Fox breaking...

University of Michegan up held..

Heh, heh, heh......

Shit.

No way!

It's on NBC now.

What the hell, I tried editing my last post and it sent me here...

amazing

[V]

They struck down the racisim in the undergrad program..... Big Deal.

FUCK!

...and the ass wipings continue.

Well of course they are going to rule that way!!

White people don't riot. WTF did you expect?

--LS

And It seems it also struck down AA.

Dont forget this was two cases, not just one, seems from what I have heard that the Court split (or will split, when the other decision is released) the cases.

If that is true, then the '20 point bonus' was killed, while 'AA for diversity' was upheld.

But as always the decision needs to be read fully, not just the summary.

You are right!! White Americans accept the chains, like they were BORN to 'em!!!

The govt "Education" system, performs it's function well!!!  [rolleyes]

People People People...

Did you really think the SCOTUS was going to get rid of AA?

I mean THINK about it.

They took two very different cases on purpose, The Law School was the smoke screen to get rid of the point system.

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90159,00.html[/url]

Monday, June 23, 2003

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld the controversial affirmative action policies employed at the University of Michigan's law school that favor minorities.

The decision validates the policy that allows those in admissions offices at the law school to not only take race into consideration, but to weight it more than other factors, such as grade point average and test scores on standardized law school entrance examinations.

Critics of the system said the process mirrored that of a quota system, while supporters say the process adds to a more diverse student body.

The Bush administration even weighed in on the legal process, filing legal briefs in opposition of the policy.

Justices may also weigh in on the school's undergraduate admission policy. The facts in that case are nearly identical to those of the law school case.

It seems many of this court's rulings have been pretty much "middle of the road."

In other words, no real shocking rulings, one way or the other.

Makes me wonder how this court would rule on the 2nd Amendment, if it took it up.

Edited to add: If the SC [b]did[/b] rule on the 2nd Amendment issue, it would probably say:

1. Yes, the 2nd applies to individuals

2. Yes, some restrictions are necessary and allowable.

Basically, status quo. Whoop-de-fricken-do.

They just have to make some changes, so it won't look racist... change a point system.

I have.... It's Un-Constitutional on it's face. (14th Amendment)

[url]http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20030623-0728-scotus-affirmativeaction.html[/url]

Supreme Court upholds college affirmative action program        

ASSOCIATED PRESS

7:28 a.m., June 23, 2003

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a university law school admissions policy that gives minorities an edge, ruling that race can be one of many factors that colleges consider when selecting their students.

The ruling in the law-school case preserves the concept of affirmative action for minorities who might otherwise be underrepresented on top campuses, but makes clear that racial preferences must be used sparingly.

The 5-4 ruling endorsed a program at the University of Michigan law school meant to ensure a "critical mass" of minorities on campus. The program is not an illegal quota, the high court said.

A companion ruling testing the constitutionality of another, more overtly preferential affirmative action program for minority applicants was also expected Monday.

Justice David Souter wrote for the majority. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen Breyer joined him.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with Breyer one of two Jewish justices on the court, read a tart dissent from the bench.

"The judiciary has no warrant to serve as an expositor of the nation's foreign policy," by trumping a state law this way, Ginsburg said.

Lawyers for California argued the law does not interfere with foreign policy. Besides helping Holocaust victims, the law gives consumers information they can use to evaluate insurance companies.

The 1999 law required companies that sold insurance policies in Europe from 1920 to 1945, and which are now affiliated with California insurance companies, to search their records for details of the old policies. The information would go into a public registry. Companies that refused to divulge information could lose their state licenses.

Government has a compelling interest in promoting racial diversity on campus, and the law school plan is narrowly focused on that goal, the court majority said.

The ruling allows tax-supported schools, and by extension private schools and other institutions, to continue searching for ways to boost minority enrollment without violating the Constitution's guarantee against discrimination.

The University of Michigan cases are the most significant test of affirmative action to reach the court in a generation. At issue was whether racial preference programs unconstitutionally discriminate against white students.

"The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote.

The law school ruling follows the path the court set a generation ago, when it outlawed quotas but still left room for schools to improve the odds for minority applicants.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined O'Connor.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The two Michigan cases directly address only admissions at public, tax-supported institutions, but the court's rationale is expected to have a wide ripple through private colleges and universities, other government decision-making and the business world.

