"Activist Judges"

[wmw999 2,587]

Remember 10-15 years ago when there was all the screeching about "activist judges?"

Interesting how there isn't any screeching any more, now that 50+ years of rulings are being set aside willy-nilly in an attempt to return us to the glorious 1950's, when current old people were children, and generally protected by their parents and a society that assigned roles based on position, gender, and race.

Wendy P.

[kallend 2,146]

Well, we have three Supreme Court justices appointed by a president who had 4 million fewer votes than his opponent, confirmed by a Senate majority representing  way fewer than half the population.  One of those justices was appointed in a rush right before an election, while another only made it because a Senator from a tiny state, the same Senator that rushed through the Barrett confrmation, chose to delay and delay and delay  the hearings on another well quailfied candidate for no reason other than it was an election year.

Isn't the US Constitution a wonderful thing?  

Edited June 30, 2023 by kallend
spelin'

[billeisele 130]

What's interesting is that the lawsuit was brought by a group that was or still is a minority. They believe that are denied opportunities because of what they believe is preferential treatment of those less qualified. 

[wmw999 2,587]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

What's interesting is that the lawsuit was brought by a group that was or still is a minority. They believe that are denied opportunities because of what they believe is preferential treatment of those less qualified. 

That depends on who's defining "qualified." If it's the university, then surely they get some say in what qualifications are important. And if the university considers that exposing students to diversity of various kinds is a valid goal, then it's up to the university to build a diverse community.

Grades aren't the only arbiter of who gets into any given college. They matter, but just as being an asshole is a disqualification for some jobs, there are other things to consider. I believe the SC is saying that diversity targets cannot include race as a criterion. So I guess that means that they can include membership in the NOI, along with NASCAR fandom, in the considerations of diversity.

Note that the University of Texas gives preference to some top percentage of all high schools in Texas, and provides a tuition waiver for the first year for any valedictorian. That's one way. Schools are going to have to find ways. Of course, schools that emphasize "traditional" (i.e. back to the 1950's) can keep admitting good Christian kids, and ignoring noisy minorities, possible feminists, and boys and girls who dress funny. Thereby producing graduates who aren't equipped to deal with who's actually in the workforce these days.

Wendy P.

[airdvr 210]

If your goal is improving race relations then we must stop differentiating by race.  Any policy that gives preference by race is inherently racist.

[wmw999 2,587]

50 minutes ago, airdvr said:

If your goal is improving race relations then we must stop differentiating by race.  Any policy that gives preference by race is inherently racist.

And any policy that doesn't recognize that individuals give preference by race is blind. As is any policy that doesn't recognize the damage done by long-term discrimination. It's like that old analogy of a tilted soccer field; when the score is 238-6, you make it flat, and then wonder why "they" are still losing the game.

Wendy P.

[JoeWeber 2,938]

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Remember 10-15 years ago when there was all the screeching about "activist judges?"

Interesting how there isn't any screeching any more, now that 50+ years of rulings are being set aside willy-nilly in an attempt to return us to the glorious 1950's, when current old people were children, and generally protected by their parents and a society that assigned roles based on position, gender, and race.

Wendy P.

You'd have thought that when misguided touchy feely Liberal Activist General William Tecumseh Sherman had his ridiculous Field Order 15 revoked and every temporarily fortunate former slave had to give back their 40 acres, and in some cases a mule too, the libtocracy would have learned. Any attempt at helping the socially disadvantaged and obviously harmed, even if it is a net benefit for all of society, is wrongheaded and doomed. Folks need to make themselves some boot straps out of stuff just laying around and pull themselves up. Who knows, it just might become an exercise fad and they'll make millions on youtube. Enough maybe that they can afford to secretly fly Supreme Court Justices around the world on vacations that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and give free housing to their mom's. Ah, the American Way.

[jakee 1,594]

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

What's interesting is that the lawsuit was brought by a group that was or still is a minority. They believe that are denied opportunities because of what they believe is preferential treatment of those less qualified. 

And the last time the topic came up you agreed that they are denied opportunities because of preferential treatment of those less qualified.

[jakee 1,594]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

If your goal is improving race relations then we must stop differentiating by race.  Any policy that gives preference by race is inherently racist.

