PDA

View Full Version : In a stunning display of partisan stupidity ...



LWW
07-02-2011, 03:59 AM
... a US court, in a move that would make John Jay want to stooge slap the entire 3 judge panel, the COTUS has been ruled unconstitutional!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Detroit— Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said today he will appeal a court ruling that overturned the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which bans the use of race and gender preferences in college admissions and government hiring and contracting.

Schuette said he will make a formal request for a rehearing with the appeals court, a move that will keep the civil rights initiative — known as Proposal 2 — in place at least temporarily.

"MCRI embodies the fundamental premise of what America is all about: equal opportunity under the law," Schuette said in a statement. "Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit, and I will continue the fight for equality, fairness and rule of law."

A federal appeals court today overturned Proposal 2, saying the voter-approved measure harms minorities and is unconstitutional.

The 2006 law forced the University of Michigan and other state schools to revise their admission policies. In a 2-1 decision, the judges ruled that the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.


From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110701/SCHO...s#ixzz1QwMspkUf (http://detnews.com/article/20110701/SCHOOLS/107010416/State-to-fight-ruling-against-ban-on-race-in-college-admissions#ixzz1QwMspkUf) </div></div>

Yes folks, you read that correctly. The 14th amendment to the COTUS guarantees equal protection under the law, and thereby following the 14th constitutes a violation of the 14th ... which makes, according to this moonbat deluxe panel, the COTUS unconstitutional.

This is where a cabal member pontificates that the COTUS says what it says and means what it means, but it doesn't actually say what it means or mean what it says ... and we need a moonbat on the bench to explain to the proletariat what it actually means.

Soflasnapper
07-02-2011, 05:43 PM
Your take is ridiculous, of course.

The court didn't rule that the 14th amendment was unConstitutional. They ruled that this law, which was passed by the most learned Constitutional scholars ever, known as the general public, violates the 14th amendment.

That's slightly different, which is to say, the opposite of how you framed it.

The people did not claim this law was necessary because of the 14th amendment. They passed it because they hate affirmative action in education and hiring.

The federal judge who first ruled it was an ok law did so under the analysis that it did not invidiously harm minorities (because if it did, THAT would be against the 14th amendment).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In 2008, a federal judge in Detroit upheld the law, saying it was race-neutral.
</div></div>

The appellate panel of judges thought it DID invidiously harm minorities, and that it is far from race neutral. Which is a question of fact rather than of law, upon which reasonable people may disagree. I think it more likely than not that the effects are certainly not race-neutral, if that is the standard.

What is not in dispute is this take from the linked article:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"[...]. These justices held onto this ruling for years and released it the day before the holiday weekend. They were hoping they would catch people off guard and not make the news."
</div></div>

Which is silly. Clearly, the proponents of this law were not going to miss this, nor fail to bring their own appeal. Late week announcement or not.

LWW
07-02-2011, 05:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your take is ridiculous, of course.

The court didn't rule that the 14th amendment was unConstitutional. They ruled that this law, which was passed by the most learned Constitutional scholars ever, known as the general public, violates the 14th amendment.

That's slightly different, which is to say, the opposite of how you framed it. </div></div>

That is doublethink and blackwhite of the highest order.

The 14th bans state discrimination. The court has ruled that any law which enforces the 14th's ban on discrimination violates the 14th's ban on discrimination because it doesn't demand discrimination.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">'Do you remember,' he went on, 'writing in your diary, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four"?'

'Yes,' said Winston.

O'Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.

'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?'

'Four.'

'And if the party says that it is not four but five -- then how many?'

'Four.'

The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston's body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O'Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Four.'

The needle went up to sixty.

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!'

The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it. The heavy, stern face and the four fingers filled his vision. The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four.

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!'

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Five! Five! Five!'

'No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?'

'Four! five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!'

Abruptly he was sitting up with O'Brien's arm round his shoulders. He had perhaps lost consciousness for a few seconds. The bonds that had held his body down were loosened. He felt very cold, he was shaking uncontrollably, his teeth were chattering, the tears were rolling down his cheeks. For a moment he clung to O'Brien like a baby, curiously comforted by the heavy arm round his shoulders. He had the feeling that O'Brien was his protector, that the pain was something that came from outside, from some other source, and that it was O'Brien who would save him from it.

'You are a slow learner, Winston,' said O'Brien gently.

'How can I help it?' he blubbered. 'How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.'

'Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.'

He laid Winston down on the bed. The grip of his limbs tightened again, but the pain had ebbed away and the trembling had stopped, leaving him merely weak and cold. O'Brien motioned with his head to the man in the white coat, who had stood immobile throughout the proceedings. The man in the white coat bent down and looked closely into Winston's eyes, felt his pulse, laid an ear against his chest, tapped here and there, then he nodded to O'Brien.

'Again,' said O'Brien.

The pain flowed into Winston's body. The needle must be at seventy, seventy-five. He had shut his eyes this time. He knew that the fingers were still there, and still four. All that mattered was somehow to stay alive until the spasm was over. He had ceased to notice whether he was crying out or not. The pain lessened again. He opened his eyes. O'Brien had drawn back the lever.

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Four. I suppose there are four. I would see five if I could. I am trying to see five.'

'Which do you wish: to persuade me that you see five, or really to see them?'

'Really to see them.'

'Again,' said O'Brien.

Perhaps the needle was eighty -- ninety. Winston could not intermittently remember why the pain was happening. Behind his screwed-up eyelids a forest of fingers seemed to be moving in a sort of dance, weaving in and out, disappearing behind one another and reappearing again. He was trying to count them, he could not remember why. He knew only that it was impossible to count them, and that this was somehow due to the mysterious identity between five and four. The pain died down again. When he opened his eyes it was to find that he was still seeing the same thing. Innumerable fingers, like moving trees, were still streaming past in either direction, crossing and recrossing. He shut his eyes again.

'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?'

'I don't know. I don't know. You will kill me if you do that again. Four, five, six -- in all honesty I don't know.'

'Better,' said O'Brien. </div></div>

Soflasnapper
07-03-2011, 07:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper
Your take is ridiculous, of course.

The court didn't rule that the 14th amendment was unConstitutional. They ruled that this law, which was passed by the most learned Constitutional scholars ever, known as the general public, violates the 14th amendment.

That's slightly different, which is to say, the opposite of how you framed it.</div></div>


That is doublethink and blackwhite of the highest order.

The 14th bans state discrimination. The court has ruled that any law which enforces the 14th's ban on discrimination violates the 14th's ban on discrimination because it doesn't demand discrimination.

Absent a clear past history of discrimination, these kinds of Affirmative Action programs might be violations of equal protection. Given clear past histories of discrimination, AA is an allowable remedy, not as the only criterion considered, but along with others.

When I took the civil service exam, I was told that veterans of the armed service would receive preference points toward their scores from that service. There are many such preferences in admissions, including being a family member of an alumnus/alumna, having a viable athletic skill, and etc. As a transfer to Princeton, it helped that I was from the Pacific Northwest, and it would have hurt if I had been from the Northeast, using a diversity criterion and giving extra weight to my application for that purpose.

If everybody were to be judged entirely upon merit of their test scores, transcripts and reference letters, then perhaps there would be a point to take out the racially based weighting. However, no such move was in this law, and while leaving in all other preferences, they took out only the racially based criterion. Which is not race-neutral, as the one judge based his approval of the law on.

If that's the criteria for legality-- that such a law be race-neutral-- then it fails that test, and would therefore be illegal.

Since the judges are neither the final word on this, nor are allowed to make new law, being required to follow existing law, you have a problem WITH THE LAW, as they judge its application here. You, like the people of that state, do not enjoy superior knowledge of the applicable law.

Of course, sometimes and maybe even often, the way the law works out in court opinions is curious, and seems to be wrong. That it may not be might take completion of a law degree to understand.

LWW
07-04-2011, 03:58 AM
Wrong, again.

I have no problem with the law ... I have a problem with willfully ignoring the actual law.

To anyone that isn't a hyper-partisan nit ... this one is a no-brainer.

The court has ruled that any law banning discrimination is discrimination, and only further discrimination can be seen as being non-discriminatory.

Soflasnapper
07-04-2011, 09:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wrong, again.

I have no problem with the law ... I have a problem with willfully ignoring the actual law.

To anyone that isn't a hyper-partisan nit ... this one is a no-brainer.

The court has ruled that any law banning discrimination is discrimination, and only further discrimination can be seen as being non-discriminatory. </div></div>

First, that can only be a law within their district coverage. Appellate courts cannot bind other appellate districts, only the SCOTUS does that.

Secondly, this ruling applies to this law, not all such laws necessarily.