| Ricci:outright reversal..5-4; Ideological lines..reverse dicscrim. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 28 2009, 08:33 AM (3,463 Views) | |
| Joan Foster | Jul 2 2009, 07:56 AM Post #106 |
|
"Injecting Sotomayor into this epochal debate when her hearings begin in a couple of weeks will introduce a passionate and committed advocate of affirmative action. In her professional life and in her many speeches, the woman who would be the first Hispanic justice has repeatedly signaled that she does not believe the wounds of racial discrimination are completely healed, or that the remedies of the past are no longer needed. In that, she is joined by Obama, who rejects the notion that his election signaled the advent of some "post-racial" age. In his great address in Philadelphia in March 2008, candidate Obama said, "Race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. ... As William Faulkner once wrote, 'The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past.'" He argued that the wounds of slavery and segregation are still being felt, noting that because "blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire department meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations." You have to believe that as Obama has the opportunity over time to reshape the Supreme Court, there will be more Sotomayors -- and more of a challenge to those who wish to dispute the continuing damage that segregation has done to this country, and the continuing need for race-conscious remedies." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/02/the_issue_thats_not_going_away_97273.html So here's the question: does Obama mean to discriminate against the next generation or two of white children to allow Blacks to "amass the wealth" he thinks they missed out on? Is that what Sotomayer and The Obama SCOTUS will aim to do? Edited by Joan Foster, Jul 2 2009, 07:58 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Lodge Pro 345 | Jul 2 2009, 12:13 PM Post #107 |
|
. Obama criticizes the Supreme Court on Ricci - affirmative action! "President Barack Obama said Thursday the Supreme Court was "moving the ball" on affirmative action in this week's decision favoring white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., but he added that the court had not ruled out the use of racial preferences in the future. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8589006 . |
![]() |
|
| Acc Esq | Jul 2 2009, 12:27 PM Post #108 |
|
In a word, yes. |
![]() |
|
| foxglove | Jul 3 2009, 03:11 PM Post #109 |
|
Obama stated that blacks haven't been allowed to amass the wealth that whites have in previous generations. But that assumes that a majority of whites are being given wealth amassed by their parents or grandparents. Where are the statistics to prove that? There is a black middle class and many poor and middle class white people. |
![]() |
|
| cks | Jul 3 2009, 03:47 PM Post #110 |
|
The wealth that those parents of the last generation amassed has disappeared either through the rapid decline of the stock market (anyone with GM stock knows this) and/or has used it to pay the exorbitant cost of a college education in today's market. When the federal government under Obama's leadership with the aid of his cohorts Pelosi and Reid in the Congress push through their visions of health reform and the myriad of other programs which will have the net effect of making taking even more of the wealth of this nation, there will be no one who will have anything left to pass on to his or her offspring. |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jul 3 2009, 03:52 PM Post #111 |
|
Mr. Ricci doesn't look to me like any trust fund baby. But Obama doesn't want to talk about that. |
![]() |
|
| brittany | Jul 3 2009, 03:55 PM Post #112 |
|
He's a low life. |
![]() |
|
| brittany | Jul 3 2009, 03:56 PM Post #113 |
|
He only the President of blacks in America. |
![]() |
|
| brittany | Jul 3 2009, 03:57 PM Post #114 |
|
Imposter.Bogus Potus.Show me the birth certificate. |
![]() |
|
| brittany | Jul 3 2009, 04:22 PM Post #115 |
|
deleted
Edited by brittany, Jul 3 2009, 06:44 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| brittany | Jul 3 2009, 06:44 PM Post #116 |
|
read re vargas http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/nyregion/03firefighter.html?ref=nyregion NEW HAVEN — The two dozen firefighters who packed into Humphrey’s East Restaurant were celebrating a coming marriage, drinking and jawboning in the boisterous style of large men with risky jobs, but Lt. Ben Vargas spent the evening trying to escape the tension surrounding his presence. During a trip to the bathroom, he found himself facing another man. Without warning, the first punch landed. When Lieutenant Vargas awoke, bloodied and splayed on the grimy floor, he was taken to the hospital. Lieutenant Vargas believes the attack, five years ago, was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retaliation for his having joined a racial discrimination lawsuit against the city over its tossing out of an exam for promotion that few minority firefighters passed. (No arrests were made in the attack, and the black firefighter vigorously denies having been involved.) When the Hispanic firefighters’ association and its members — including Lieutenant Vargas’s brother — refused to publicly stand behind him, he quit the organization. Lieutenant Vargas, who posted the sixth-highest score on the exam, was ridiculed as a token, a turncoat and an Uncle Tom — all of which, he said, “made my resolve that much stronger.” snip Edited by brittany, Jul 3 2009, 06:47 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| brittany | Jul 3 2009, 06:56 PM Post #117 |
