BAN ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION backed by Supreme Court!

[Danno 1,228]

Bam!@ Sharpen and the gang are besides themselves as they know these bans on favoritism will spread.

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

Supreme Court Upholds MI’s Affirmative Action Ban

In a stunning 6-2 vote on Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the state of Michigan’s right to eliminate affirmative action from its state colleges’ admissions policy. Michigan voters had elected to remove affirmative action as an enhancement for qualification for higher education by a 58% margin in 2006. Specifically, the law bars publicly funded colleges from granting “preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.” Despite this, lower courts, as have been their wont in recent years, wrested control from the voters and overrode the law…over and over again. Michigan, unlike other states, however, fought the remorseless appeals since they began, all the way to the Supreme Court. This time they’ve won and there is no place remaining for entitlement mongers to take their fight.

Even Justice Stephen Breyer agreed that the state of Michigan has the right to eliminate affirmative action from consideration for extra credit. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the vote. Other Justices in agreement with the majority decision were Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and weathervane Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy even wrote the majority opinion. His opinion suggested that taking affirmative action off the table might be appropriate in other areas as well.

FOX News quotes: “There is no authority in the federal constitution or in the [courts'] precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit to the voters the determination whether racial preferences may be considered in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions…This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it…”

The Wall Street Journal expanded on Breyer’s written statement: “The electorate’s instruction to governmental entities not to embark upon the course of race-defined and race-based preferences was adopted, we must assume, because the voters deemed a preference system to be unwise on account of what voters may deem its latent potential to become itself a source of the very resentments and hostilities based on race that this nation seeks to put behind it…” Based upon the court system’s recent antics, including those of the Supreme Court, it is astounding that voters’ decisions are being taken into consideration for anything that the bench decides.

Predictably, the two dissenting votes were cast by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and “the wise Latina”, Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion (Ginsburg might have been unable to muster the attention span long enough to do so). Not satisfied with producing a 58-page complaint which, according to FOX News, “was longer than the combined length of the four opinions in support of the outcome.” Sotomayor read her tome aloud in the courtroom. Presumably she believed this would add weight to her objections. Sotomayor’s opinion boiled down to something close to “it’s not fair.”

Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/04/pendulum-swings-supreme-court-upholds-mis-affirmative-action-ban/#JkdKBeWMDHqgd1x4.99
Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/04/pendulum-swings-supreme-court-upholds-mis-affirmative-action-ban/#JkdKBeWMDHqgd1x4.99

Edited April 24, 2014 by Danno

[deleted-05292014 331]

Not exactly what went down. But i'll leave you to your own

[Robby999 1,024]

Sharpton has been busy lately having remote starting kits installed on all his vehicles since it was revealed he was a CI for the FBI, so he will get to work on this when he convinces Obama to grant him secret service protection.

[Danno 1,228]

Not exactly what went down. But i'll leave you to your own

The SC backed the states right to ban unequal treatment of applicants, if I missed something, throw it out there.

[UncleBeer 244]

Outrageous!: having to judge people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. Racists!

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Outrageous!: having to judge people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. Racists!

I know right! This should have been happening from the beginning of time. Then we would not have had to have this student rule to begin with. Why should skin color be considered when looking at an applicant or their name to begin with? You would think that people would just want qualified individuals to work for them and not just search for all white, non-black applicants. Shish

I am so glad you and I think alike.

[Danno 1,228]

I know right! This should have been happening from the beginning of time. Then we would not have had to have this student rule to begin with. Why should skin color be considered when looking at an applicant or their name to begin with? You would think that people would just want qualified individuals to work for them and not just search for all white, non-black applicants. Shish

I am so glad you and I think alike.

I like your humor but you seem to be confusing two separate things.

-This ban applies to interactions with THE STATE. If I am not mistaken a private college can use more liberal guidelines in admittance.

-You referred to people being hired in general economy. this case had nothing to do with that, to use that topic to justify set-asides for minorities is lame (in my opinion).

Edited April 24, 2014 by Danno

[Janelle2002 3,865]

I like your humor but you seem to be confusing two separate things.

-This ban applies to interactions with THE STATE. If I am not mistaken a private college can use more liberal guidelines in admittance.

-You referred to people being hired in general economy. this case had nothing to do with that, to use that topic to justify set-asides for minorities is lame (in my opinion).

What? It should be used to hiring and college. People should be able to compete REGARDLESS of color for ANYTHING. Jobs, education, etc.