Reality already differentiates by race. The job market already differentiates by race. Access to top level universities is not meritocratic and access to top level firms is not meritocratic, advantages for the previously advantaged are baked into the system. Policy making that simply says 'that's the way it is' is racist.

[billvon 3,111]

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

What's interesting is that the lawsuit was brought by a group that was or still is a minority. They believe that are denied opportunities because of what they believe is preferential treatment of those less qualified. 

White cis guys?  Not a minority yet - but they soon will be.

And that's what terrifies them.  A lot of conservatives are terrified that conservatives will be treated the same way that whites once treated minorities.

[billvon 3,111]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

If your goal is improving race relations then we must stop differentiating by race.  Any policy that gives preference by race is inherently racist.

So any attempt to stop racism against blacks is itself racist?

That sounds like a white supremacist's dream.  Claim that black people don't get jobs or into schools because they are lazy or something - CERTAINLY not racism, because people like them don't see race!  And if anyone attempts to fix that sort of exclusion, why, THEY are the real racists.

[JerryBaumchen 1,466]

37 minutes ago, billvon said:

White cis guys?  Not a minority yet - but they soon will be.

And that's what terrifies them.  A lot of conservatives are terrified that conservatives will be treated the same way that whites once treated minorities.

Hi Bill,

And, IMO this is exactly why they support Trump and those of similar ilk.

They are afraid of the future. *

Jerry Baumchen

* So were the Luddites; they also failed.  The future is a'coming and it is not the same as the past.

PS)  One more example:  Christian designer can refuse to make wedding websites for gay couples, Supreme Court rules - oregonlive.com

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by JerryBaumchen

[GeorgiaDon 379]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

If your goal is improving race relations then we must stop differentiating by race.  Any policy that gives preference by race is inherently racist.

I heard an interesting example on NPR yesterday.  Imagine two businesses.  One has a sign on the door that says "No blacks allowed".  The other has a sign that says "Black people welcome".  Both signs mention race.  Are they both racist?  The conservatives on the SC seem to think so.

[JerryBaumchen 1,466]

15 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

I heard an interesting example on NPR yesterday.  Imagine two businesses.  One has a sign on the door that says "No blacks allowed".  The other has a sign that says "Black people welcome".  Both signs mention race.  Are they both racist?  The conservatives on the SC seem to think so.

Hi Don,

The sign in my front yard:

Am I a racist?

Jerry Baumchen

 

[airdvr 210]

1 hour ago, GeorgiaDon said:

I heard an interesting example on NPR yesterday.  Imagine two businesses.  One has a sign on the door that says "No blacks allowed".  The other has a sign that says "Black people welcome".  Both signs mention race.  Are they both racist?  The conservatives on the SC seem to think so.

Not a very good example...how about one business charges blacks less than all others.

And you somehow think that's making the situation better?  Hell even California recognized it was a bad idea.

Something about content of their character and all.

 

 

I

 

[jakee 1,594]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Not a very good example...how about one business charges blacks less than all others.

That’s a terrible example. 

Businesses chose to charge a lot of white guys less than everyone else, and then were made to offer the same savings to at least a couple of black guys.

[JoeWeber 2,938]

6 hours ago, airdvr said:

If your goal is improving race relations then we must stop differentiating by race.  Any policy that gives preference by race is inherently racist.

“God only knows where I would be today” if not for the legal principles of equal employment opportunity measures such as affirmative action that are “critical to minorities and women in this society.”

“These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years,”

Attributed to Clarence Thomas, when he was EEOC chairman in 1983.

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by JoeWeber

[Phil1111 1,176]

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Don,

The sign in my front yard:

Am I a racist?

Jerry Baumchen

 

Brent has a sign too:

And trump has a sign at his golf course:

[billeisele 130]

On 6/30/2023 at 9:54 AM, wmw999 said:

That depends on who's defining "qualified." If it's the university, then surely they get some say in what qualifications are important. And if the university considers that exposing students to diversity of various kinds is a valid goal, then it's up to the university to build a diverse community.

Grades aren't the only arbiter of who gets into any given college. They matter, but just as being an asshole is a disqualification for some jobs, there are other things to consider. I believe the SC is saying that diversity targets cannot include race as a criterion. So I guess that means that they can include membership in the NOI, along with NASCAR fandom, in the considerations of diversity.

Note that the University of Texas gives preference to some top percentage of all high schools in Texas, and provides a tuition waiver for the first year for any valedictorian. That's one way. Schools are going to have to find ways. Of course, schools that emphasize "traditional" (i.e. back to the 1950's) can keep admitting good Christian kids, and ignoring noisy minorities, possible feminists, and boys and girls who dress funny. Thereby producing graduates who aren't equipped to deal with who's actually in the workforce these days.

Wendy P.

No doubt it is, and has been, a complicated topic. Some things are quantitative and others aren't. In this instance a minority group said they were being denied opportunities because others were being given preference based on race. Basically, no fair I'm more qualified.

I'm not familiar with this issue at the college admission level but have seen it in the workplace. When bad decisions are made with promotions or hiring it harms the enterprise. I'm acutely aware of one example where a highly educated black female had another black female put in place as her manager. The new manager was super unqualified. The good employee quit and stated that was the prime reason for quitting. Not good.

Bill V, Kallend and others will like this ... if you're in the electric utility industry in a technical department, and your new manager, that has worked in the industry for 15+ years, is representing your group in a meeting and they have to ask you, "What does frequency mean?", that's a sign that they are unqualified for the job.

This particular manager was being placed in a job with a group of highly talented, long-term, competent employees. She was put there to be "out of the way", with the thinking that she couldn't mess it up. All she had to do was smile, sign off on administrative tasks like time sheets and expense reports, and keep her mouth shut. But no, she had to be in charge and tell people how to do things. So dumb. 

[jakee 1,594]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

This particular manager was being placed in a job with a group of highly talented, long-term, competent employees. She was put there to be "out of the way", with the thinking that she couldn't mess it up. All she had to do was smile, sign off on administrative tasks like time sheets and expense reports, and keep her mouth shut. But no, she had to be in charge and tell people how to do things. So dumb. 

And why do you think this was because of affirmative action? Your own example acknowledges that there were other competent, well qualified black people in the organisation, so why is it because of AA that an unqualified black person gets promoted? Shit people of all races and genders get promoted for all kinds of reasons.

The book “The Peter Principle” has been around for over 50 years now, and it wasn’t written about affirmative action.

[billeisele 130]

6 minutes ago, jakee said:

And why do you think this was because of affirmative action? Your own example acknowledges that there were other competent, well qualified black people in the organisation, so why is it because of AA that an unqualified black person gets promoted? Shit people of all races and genders get promoted for all kinds of reasons.

The book “The Peter Principle” has been around for over 50 years now, and it wasn’t written about affirmative action.

It's really not complicated. I didn't provide all the details, all the evidence was there. Not a Peter P thing but plenty of that stuff also.

[wmw999 2,587]

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

I'm acutely aware of one example where a highly educated black female had another black female put in place as her manager. The new manager was super unqualified. The good employee quit and stated that was the prime reason for quitting. Not good.

And I've never, ever, had a male, or white male, manager who sucked. Maybe the boss's son? Or just one of the guys who hangs out, so that the rest of management knows they can "give him a chance to learn."

Why is race and gender rarely remarked on when it's a white guy who's incompetent?

Wendy P.

[JoeWeber 2,938]

4 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

And I've never, ever, had a male, or white male, manager who sucked. Maybe the boss's son? Or just one of the guys who hangs out, so that the rest of management knows they can "give him a chance to learn."

Why is race and gender rarely remarked on when it's a white guy who's incompetent?

Wendy P.

Why?  Well, he told us: "It's really not complicated. I didn't provide all the details, all the evidence was there."

 

[jakee 1,594]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

It's really not complicated. I didn't provide all the details, all the evidence was there. 

What evidence?

[jakee 1,594]

35 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

And I've never, ever, had a male, or white male, manager who sucked. Maybe the boss's son? Or just one of the guys who hangs out, so that the rest of management knows they can "give him a chance to learn."

Why is race and gender rarely remarked on when it's a white guy who's incompetent?

Wendy P.

It’s funny that Bill’s example in the last thread a week or two back was that a company which almost exclusively hired alumni from one college had a superb black employee who graduated somewhere else - so clearly he was only there because of affirmative action.

My takeaway from the same story was that the black guy was probably one of the only people in the whole company who was hired purely on merit. Everyone else had preferential treatment.