|
In 2003, Lieutenant Vargas was one of 56 people in the department who passed a test for promotion; 15 were black or Hispanic. When city officials discovered that only two of those were likely to be immediately promoted, they decided to throw out the test, citing concerns that minority candidates might again sue, alleging discrimination. Instead, a group of white firefighters sued. The results had been posted by race, without names, and when Lieutenant Vargas learned that a Hispanic firefighter had scored sixth among 41 lieutenants on the test to become a captain, he joined the suit. Only later did he discover that the score was his. “I would have carried the load all by myself,” he said of filing the suit. “Luckily there were enough people out there who felt like I did that we could stand together.” But Lieutenant Vargas bore more than his share of the criticism, said Lt. Matthew Marcarelli, who was among the plaintiffs and has known Lieutenant Vargas since they were classmates at the fire academy. “Why the other guys viewed him as a turncoat I really don’t understand. He did it because he’s principled and he thought it was the right thing to do. Benny’s nobody’s token.” Chief Marquez said his old protégé was “an easy target because he didn’t fall in line.” “It seems that if you’re not the right type of minority, you get hammered,” he said. The president of the black firefighters’ group in New Haven did not return calls seeking comment. Despite the ugly episode at Humphrey’s East shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Lieutenant Vargas said that little tension remained in the department, and that he was hopeful that the court decision would end the rest. He noted that the Hispanic firefighters’ association reversed course in February, after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and publicly endorsed his position. Gesturing toward his three young sons, Lieutenant Vargas explained why he had no regrets. “I want them to have a fair shake, to get a job on their merits and not because they’re Hispanic or they fill a quota,” he said. “What a lousy way to live.” Edited by brittany, Jul 3 2009, 06:57 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| brittany | Jul 3 2009, 06:59 PM Post #118 |
|
Wonder what they think of Sotomayor? Edited by brittany, Jul 3 2009, 06:59 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| chatham | Jul 3 2009, 08:05 PM Post #119 |
|
If there is a place where one can be confident that racism will occur, it is the larger cities in CT. There is white black and black white conflicts in New Haven. white black and hispanic conflicts in hartford. ethnic racism in bridgeport where the mafia have a lot of influence and the rich white new york workers live in the stamford greenwich area. It is a beautiful small state with a lot of smaller close knit towns. |
![]() |
|
| buckeye | Jul 4 2009, 03:02 AM Post #120 |
|
Here was a good and comical take on this decision from Ann Coulter. http://www.anncoulter.com/ Liberals desperately want race quotas -- as long as quotas never come to their offices. But they can't say that, so instead they talk in circles for 10 hours straight, until everyone else is exhausted, and then, when no one is paying attention, they announce: So we're all agreed -- we will have racial quotas. Based on her lifetime of experience working as a firefighter, Ginsburg said: "Relying heavily on written tests to select fire officers is a questionable practice, to say the least." Liberals prefer a more objective test, such as race. Isn't excelling on written tests how Ruth Bader Ginsburg got where she is? It's curious how people whose entire careers are based on doing well on tests find them so irrelevant to other people's jobs. In the middle of a fire, it can either be a great idea or the worst possible idea to open a door. An excellent method for finding out if your next fire chief knows the correct answer is a written test. Unleashing the canard of all race-obsessed liberals, Ginsburg observed that courts have found that a fire officer's job "involves complex behaviors, good interpersonal skills, the ability to make decisions under tremendous pressure, and a host of other abilities -- none of which is easily measured by a written, multiple choice test." So does a lawyer's job. And yet attorneys with absolutely no "interpersonal skills" get cushy jobs and extravagant salaries on the basis of their commendable performance on all manner of written tests, from multiple choice LSATs and bar exams to written law school exams. I note that Ginsburg has not shown any particular interest in rectifying the "disparate impact" of legal exams: She never hired a single black law clerk out of the dozens she employed in more than a decade as an appeals court judge. (Her hiring practices on the Supreme Court are a state secret, but I can state with supreme certainty that her clerks do not reflect the racial mix of Washington, D.C.) But liberals think other people's jobs are a joke, so the testing must also be a joke. That is -- other than their preferred test: "Is the applicant black, female or otherwise handicapped?" There is no test that can prove all things about an employee and so there is no test that can't be derided by the race-mongers. Which is exactly the point. Get rid of all tests -- except for lawyers who graduated at the top of their law school classes at Columbia, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Then liberals are free to impose racial quotas on other people's jobs without limit. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |







3:25 AM Jul 11