Opponents of affirmative action had hoped the Supreme Court would use this opportunity to ban most consideration of race in any government decisions. The court is far more conservative than in 1978, when it last ruled on affirmative action in higher education admissions, and the justices have put heavy conditions on government affirmative action in other arenas over the past decade.

Hit [url]news.google.com[/url]  Lot of reports just showed up this minute.

And that means jackshit to the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS has never really liked the 14th Amendment, they ignored it for 85 years and allowed Jim Crow to flourish, now they ignore it and allow the opposite of Jim Crow to flourish.

Now...does anyone have a hard on for a 2nd amendment ruling???

The Supreme Court just shit on the US constitution. White liberal guilt rules the day.

The SC is full of devout cowards.

This decision  says "racism in college admissions is perfectly acceptable, you just have to hide it beneath a layer of lies and subterfuge"


TT [puke]

Yeap.

IF they find for the 'individual right' that would be good.

If they find against, maybe that would wake up people.

[b]The Big Lie.[/b]

What "educational benefits" does a white person get from having a black or hispanic person sitting on the other side of the lecture hall taking notes as opposed to another white person?

[V]


Affirmative action is racist at it's core because it assumes that an individual's character, experiences, abilities, capacities and needs are determined by their race NOT by their [u]individual[/u] life experiences or achievements.

"Some pigs are more equal than other pigs".

Nothing new there, they've been doing that for 100 years or so..



Clarence Thomas is no coward!! [:D]
Did you see him at his confirmation hearings, when he responded to the charges?? He spoke about a "High tech Lynching"?? I have NEVER seen anyone so angry in such a setting! I mean, Justice Thomas, is a Blacks, Black, but his face definately had a red tinge to it. I could see smoke rising off him!! [:D]

He gave many people in our country a well deserved  reaming! [snoopy]

He also voted against this decision. [b]Justice[/b] Clarence Thomas, is no coward, he is a courageous AMERICAN!!






Yes, that's exactly what it says.....

Macallan - fuckin-a.

[url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/06/22/national0230EDT0430.DTL[/url]




I think that puts things in a nice perspective, don't you?  [:D]

I completely damn agree. I firmly believe that admission to anywhere (school, job, etc.) should be based on merit.  Appplications should have no  spaces for names, gender, race (is that still on there?) but only SSNs.  I remember promotions in the Navy for E7 (don't know if this is still true, but God I hope not) had spaces where you fill in your race (although this isn't the only qualification I'm sure) and sex.

[ROFL2]
Sure as heck did when the AVS won the cup in Denver

You don't need a Supreme Court to tell you the sky is brown with little red triangles all over it.

Unbe-fu**ing-lievable.....

Woohoo!!

Legalized slavery is back!!

Sgtar15

In a majority opinion, written by Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor,the court found that the equal-protection clause under the Constitution does not prohibit the law school's [b]"narrowly tailored use of race in admission decisions to fulfill a [red]compelling interest[/red] in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."[/b]

So... all it takes to circumvent the Constitution these days is a "compelling interest"?!?!?!?! Find a legal definition for that steaming pile of BS concept my friends. I dare you. I double dare you mother F'er!!!

God help us if the SCOTUS, as currently composed, hears a true 2nd. Amendment case!

I'm positive they would find a "compelling interest" for why arms suitable for militia use can & should be banned!

I've read the dissenting opinion.  They didn't buy into any of the bullshit and said so in pretty plain language.

A 2A case right now with this group would be like runnning around a powder magazine with a goddamn blowtorch.  We might get lucky and then again we could hear the biggest *boom* since  April 19, 1775.

Are they nuts or something? All the hardwork to compete is being wasted just because of race.

lieberal racists?

FOUND IT!!!

[u][b]BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY[/u] -[b]

[b]"Compelling interest"[/b]:
Date: 20 Century
Function: Doublespeak
1: Euphemism for "because I said so".
2: Justification given for unrestrained exercise of power or ruling by absolute authority;
especially used for the advancement of unconstitutional leftwing social engineering projects.
See also: arbitrary, bogus, capricious,  fraudulent, by fiat.



