Supreme Court to decide on Neo Jim Crow laws (also known as Affirmative Action)

[reason10]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-supreme-court-is-poised-to-rule-on-affirmative-action-heres-what-you-need-to-know

The Supreme Court Is Poised To Rule On Affirmative Action. Here’s What You Need To Know

A group called Students for Fair Admissions sued the elite schools, accusing them of unfairly factoring race into their admissions processes. The group pointed to the high test scores of Asian-American and white applicants who were rejected.

Students for Fair Admissions argues that Harvard has violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination by schools that receive federal funding. In the other case, the group accuses the University of North Carolina of violating the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause by considering race in its admissions process.

“Racial classifications are wrong,” the student group’s attorney, Patrick Strawbridge, said in his opening argument back in October.

“This court has always said that racial classifications are invidious,” Strawbridge said.

The plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to overrule a 2003 case, Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the court ruled that the University of Michigan Law School may consider race in its admissions process.

At the time Grutter was decided, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.”

During opening arguments, several of the court’s conservative justices questioned the merits of race-based admissions, sparking speculation that they lean towards ending it.

“When does it end? When is your sunset? When will you know?” asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett. “What if it continues to be difficult in another 25 years?”

“I’ve heard the word diversity a number of times, and I don’t have a clue what it means,” said Justice Clarence Thomas, adding that he “doesn’t put much stock” in arguments for diversity because he has heard similar arguments for segregation.

 

1. The word "Diversity" is just as racist as the word NIGGER.

2. Affirmative Action is the same as JIM CROW laws, and was created by the SAME political party.

3. Affirmative Action is ILLEGAL, in that it violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

 

(And of course, the  uneducated teenagers  here, also known as the goose stepping liberals, will try to change the subject.)

 

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-supreme-court-is-poised-to-rule-on-affirmative-action-heres-what-you-need-to-know

The Supreme Court Is Poised To Rule On Affirmative Action. Here’s What You Need To Know

A group called Students for Fair Admissions sued the elite schools, accusing them of unfairly factoring race into their admissions processes. The group pointed to the high test scores of Asian-American and white applicants who were rejected.

Students for Fair Admissions argues that Harvard has violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination by schools that receive federal funding. In the other case, the group accuses the University of North Carolina of violating the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause by considering race in its admissions process.

“Racial classifications are wrong,” the student group’s attorney, Patrick Strawbridge, said in his opening argument back in October.

“This court has always said that racial classifications are invidious,” Strawbridge said.

The plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to overrule a 2003 case, Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the court ruled that the University of Michigan Law School may consider race in its admissions process.

At the time Grutter was decided, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.”

During opening arguments, several of the court’s conservative justices questioned the merits of race-based admissions, sparking speculation that they lean towards ending it.

“When does it end? When is your sunset? When will you know?” asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett. “What if it continues to be difficult in another 25 years?”

“I’ve heard the word diversity a number of times, and I don’t have a clue what it means,” said Justice Clarence Thomas, adding that he “doesn’t put much stock” in arguments for diversity because he has heard similar arguments for segregation.

 

1. The word "Diversity" is just as racist as the word NIGGER.

2. Affirmative Action is the same as JIM CROW laws, and was created by the SAME political party.

3. Affirmative Action is ILLEGAL, in that it violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

 

(And of course, the  uneducated teenagers  here, also known as the goose stepping liberals, will try to change the subject.)

 

I love what this SC has been doing. 

[reason10]

7 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I love what this SC has been doing. 

And when John Roberts presides over the Senate impeachment trial of Unelected Joe, that will be an event to cherish, especially when that senile pedophile has to trade his outfit for an orange jumpsuit, while watching President Trump take his second oath of office.

[Deluge]

Just now, reason10 said:

And when John Roberts presides over the Senate impeachment trial of Unelected Joe, that will be an event to cherish, especially when that senile pedophile has to trade his outfit for an orange jumpsuit, while watching President Trump take his second oath of office.

Icing on the cake.

[Rebound]

You obviously have no clue about what Jim Crow actually was. What’s more, Harvard is a private university. Why aren’t they free to admit students how they see fit? If I want to go to Liberty University, I have to pledge that I’m a Christian. I can’t tell them I’m an atheist or a Jew and go to their school, so why is Harvard any different?

[reason10]

 

You obviously have no clue about what Jim Crow actually was

Jim Crow Laws were created by Democrats. They were created because newly freed blacks were creating businesses and competing in the marketplace. Jim Crow laws were put in place to prevent their competition, as well as their voting and their ability to attend school.

. What’s more, Harvard is a private university. Why aren’t they free to admit students how they see fit?

So you'd have no problem with Harvard admitting ONLY WHITE students, regardless of merit?

By the way, there are only TWO private universities in America. One is Hillsdale. The other is Groves City College. They are considered private because they receive NO federal funding whatsoever, not even federally guaranteed student loans.

Hillsdale began rejecting federal funding when the government began demanding documentation on the racial makeup of its student body. (Of course, Hillsdale was the first university to graduate a black woman after Reconstruction.)

The Supreme Court will be ruling on whether or not universities accepting federal funds have the right to violate the Civil Rights Act. Affirmative action does just that.

 

[reason10]

3 hours ago, Contrarian said:

It is very shameful that while you are placed in the top 4 on this website, see post: 

https://repolitics.com/forums/topic/44685-streamlining-your-forum-communication-information-and-technical-tips-from-my-journey/?do=findComment&comment=1611505

Yet, you spend your time against trolls that are not willing to shape up, you see this drunk that you address, @reason10 he has brains and he can offer so much however he chooses to destroy this platform, so I will destroy him, is that easy, yet, how, come you are in the 4 and can not be a man and mentor folks, sorry, ladies like @Americana Antifa away from cultural warfare?

Is it that you get off on the cultural warfare? How about you wake the **** up and realize cultural warfare is destroying both America and Canada and do something for your land? 

Excuse me, but in this case Rebound was discussing and disagreeing with the information in the first post. I saw no personal attacks, no other violations of any decorum.  I then responded to him in kind, with additional information. We probably might go back and forth in this topic.

So far, you are the FIRST to throw out a personal attack, by calling me a drunk. Maybe you should read your own rules and decide that they apply to you as well.

Also, to alleviate your paranoia, HOW DOES ONE DESTROY THIS FORUM? How does that happen? Scare your advertisers away? I've seen no advertisers here. (I've actually seen advertisers at other forums, so I know they exist.) Scare other posters away? My threads have ATTRACTED a lot of spirited debate. Tell me how that destroys a forum.

Why not quit the job as hall monitor and engage in what this and all political message boards exists to do: Argue the issues.

[reason10]

11 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Quit what, that I can call you up on it? that you can offer more to this community than to spit on it? 

You issued threats. You called me an alcoholic, and you acted as if you are entitled to be able to do those things independent of any normal criteria.

What is everyone else offering? What are YOU offering (other than a wonderful KAREN imitation.)

In fact, I paid this forum a supreme compliment when I once suggested that it had a lot of courage to permit free market discussion of the issues with little or not bias. I once said this place embraces the FIRST AMENDMENT probably more than any other forum. Explain to me how that spits on this place.

[reason10]

5 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

No such things and 100 % you are an alcoholic, lost in space, like me, wasting time on this forum, expect, I leave something behind, you only leave hatred for the other side behind. 

 I don't know what childish safe space universe of ignorance you live it, but I've known two actually alcoholics in my lifetime. One was put into an institution to dry out and wound up in the hospital, where they almost couldn't stabilize her due to the DTs. (Delerium Tremens. You get that when drying out.) It almost killed her. Alcohol addiction is a lot more dangerous than heroin addiction.

The other example was an alcoholic neighbor I had. Saw him every day. Never knew what was going on, but he was quietly drunk every day. Then his liver failed and we watched him bleed to death, almost from every pore in his body. After I saw that, I quit drinking for six months. Didn't have the DTs. Didn't even crave it. Every once in a while I'll go a night or two without any alcohol at all. Automatically that means I'm not an alcoholic, because if I quit I'd wind up in the hospital.

If you're just using alcoholism as yet another childish insult, you've hit a dead end here.  And thanks a million for helping dredge up a couple of really dark memories that I would have preferred not looking at.

Now,do you have anything intelligent to add about the subject of this thread?