head up ass you need an ear nose and throat guy, too.

 

[MarAzul]

No white kids owe a debt. The purpose of affirmative action types of programs are to ensure that more qualified minority students are represented in higher education. Because when, say, 13% of the population is a certain race, but only 2% of university students are that same race, there's a problem. Not that the percentages have to be identical, but having that sort of discrepancy just continues to further an almost "underclass" situation, as education is the best way to lift an individual or a group out of poverty.

The whole point, here, is not that white people need to be punished. It's that certain minorities have been artificially set at a lower level in society and saying, "Well, tough luck...that was back then," and waiting for it to fix itself over time is both morally and intellectually bankrupt. The white majority experienced a form of "affirmative action" for generations and it's had huge and lasting effects on society. Ignoring that and taking the viewpoint that no one today was at fault for that is convenient but does nothing to undo that damage. No one today is at fault for that (mostly--there are obviously still some racists in powerful positions) and the AA concept is not punitive. It's an artificial solution to an artificially created damage.

And, today, no university uses anything amounting to strict racial quotas. Courts haven't looked favorably on that for years and if the University of Texas were using racial quotas, the Supreme Court would certainly have struck it down. The University of Texas was allowing racial diversity to be a factor, not just (or even primarily) due to the concept of affirmative action but because they believe a diverse student body (again, of qualified applicants) is more conducive to a learning environment than a very heterogeneous student body. More differing backgrounds, experiences and viewpoints improve the quality of education for everyone.

I understand that you think that this is aimed at hurting white people; it does, at the margins, negatively affect white students--not due to targeting, but due to opportunity cost. There isn't a spot for everyone and any minority student that ends up with a spot that they might not have gotten in the absence of such policies means one less for a white student. But you should think about how we should undo the damages that have been done to minority communities--and it needs to be something beyond "Let it work itself out," because that's not a suitable answer for people who actually have to live with the consequences, easy as it may be for those who don't have to live with them.

I don't think you have to agree with me, but I do think that when you disagree with these types of solutions, you need to put some effort into thinking about (whether you discuss it with me/us or not) how this gets fixed in another way. Ways of fixing this that have no negative effect on anyone would be ideal. Punting the issue, though, isn't very compelling.

Dang! I fell into the trap again! Here I am, discussing the pros and cons with you about the benefits of AA or not. That isn't the fucking issue.
It is not the Court function to implement a program. Congress does this or not, not the damn Court. Sotomayor has Robes on, not elected to represent anyone.
Doing the wrong job in the wrong chair.