Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Mich. Ban On Race In College Admissions Illegal

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Last Seen
    02-21-17 @ 07:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    309

    Re: Mich. Ban On Race In College Admissions Illegal

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    the problem isnt affirmative action its people using it improperly and abusing it or people improperly practicing it in way NOT intended because of extreme groups who will attempt to improperly use the 14th against them.


    Fact is ALL the 14th and affirmative action does force equal treatment of minorities and women etc. and doesnt allow you to discriminate based on THOSE things

    there is no law which mandates a QUOTA or RATIO.

    Things like these are made up by unions, business or people themselves not by law.
    An therein lies the problem because in the practical application of affirmative action dictates it all revolves around numbers and percentages. This inherently creates a quota system of sorts and no amount of obfuscation can really alter that.

  2. #22
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Mich. Ban On Race In College Admissions Illegal

    Quote Originally Posted by mtlhdtodd View Post
    An therein lies the problem because in the practical application of affirmative action dictates it all revolves around numbers and percentages. This inherently creates a quota system of sorts and no amount of obfuscation can really alter that.
    no the practical app does not, the impractical way people use it does.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  3. #23
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Mich. Ban On Race In College Admissions Illegal

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Link: Mich. Ban On Race In College Admissions Illegal - Education News Story - WDIV Detroit


    Umm.. What? So treating people as equal violates the eqal protection clause?

    Insane..

    Tim-
    Only a liberal judge would think that Race and gender based hiring preferences can fight discrimination.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  4. #24
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Mich. Ban On Race In College Admissions Illegal

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    It seems that posters here are barking up the wrong tree. this wasn't ruled based on what some seems to think (or wish) it was based on.
    Here's the actual opinion:

    http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions...1a0174p-06.pdf


    It seems that if they had passed this in another way, ie not a constitutional amendment, it would have stood
    .


    nothing to see here actually, people
    much more boring than you had hoped

    a. Hunter
    The Supreme Court in Hunter addressed a situation where the citizens of Akron,
    Ohio overturned a fair housing ordinance enacted by the City Council. 393 U.S. at 386.
    The citizenry did more than merely repeal the ordinance, however. It amended the city
    charter through a referendum to require the approval of a majority of the electorate
    before any ordinance regulating real estate “on the basis of race, color, religion, national
    origin or ancestry”—past or future—could become effective. Id. at 387, 390 n.6. In
    other words, only ordinances based on the identified factors required approval of the
    majority; ordinances based on any other factor required only a vote by the City Council:
    In essence, the amendment changed the requirements for the adoption of
    one type of local legislation: to enact an ordinance barring housing
    discrimination on the basis of race or religion, proponents had to obtain
    the approval of the City Council and of a majority of the voters citywide.
    To enact an ordinance preventing housing discrimination on other
    grounds, or to enact any other type of housing ordinance, proponents
    needed the support of only the City Council.
    Seattle, 458 U.S. at 468 (describing Hunter). The effect was not only to halt operation
    of the existing fair housing ordinance, but also to erect a barrier to any similar ordinance
    in the future. Hunter, 393 U.S. at 389.
    The Court found that the disparity between the process for enacting a future fair
    housing ordinance and that for enacting any other housing ordinance “place[d] special
    burden[s] on racial minorities within the governmental process” by making it
    “substantially more difficult to secure enactment” only of legislation that would be to
    their benefit. Id. at 390-91. While the enactment treated “Negro and white, Jew and
    gentile” in an identical manner, the Court found that “the reality is that the law’s impact
    falls on the minority.” Id. at 391. That the law had been enacted via a popular
    referendum did not save it from implementing “a real, substantial, and invidious denial
    of the equal protection of the laws.” Id. at 392-93
    I disagree. First off, I already pointed this out.

    Secondly, this is simply a fancy excuse the court is using to overturn the will of the people and legislate from the bench.

    Claiming that it should have been done another way so that it would be easier to overturn in the future is judicial activism. If we hold to this argument the parts of the Constitution that ban discrimination against minorities, women etc. will also need to be overturned as it places to high a burden to overturn it on the few who feel minorities and women shouldn’t have the right to vote.

    I’m not advocating such positions but I use them to point out the absurdity of the argument/reasoning used in overturning this law.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  5. #25
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,893
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Mich. Ban On Race In College Admissions Illegal

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    I disagree.
    With what exactly? That the court said what it said? Or you disagree with the court's reasoning? Or what?

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    Secondly, this is simply a fancy excuse the court is using to overturn the will of the people and legislate from the bench.
    So you've made up your mind and settled the matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    Claiming that it should have been done another way so that it would be easier to overturn in the future is judicial activism.
    If you're willing to include following established precedent as judicial activism.
    Last edited by Simon W. Moon; 07-01-11 at 05:26 PM. Reason: misread text
    I may be wrong.

  6. #26
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Mich. Ban On Race In College Admissions Illegal

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    With what exactly? That the court said what it said? Or you disagree with the court's reasoning? Or what?

    So you've made up your mind and settled the matter.

    If you're willing to include following established precedent as judicial activism.
    Try reading the ruling. They find a bill that removes race as a consideration to be “racist”.

    Get a clue dude.


    We therefore find that the race-conscious admissions policies now barred by
    Proposal 2 inure primarily to the benefit of racial minorities and that Proposal 2, insofar
    as it prohibits consideration of applicants’ race in admissions decisions, has a “racial
    focus.”

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •