The hard cold truth of modern style racism

[Flopper]

Diversity has no value. Judges are not to represent their ethnic groups, but to interpret the law.


That this is weird for you, might be one of the reasons for the lack of black judges.

Cultures whose goal is exclusiveness, do not survive because of the lack of diversity which means less exposure to new ideas and different approaches to problems.

It also means less diverse personality traits. Employers have to look harder for exactly the kind people they are looking for in non-diverse culture. For Example:
People from some countries are much more social and open, others are more reserved. The Japanese tend to be more polite and less aggressive. Brazilians tend to be more adaptive and creative in solving problems than most other countries. Filipino tend be more willing to help others. Egyptians tend much more reserved in public but very family orientated. Nigerians tend to be hardest working. The Dutch and the Swiss tend to be the most innovative.

The more diversity in the workforce, the more employers have to choose from.

"A lot of different flowers make a bouquet."
Muslim Origin

 

[Shrimpbox]

What a false argument. You cannot get justice if the court is all,white. How many white justices decided the landmark brown vs. board of education? You people are incapable of reason.

How many state courts made rulings so as not to follow this?

Who won out in the end. Go ahead, make more efforts to rewrite history.

 

[protectionist]

Post evidence of my racism. The NAACP was founded by blacks and whites. Whites are members of the NAACP.

Why would I, after you've posted it 26,000 times ?

I don't care who is in the NAACP. They're the most racist org in America.

 

[protectionist]

Cultures whose goal is exclusiveness, do not survived because of the lack of diversity which means less exposure to new ideas and different approaches to problems.

It also means less diverse personality traits. Employers have to look harder for exactly the kind people they are looking for in non-diverse culture. For Example:
People from some countries are much more social and open, others are more reserved. The Japanese tend to be more polite and less aggressive. Brazilians tend to be more adaptive and creative in solving problems than most other countries. Filipino tend be more willing to help others. Egyptians tend much more reserved in public but very family orientated. Nigerians tend to be hardest working. The Dutch and the Swiss tend to be the most innovative.

The more diversity in the workforce, the more employers have to choose from.

"A lot of different flowers make a bouquet."
Muslim Origin

What a pile of laughable, liberal horsefeathers. Sheesh!

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

By recent history I take it you mean since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? That's when racial and other discrimination was outlawed.

Do you have proof that qualified non whites were denied positions on any Supreme Court?

Do you have any proof that they haven't been?

And why did you change the parameters of your questions after I responded?

[snipped]
I can see through all that floss MizMolly, you're not fooling anyone.

You realized after you asked your question that of course there is ample evidence of people being denied employement due to their protected class status in recent years. I only asked if you meant since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to see if you all would cry that's too long ago. Instead you changed the question entirely to one for which there is a lot less easily obtained data.

I can always support the claims I make, but honestly what I expected you to come back with is "you can't prove a negative", cause that's how you roll.

We were not discussing all employment, just the Supreme Court positions. Try again.

You all are some of the most dishonest people in this hemisphere What the hell does "any position for any career" mean to you then?
You stated:

There is nothing keeping anybody from applying for any position for any career in this country

To which I replied:

Not anymore, at least not legally, but that's not the only way to keep out certain people that you don't want.

Then you went on appearing to agree that people engage in behavior that is not lawful when they utilize various means to keep people out of jobs or other places where they don't want them:

That happens in most cases, not just racial. It’s also true that some people blame race even when it isn’t the reason.

It's also true that some people will will do just about anything to avoid acknowledging the racial disparities, inequalities and animus that is right in front of their faces, but this has nothing to do with the blatent lie you told above, again trying to pretend that your original statement was not entirely different than the final statement you came up with in which you tried to make me appear uneducated and unknowledgeable of the little games you all engage in to attempt to make yourself appear more intelligent than you are. Your downfall though is you all never can do so without lying.

So are you now going to try to deny that you wrote "There is nothing keeping anybody from applying for any position for any career in this country" or that your use of the word "any" twice belies your claim that "We were not discussing all employment, just the Supreme Court positions"

As far as your attempted admonishment to "try again", I didn't have to try the first time, let alone again. You know I"m right that's why you're wasting your time trying to explain yourself.

