A Supreme Court Ruling That Warms My Little Racist Heart

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]

The answer is pretty obvious. Whenever the group being given the benefits is no longer underrepresented because of the past injustices.

[/ QUOTE ]

OH! Well that should be easy to figure out! Silly me.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
And yet here 2+2 is, arguing about whether blacks are genetically predisposed to low SAT scores and basketball.

It boggles the mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, well, there are plenty on this forum who spend great quantities of time pushing evolution skepticism (*cough bills217 cough*) and other nonsense that contradicts what has been accepted scientific fact for more than a century, so it shouldn't be a surprise that many on this forum have views on race that look like they come straight out of Birth of a Nation.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot believe the shallowness of this discussion. It is an embarrassment, frankly.

Here is the context that is being omitted from this discussion:

Until Brown v. Board of Education, black students were forcibly segregated into inferior schools, while white students received better funding, better facilities and better education. This was not backdoor, under-the-counter, hush-hush behavior. This was OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT POLICY. For generations.

After Brown ruled this practice unconstitutional, school districts around the country magically continued to do end-runs around it for the next two decades, in order to channel white students into better schools and black students into inferior schools. That is not irrelevant, either.

THIS is where the whole discussion STARTS.

The movement and ideology behind segregation did not suddenly vanish off the face of the earth in 1954. It didn't vanish by 1964, either. Or 1974. Or yesterday. The institutional structure behind such separate-and-unequal policies was MASSIVE. Powerful people, in powerful positions, with massive social and ideological investment.

You cannot have a discussion about school integration unless you place it in the context of the segregationist history it was designed to remedy.

And you cannot have a discussion about affirmative action unless you place it in the context of the OFFICIAL second-class status it was designed to address.

And yet here 2+2 is, arguing about whether blacks are genetically predisposed to low SAT scores and basketball.

It boggles the mind.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

In all honesty, I think that the segregation practice went far beyond what was instituted law at the time. I think it reached into the economics of the day. Black communities were poorer and therefore collected less taxes and got proportional public money for their schools. So, the premise of separate but equal turned into serparate and unequal.

What was economic reality then is not economically reality now. The purpose Brown vs. BoE was meant to redress doesn't exist any longer. The court took this into consideration, I'm sure.

Onto the idealogical and social investment. I submit that those people who are for racial quotas have an enormous investment in their perpetuation. I think that racial quotas do what they are intended to do. That is to drive a wedge in society to promote the classification of victims and preferred classes by forces in the government who seek to gain votes by paying off the victim mentality.

The answer to equality is to make everyone self reliant. The government would lose out on that, though, and naturally has no interest in it. Preferred classes and quotas and diversity simple serve to perpetuate reliance on a nanny government for the permenantly perpetuated underclasses.

[Bill Murphy]

Haven't read the whole thread, but a few comments.

Very clever use of the word "voluntary" by the libs & media. It was voluntary for the SCHOOLS not the kid riding a bus two hours each way.

The Louisville plan was one thing, but it's almost impossible for me to believe anyone who closely looked at the Seattle plan could think it constitutional. ANd it sure seems it wasn't very effective, either.

That said, f-diversity. Instead of busing kids, how bout 'busing' adults? Rather than experimenting on the kids, let's limit the amount of each race that can move into each neighborhood. And, of course, plenty of folks gotta move out pronto. Diversity, n aw.

Breyer's 27 minute reading of his dissent must've been unbearable. This whole "Each of the four lib Justices takes a turn reading the dissent aloud for each 5-4 case" thing is getting real tired. Did Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, White & Burger ever do that when they were on the losing end of a 5-4?

And I'd just love to know the "diversity" of the neighborhoods Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and their children & grand-children live in, as well as of the schools the youngsters attended or are attending.

Just blatant hypocrisy. Yeah, Breyer's 8 year old grandaughter is gonna ride a bus 60 minutes each way to a run down school in Daly City, riiiiiighttttt.

Let's start by making sure all the schools are equally funded and new staff are equally assigned, m'K?

LOL at the liberals shock, shock, that elections have consequences & "precedent" means little when you have 5 votes the other way. And really, most of these recent decisions are pretty narrow thanks to A. Kennedy.

The reactions have been so over the top, it's bound to backfire eventually. Brown is set in steel; to suggest otherwise is ludicrous, and many LIBERALS think McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. Hell, Bush only signed it because he was sure it would be overturned & then he wouldn't be on record as against "campaign financing reform". Whatta maroon.

Several conservative commentators I've read don't think Roberts and Alito will overturn Roe/Casey w/out at least 6-7 votes to do so, due to the political considerations. The ol' hollowing out strategy.

But at least some reasonable liberals are saying that they need to start focusing on legislative means to advance the progressive agenda, rather than judicial means, and I couldn't agree more.

Everyone's better off that way, and by golly, moderate plans usually win out, too.