My skin color or name should not be considered when applying for ANYTHING!

[UncleBeer 244]

You would think that people would just want qualified individuals to work for them and not just search for all white, non-black applicants.

Credible proof or you're a liar. I could quite easily prove the opposite though.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Credible proof or you're a liar. I could quite easily prove the opposite though.

Not a problem.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/09/study-black-man-and-white-felon-same-chances-for-hire/

The results of these studies were startling. Among those with no criminal record, white applicants were more than twice as likely to receive a callback relative to equally qualified black applicants. Even more troubling, whites with a felony conviction fared just as well, if not better, than a black applicant with a clean background.

Racial disparities have been documented in many contexts, but here, comparing the two job applicants side by side, we are confronted with a troubling reality: Being black in America today is just about the same as having a felony conviction in terms of one’s chances of finding a job.

The young black men posing as job applicants in this study were bright college kids, models of discipline and hard work; and yet, even in this best case scenario, these applicants were routinely overlooked simply on the basis of the color of their skin. The results of this study suggest that black men must work at least twice as hard as equally qualified whites simply to overcome the stigma of their skin color.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/11/14/race-criminal-background-and-employment/

What was surprising was that race actually turned out to be more significant than a criminal background. Notice that employers were more likely to call Whites with a criminal record (17% were offered an interview) than Blacks without a criminal record (14%). And while having a criminal background hurt all applicants’ chances of getting an interview, African Americans with a non-violent offense faced particularly dismal employment prospects. Imagine if the fake criminal offense had been for a property or violent crime. In addition, according to Pager, employers seemed to expect that Black applicants might have a criminal record:

“When people think of Black men they think of a criminal. It affects the way Black men are treated in the labor market. In fact, Black testers in our study were likely to be asked up front if they have a criminal record, while whites were rarely asked, so you can see that there are expectations about Black applicants that shape the decisions.”

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Credible proof or you're a liar. I could quite easily prove the opposite though.

There's your proof. So, tell me how you intend to prove Janelle is a liar. You have my undivided attention.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Su and Marvin

[UncleBeer 244]

There's your proof.

Are you Janelle's appointed "helper"?

So: Anderson Cooper = "credible proof"? Seriously? Gonna make me use the laughing emoticon again?

And the study from "thesocietypage" that you wish I could take seriously: while they meant to take only skin color into account in a job interview, there's absolutely no mention of demeanor, which anyone who's ever held a job knows counts for far more.

"Credible proof" try again.

The credible proof of reverse discrimination of which I spoke: Plenty more where this came from.

...The city gave the test to 118 candidates, 27 of whom were black. None of the black candidates scored high enough to qualify for the 15 positions that were immediately available. All 20 of the plaintiffs qualified. After a series of raucous meetings, the city civil service board decided to scrap the test results and promote no one...

[Danno 1,228]

What? It should be used to hiring and college. People should be able to compete REGARDLESS of color for ANYTHING. Jobs, education, etc.

My skin color or name should not be considered when applying for ANYTHING!

Look, I am all for Bob Johnson or JET Magazine hiring who they want... it is their money they are spending but when we talk about Gov't money and Gov't institutions we

must treat people as equal rather than some people MORE equal.

Don't you agree?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Are you Janelle's appointed "helper"?

So: Anderson Cooper = "credible proof"? Seriously? Gonna make me use the laughing emoticon again?

And the study from "thesocietypage" that you wish I could take seriously: while they meant to take only skin color into account in a job interview, there's absolutely no mention of demeanor, which anyone who's ever held a job knows counts for far more.

"Credible proof" try again.

The credible proof of reverse discrimination of which I spoke: Plenty more where this came from.

What's the matter? CNN is not credible enough for you?

And your next statement is completely silly. A college graduate or a person knows how to interview for a job. Told you, your trolling skills suck.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Are you Janelle's appointed "helper"?

So: Anderson Cooper = "credible proof"? Seriously? Gonna make me use the laughing emoticon again?

And the study from "thesocietypage" that you wish I could take seriously: while they meant to take only skin color into account in a job interview, there's absolutely no mention of demeanor, which anyone who's ever held a job knows counts for far more.

"Credible proof" try again.

The credible proof of reverse discrimination of which I spoke: Plenty more where this came from.

Look at this video and he talks about the study done by Harvard. You say you want blacks to get an education and a job, but yet and still cannot get a job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JhfVhu6tOs