Yep.

If the SCOTUS hears a 2nd Amendment case.....we win either way.

It it upholds the Individual right.......we win.

It the SCOTUS rules against the Individual right....we win also because it's "LOCK & LOAD" time.

It means NOTHING to me what the SCOTUS rules.
I know what my God Given Rights are!

Our legislators, and courts, have become a "Law Unto Themselves".

They ignore our fundamental rights.

They have become, (before this), irrelevent in my life. My choices, and decisions, no longer take "Law", into account.

You "Enforcers", out there, take note for whom you work...

Whoever thought of the name "affirmative action" really earned his pay. Another good one is the word "diversity."

Both of these tend to ignore the fact that as individuals here in the USA, we are all quite diverse and instead try to lump us into conceptually homogenous groups (for political gain).

Most white American males never owned a slave. More illustrative is that most Asian American males never owned a slave (at least in America). Yet time and again, the efforts of white males and Asian males to enter various schools is being thwarted by a policy which is aimed at correcting the issue of slavery (which ended in 1861 or so). And, I only bring up the Asians since if you feel whites are being hurt by affirmative action, you should realize that Asians are being hurt even more.

I think most white males are from families which came to America after slavery was abolished.

Advocates for affirmative action, if denied the argument of slavery, then point to "racism" (and tend to ignore the racism inherent in affirmative action). All people have racism within their ranks. There is no one angelic group of people that lack racism. So why should white males (and Asian males) pay for racism?

"Affirmative action" (and "diversity") sounds good and rolls nicely off the tongue. But it is a policy designed for political gain, and it embodies politics at its worst.

I agree that we need to remove those race check boxes from application forms. Those check boxes can be replaced by a single, more honest checkbox asking "Are you a democrat and feel entitled to money (earned by others)."

AA does nothing for the plight of blacks except preserve status of lazy middle class AA beneficiaries. How exactly will giving a mediocre black student the opportunity to attend an elite institution affect the plight of blacks? It certainly hasn't made a difference in the 30+ years the policy has been in use. Logically, it makes even less sense. The problems of blacks are not caused by the indifference and greed of the majority, but by a lack of self responsibility in the black community, which is perpetuated by liberals/black leaders who blame everything but the individual for the consequences of their bad choices. If blacks took responsibility for their own choices/circumstances and stopped expecting whites to give them a hand-up/out or stop blaming slavery/racism for their problems, their plight would be solved rather quickly. Also, why does a black individual need to attend an elite institution to be successful?

Many successful lawyers, physicians, politicians attended less than elite institutions. If someone has the type of character/intelligence to make a difference in public life, that person will be quite capable of doing so by attending Harvard or attending Hastings. AA doesn't help poor blacks directly or indirectly so using the plight of blacks as a basis for the policy is really ridiculous.


TT

Clarence Thomas was an AA admit. Oh the irony.

TT

Thats a sick, sick ruling!

The beat goes on.

Don't admit based on achievement because that something someone has to actually do.

Forget their SAT scores, after all those questions were all created by white folk.

And don't forget the high schools need to graduate "students" who can't even read, after all if you hold them back because they can't read shit, that could have racial undertones.

Boy oh boy are you ever swinging at thin air!

A few years ago the "rationale" behind AA took a 90degree turn but you're still headed straight chasing a phantom of what used to be.

AA nowadays has nothing to do with "leveling the playing field" for poor blacks, it's about [b]enriching the educational atmosphere for ALL students by promoting "diversity" among the student population.[/b]

The old line of saying minorities needed AA to succeed was becoming so transparently racist (which it is and always will be) by assuming minorities can't compete with whites that it had to undergo a paradigm shift. Which it did.

Now, AA isn't about "leveling the playing field" or "righting past wrongs", it's about creating a "diverse environment". This reason is even better since, according to the old reasons, once the playing field is "leveled" or once the past wrongs have been righted, AA would become obsolete.

But with the new rational being "DIVERSITY!", it will NEVER be rendered obsolete - we will ALWAYS need AA to ensure "diversity".

bush's comment on AA:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=558&u=/ap/20030623/ap_on_go_su_co/bush_affirmative_action_text_1&printer=1


[puke]

In other words, it is now, and always has been, about rascism, and "get whitey".[:D]

We see the results today in America, of 75 or so years of unlimited immigration, and a govt/union run education system designed to dumb down the population.

Note, in a post above, Bush praises the Court, for considering "Diversity".

Ya, keep voting the same old way, expecting Constitutional govt to "pop" up some day...[rolleyes]

Macallan...



Macallan, I fear that you hit on something important here...

"Compelling interest" seems to translate into a contrived excuse that can used to override the Constitution whenever that document says something that is inconvenient.

[i]Must stay optimistic & active, but...[/i] [V]

Any program that seeks to place people in a position that they haven't earned is doomed forever to yield negative results in the long term.

Accepting those who aren't qualified for the positin they've applied for will result in them eventually failing and damaging the institution they were taken in by, to the detriment of all who are associated with that institution.

Perhaps this is exactly WHY this country is slowly sliding down the shithole.   The undeserving are being put into positions of responsibility and power, and they're fucking up the whole works.

CJ

First off this makes me very mad....I saw the negative impact of this where I went to college, I've seen the negative impact of this where I work.  The work place is no longer efficent.  We ahve to be mideful of diversity (walk on egg shells), we have to hire underqualified employees to keep the work place "diverse", we have to give working mothers time off and flex time to see how poorly they can do two important jobs at once, we have to give "domestic partners" full benefits b/c its only "fair".  The system is going to break down.  Its inevidable...my workplace is no longer efficent because of all of these things.

The real irony is that when that book "The Bell Curve" came out, blacks were livid.  This scientific study tried to show that blacks simply weren't as smart as other races.  As you can imagine this stirred up a hornets nest of accusations of racism.  However, these same people that were offended by thsi book, push for AA and special consideration for employment/enrollment.  There almost seems to be a disconnect in logic...if you were as samrt as evertone else, why would you need special consideration?  Its like they want to be "taken care off" and yet they don't want to acmit why they need to be taken care off.

I think the problem is the creation of an "entitled society".  Everyone is owed something.  I'm owed a good job, an education, a hoem, a nice car...etc.  There is no "rugged individualism" people don't go out an do anymore, they want to be given it with the least required effort.

The older I get and the more I see, I really start to hope for the Rapture...and soon.

I simply don't buy into new rhetoric and pandering quite as easily as others.



Apparently you've really bought into the white guilt liberal bullshit that has been flung. Whatever rational is in vogue to justify AA, it doesn't change the reality. I don't need to listen someone pay lip service to a new paradigm for justification of AA.



::eyeroll::

TT


BTW the playing field has never been levelled and never will be IMO.

From a front-page article from the Detroit Free Press: "A study by William Bowden and Derek Bok, former presidents of Princeton and Harvard universities, respectively, found 86 percent of minorites at the nation's 146 elite campuses are from homes with incomes of $50,000 and up." The same article noted that 58% of American households earn less than $50,000 a year.


"How do we explain the underproductivity of middle-class kids, of able and gifted minority youngsters who come out of situations where you would expect high achievement?" asked Edmund W. Gordon, a professor emeritus of psychology at Yale University and the co-chairman of the National Task Force on Minority High Achievement, formed in 1997 by the College Board. "

http://www.shearonforschools.com/reason_is_sought_for_lag_by_blac.htm

" When the IQ of non-Hispanic whites is normalized to a mean of 100 and SD of 15, the African American mean falls at about 85 with an SD of about 13.5. The black IQ distribution both lags behind and is narrower than the white. The small difference in width manifests itself significantly at the bell curve extremes, reducing both the numbers of retarded and exceptional blacks."

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/retard.htm.

"Black children of parents with graduate degrees have lower SAT scores than white children of parents with a high-school diploma or less. Black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white children from families below the poverty line."

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm

"Education is the foundation to the model minority "myth", but the myth is only incomplete, not false. This file shows that there are some Asian / Pacific Islander groups hat live in poverty who show signs of distress and failure, but they are the exception, not the rule. "

FYI


[b]Not Found
The requested URL /retard.htm. was not found on this server.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apache/1.3.26 Server at www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com Port 80[/b]