We are talking about CIVIL.. cases like this one
Iowa Civil Asset Forfeiture Case Gets National Attention | whotv.com
2) 1320 puts the guy in roughly the top 8-10% of test takers. Assuming your story is not made up, I have a very hard time believing (i.e. do not believe at all) the person failed out for lack of ability. More likely is an obviously smart student failed out for the same reason most do at any level - lack of effort. And whatever factors were in play, this one person is irrelevant to the topic.
3) The topic is Lynch. She didn't fail out. She graduated from Harvard, HLS, and has had a distinguished 30 year career.
4) Whether Lynch earned her appointment to AG is completely unrelated to her college test scores, her GPA and class ranking. She graduated laws school 30 years ago. From that day forward, what matters is her record in her various jobs both in the public and private sector. When was the last time you cared about any politician's academic record who wasn't black or a woman? Never is a good guess.
5) You're entire argument is nothing more than Lynch was a beneficiary of AA in college. You ignore everything because you don't know anything about her career between 1984 and 2015 and conclude that her entire career is due "solely" to AA promotions. It's a transparently stupid and indefensible argument that has as a core assumption that a black woman cannot succeed based on her merits. It would be offensive if I cared about your opinion, and only not transparently racist because an elitist snobbery explains it just as well.
She will be gone with Obama.
America never ever promised freedom to anyone. What this nation tells us is work hard and study hard and good things will follow. All peoples that believe this or any government has to provide and promise will some day be exterminated as we in America exterminate blacks and poor people. We just don't use that word but look around. I don't want to live near them and neither does anyone that has worked their ass off for a descent home and life.
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Suskind, Ron (2004-10-17). Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush. The New York Times Magazine.
“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
its a complicated issue and the standard of proof changed in the last ten years. And I tried a bunch of these cases.
This would be grounds for a civil forfeiture case
David is a drug dealer. He has no known source of income other than drug dealing. He buys an expensive car and puts it in his father's name. his father is the "owner of record". One day the feds seize the car claiming it is the proceeds of drug sales that paid for the car. David doesn't make a claim on the car because he has no legitimate income. Rather, Steve, David's father makes the claim. He is not charged with any criminal offense so the forfeiture case is CIVIL. (as opposed to say an indictment against David listing say 100K in case seized along with two kilos of cocaine in David'd apartment during a search warrant execution)
So Steve files a claim to the car saying he has the title. The US Attorney brings in the car salesman who testifies that it was David who test drove the car. It was David who specified what extras the car would come with but Yes Steve "bought the car"
this happens all the time
In another case. Bill was a drug dealer. His mother and father combined made about 120K a year. Bill and his brother went out and bought a safe one day and put it in his parents' house.. the regional drug task force constantly saw Bill going in and out of his parents house driving a pimped out truck. Bill's income tax form for the prior 3 years indicated less than 8K a year in income. Warrants were obtained and the Parents' house was searched and the pimped out truck seized. The truck title had mom owning the truck even though it was not the style of vehicle a 65 year old Black female would drive but a common style for 30 year old drug dealers (heavily tinted windows, spinner rims etc)
in the safe was 300K in cash that two different dogs hit on. NOTHING belonging to the parents. the money was bundled in the same manner, and denominations as money seized from the Drug dealer's home. same color rubber bans. Stacks of 1000 dollars with the same packaging. 4 hundreds, four fifties ten twenties and the rest in tens or fives.
when the raid took place, one kid still living with the parents said the safe was "bill's". The father was unaware of the safe and the money. When the mother came home the cops asked for the combination. She walked away and came back and opened it. Cell phone records indicated she called Bill right before opening the safe
so again this was a civil forfeiture because the "owner" of the safe was not indicted for drug dealing
while I have lots of issues with civil forfeiture, in many cases it is justified.