 

[Olde Europe]

Nope..that is not what I think makes him a troll..it is his..call it...'body of work'..here..and I have reviewed it. He is a one trick pony whose vast majority of posts could be termed 'race-baiting'...I stand by my opinion. I am NOT of the prevalent opinion that a Black person cannot be racist against white men or that it is somehow, 'excusable', given the historical context.

Acknowledgement without action is just hot air..used to propel politicians hopes..at the expense of action.
Thank you for your suggestions...for the most part they make sense. My 'Fleegle' principle cuts both ways though..in States with very small percentages.....many on the national level would still be upset at what they perceive of as..all white benches. I'm totally on board with using the same principle as regard women and other significant portions of a State's demographic.Women are still underrepresented at the top level of society..including the Judiciary. I would love to see Native American Judges in Montana and North/South Dakota...I do believe that if a State is majority Black...that the government should reflect that..top to bottom. I'm against using national statistics, as regards Demographic Proportioning...applied willy-nilly to State Government. The major stumbling block to the Fleegle principle would be in those states that elect their Justices. I'm not sure how any application in those cases would not run afoul of the courts. Constitutional change in the State's Constitutions would be the only answer I could see.

My point in the exchange with IM2 was to see if he had it in him to propose any cogent reform on his own. He did not. Instead he indulged in rhetorical footwork and played fast and loose with the stats. As he has stated time and again..in fact, it is a theme of his....he feels no need to engage with a white man about black problems. So be it.

Sorry if you got upset....sometimes I apply my peculiar code in an overly obtuse and abrasive manner.''

Just for a laugh..this was my first post..on this thread:

The hard cold truth of modern style racism

With all due respect, Fleegle. IM2 isn't a troll, and neither a one-trick pony. If any of that were the case it would suggest he isn't really interested in the issues he debates. I have seen no evidence for that whatsoever. Black history and anti-Black racism is where his heart and his soul are. That's not a trick, and he is entitled to follow his interests just as you are. That shouldn't be controversial. And yes, he can be as abrasive as you. So what? If you can't respectfully disagree with him, that's on you, just as his inability to respectfully disagree with you is on him. Many things cut both ways, and dismissing a serious voice, such as your opponent's, cuts you off a source of learning. So, that said...

Nope, I wholeheartedly disagree that public acknowledgment of the problem would just be "hot air". It cannot be all there is, and action sure must follow, but still: It is a first step, and if it came, it would signify progress. Blacks have been waiting, I guess, for centuries for that kind of acknowledgment, and you are not to dismiss it.

While I agree with the Fleegle principle, I also find that, say, the supreme court in every state, even with small minority populations, should reserve at least one slot for minorities, so that in important matters at least one minority voice will be heard. After centuries of under-representation, and the consequences of this under-representation, and the racism that brought it about, reflected in centuries of case law, that should not be seen as unjust. The requirement that the American Birth Defect be remedied, and after centuries of "justice" marred and defaced by racism (and misogyny), this should also not be controversial outside of White nationalist circles.

I contend, you, IM2 and I could get at least fairly near to an agreement on what a solution might look like in the end, what proper representation would be. Neither you, nor I, nor IM2 know how to get that done, given the State constitutions stand in the way, not to mention state legislatures hell bent on safeguarding White privilege. So, we are all sitting next to each other in that darned "I can't propose any cogent reform" boat. Throwing the other one overboard because of that shared trait... judges itself, doesn't it?

 

[Olde Europe]

And I find it funny how white men talk about the Fleegle Principle like there's no problem with 58 percent of the state judges coming from 33 percent of the population. So again, the argument about states with sparse populations of people of color is irrelevant when states with large populations of people of color have all white supreme courts.

Fleegle acknowledged the problem, and therefore you argue against a straw man you have erected. I find that sort of unproductive. If just, proportional representation of a State's population at that State's supreme court is the aim, States with sparse minority populations do pose a problem, consistency being not the least of it. Your declaring it "irrelevant" doesn't make it so.

 

[blastoff]

As of this very second, 24 states have all white supreme courts. 18 state supreme courts have NEVER had a non white justice. In 2019. Yet in places like this people want to argue about how things are all in the past, or some other silly auto response some whites have when people of color speak truth.

State Supreme Courts Don’t Reflect the Diversity of the Communities They Serve
A new Brennan Center report details vast racial and gender disparities on state supreme courts around the country.
Alicia Bannon, Laila Robbins
July 23, 2019

We spent a year studying the gender and racial makeup of state supreme courts, which are typically the final arbiters on state law. Our new report, State Supreme Court Diversity, paints a bleak picture of the demographic makeup of these powerful courts. It also points to judicial elections as a key inflection point for addressing the racial disparities we found.

Currently, white men are dramatically overrepresented on state supreme court benches. Though white men make up less than a third of the population, they hold a majority of seats on state supreme courts. Meanwhile, though people of color make up nearly 40 percent of the U.S. population, they hold only 15 percent of state supreme court seats.

Twenty-four states currently have an all-white supreme court bench. This includes eight states in which people of color are at least a quarter of the state’s general population. And in states that have at least one justice of color, there are substantial gaps between the diversity in a state’s general population and its high court bench: the percentage of people of color on the bench is higher than their representation in the state’s population in only five states.

Eighteen states have never had a Black justice on their state supreme court. And 13 states have not seated a single justice of color since at least 1960, the earliest year for which we had comprehensive data.

Elections have rarely been a path to the bench for people of color. Since 1960, only 17 justices of color have first reached the bench through an election, comprising 4 percent of initially elected justices. Comparatively, 141 justices of color were initially appointed to the bench since 1960, comprising 12 percent of all initially appointed justices.

Although candidates of color were more likely to have prior judicial experience as challengers to incumbents or as candidates for open seats, they won less often than their white counterparts.

State Supreme Courts Don’t Reflect the Diversity of the Communities They Serve

There’d be a lot more but so many were gunned down as youth in their neighborhoods. Thus the numbers game.

 

[IM2]

And I find it funny how white men talk about the Fleegle Principle like there's no problem with 58 percent of the state judges coming from 33 percent of the population. So again, the argument about states with sparse populations of people of color is irrelevant when states with large populations of people of color have all white supreme courts.

Fleegle acknowledged the problem, and therefore you argue against a straw man you have erected. I find that sort of unproductive. If just, proportional representation of a State's population at that State's supreme court is the aim, States with sparse minority populations do pose a problem, consistency being not the least of it. Your declaring it "irrelevant" doesn't make it so.

This excuse of sparsely populated states is the strawman because if there was a state with no attorneys of color that could be appointed judges, then we know why there are no such judges on the state supreme court. But since in many states this is not the case, as the information points out, there are other reasons why this happens and most of it has to do with racism.

All 24 states that have no people of color on it are not sparsely populated with minorities with no minority attorneys or judges on lower courts. So in my view the argument of states with sparse minority population IS irrelevant when states that are not have the same problem. So because someone white who wants to argue against racism existing in every instance, wants to say that states with sparse minority populations is the reason, doesn't make it so.

American Bar Association
Attorneys - LII Attorney Directory

Last, white men are 33 percent of the population but 58 percent of those on state supreme courts. The argument of sparse population doesn't seem to stop this from happening.

 

[IM2]

As of this very second, 24 states have all white supreme courts. 18 state supreme courts have NEVER had a non white justice. In 2019. Yet in places like this people want to argue about how things are all in the past, or some other silly auto response some whites have when people of color speak truth.

State Supreme Courts Don’t Reflect the Diversity of the Communities They Serve
A new Brennan Center report details vast racial and gender disparities on state supreme courts around the country.
Alicia Bannon, Laila Robbins
July 23, 2019

We spent a year studying the gender and racial makeup of state supreme courts, which are typically the final arbiters on state law. Our new report, State Supreme Court Diversity, paints a bleak picture of the demographic makeup of these powerful courts. It also points to judicial elections as a key inflection point for addressing the racial disparities we found.

Currently, white men are dramatically overrepresented on state supreme court benches. Though white men make up less than a third of the population, they hold a majority of seats on state supreme courts. Meanwhile, though people of color make up nearly 40 percent of the U.S. population, they hold only 15 percent of state supreme court seats.

Twenty-four states currently have an all-white supreme court bench. This includes eight states in which people of color are at least a quarter of the state’s general population. And in states that have at least one justice of color, there are substantial gaps between the diversity in a state’s general population and its high court bench: the percentage of people of color on the bench is higher than their representation in the state’s population in only five states.

Eighteen states have never had a Black justice on their state supreme court. And 13 states have not seated a single justice of color since at least 1960, the earliest year for which we had comprehensive data.

Elections have rarely been a path to the bench for people of color. Since 1960, only 17 justices of color have first reached the bench through an election, comprising 4 percent of initially elected justices. Comparatively, 141 justices of color were initially appointed to the bench since 1960, comprising 12 percent of all initially appointed justices.

Although candidates of color were more likely to have prior judicial experience as challengers to incumbents or as candidates for open seats, they won less often than their white counterparts.

State Supreme Courts Don’t Reflect the Diversity of the Communities They Serve

There’d be a lot more but so many were gunned down as youth in their neighborhoods. Thus the numbers game.

Shut the fuck up you ignorant son of a bitch. Whites shoot each other, blow themselves away committing suicide, and gun accidents. So let the fucking adults here debate and argue without your dumb ass juvenile nonsense.

 

[PredFan]

The USMB resident racist starts another racist thread about racism.

 

[Correll]

Diversity has no value. Judges are not to represent their ethnic groups, but to interpret the law.


That this is weird for you, might be one of the reasons for the lack of black judges.

Cultures whose goal is exclusiveness, do not survive because of the lack of diversity which means less exposure to new ideas and different approaches to problems.

It also means less diverse personality traits. Employers have to look harder for exactly the kind people they are looking for in non-diverse culture. For Example:
People from some countries are much more social and open, others are more reserved. The Japanese tend to be more polite and less aggressive. Brazilians tend to be more adaptive and creative in solving problems than most other countries. Filipino tend be more willing to help others. Egyptians tend much more reserved in public but very family orientated. Nigerians tend to be hardest working. The Dutch and the Swiss tend to be the most innovative.

The more diversity in the workforce, the more employers have to choose from.

"A lot of different flowers make a bouquet."
Muslim Origin

I see that you have stated your position. I see your claim. IMO, it seems likely that nay gain from what you say, would be lost due to the friction of different people working together.


IM2, for example, comes from a culture where he expects a black judge to represent black interests in the courtroom, instead of doing the traditional american culture thing, of meeting his professional responsibilities.


What is the gain to society from this diversity?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Racism = f(political party, democrat =0, Republican = infinity squared) × perceived racist event.

Photo of democrat governor in blackface and KKK sheet = not racist.

Trump calling out democrat politicians on deplorable conditions, lower than third world shitholes = racist

 

[MAGAman]

Diversity has no value. Judges are not to represent their ethnic groups, but to interpret the law.


That this is weird for you, might be one of the reasons for the lack of black judges.

Winner Winner, Chicken Dinner...

It's beyond amazing that people the people that whine about racism the most do so based on racist reasoning.

 

[blastoff]

As of this very second, 24 states have all white supreme courts. 18 state supreme courts have NEVER had a non white justice. In 2019. Yet in places like this people want to argue about how things are all in the past, or some other silly auto response some whites have when people of color speak truth.

State Supreme Courts Don’t Reflect the Diversity of the Communities They Serve
A new Brennan Center report details vast racial and gender disparities on state supreme courts around the country.
Alicia Bannon, Laila Robbins
July 23, 2019

We spent a year studying the gender and racial makeup of state supreme courts, which are typically the final arbiters on state law. Our new report, State Supreme Court Diversity, paints a bleak picture of the demographic makeup of these powerful courts. It also points to judicial elections as a key inflection point for addressing the racial disparities we found.

Currently, white men are dramatically overrepresented on state supreme court benches. Though white men make up less than a third of the population, they hold a majority of seats on state supreme courts. Meanwhile, though people of color make up nearly 40 percent of the U.S. population, they hold only 15 percent of state supreme court seats.

Twenty-four states currently have an all-white supreme court bench. This includes eight states in which people of color are at least a quarter of the state’s general population. And in states that have at least one justice of color, there are substantial gaps between the diversity in a state’s general population and its high court bench: the percentage of people of color on the bench is higher than their representation in the state’s population in only five states.

Eighteen states have never had a Black justice on their state supreme court. And 13 states have not seated a single justice of color since at least 1960, the earliest year for which we had comprehensive data.

Elections have rarely been a path to the bench for people of color. Since 1960, only 17 justices of color have first reached the bench through an election, comprising 4 percent of initially elected justices. Comparatively, 141 justices of color were initially appointed to the bench since 1960, comprising 12 percent of all initially appointed justices.

Although candidates of color were more likely to have prior judicial experience as challengers to incumbents or as candidates for open seats, they won less often than their white counterparts.

State Supreme Courts Don’t Reflect the Diversity of the Communities They Serve

There’d be a lot more but so many were gunned down as youth in their neighborhoods. Thus the numbers game.

Shut the fuck up you ignorant son of a bitch. Whites shoot each other, blow themselves away committing suicide, and gun accidents. So let the fucking adults here debate and argue without your dumb ass juvenile nonsense.

Oooh, ouch! Did I hurt or offend the Negro racist?

So, any luck yet coming up with that white neighborhood USA where white criminal thugs shoot and kill one another every day? You know, like in scores of black hoods in everywhere USA. Anyway, please keep us posted with any progress.

 

[IM2]

The USMB resident racist starts another racist thread about racism.

Another racist whining about a thread about racism in the race and racism section.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The USMB resident racist starts another racist thread about racism.

Another racist whining about a thread about racism in the race and racism section.

How racist is the NBA?

We need NBA Affirmative Action to combat their anti-Asian racism

 

[IM2]

Racism = f(political party, democrat =0, Republican = infinity squared) × perceived racist event.

Photo of democrat governor in blackface and KKK sheet = not racist.

Trump calling out democrat politicians on deplorable conditions, lower than third world shitholes = racist

Who said Northem was not racist?

A white man calling Africa a shithole after whites made it that way is a racist.

Somalia: How Colonial Powers drove a Country into Chaos - Global Research

Here is another classic example.

When you look at Uganda, you see a nation that had been self governed for centuries until the British decided they had the divine right to rule in Africa. In 1894 the British decided they would make Uganda a British protectorate. It was accomplished with the Buganda agreement signed by a man named Sir Apolo Kagwa.

The Buganda agreement gave him and his chiefs most of the power in Uganda. This occurred because The King of Uganda was an infant at the time of signing and had no say in this agreement. The mere existence of that King signifies a line of succession that shows us Uganda was a sovereign nation governed by a king. They had been so for at least 800 years before the Buganda Agreement.

So from 1894 until 1962, a span of 68 years, Britain colonized a nation that had existed for 800 years. Out of this colonization came division. In 1962 Uganda gained it’s independence and established a constitution. In 1962 the Ugandas Peoples Republic was voted into power and a man named Milton Obote becomes the President. One of Obotes buddies was named Idi Amin. In 1966 Obote did away with the 1962 constitution. Obote remained in power until 1971 when he was overthrown in a military coup by Amin. The rest is well known fact.

Or how about the time our CIA had the president of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba assassinated in order to give power to Mobutu?

And we don't see Trump calling out white politicians whose districts and states are like 3rd world shitholes such as McConnell.

 

[IM2]

The USMB resident racist starts another racist thread about racism.

Another racist whining about a thread about racism in the race and racism section.

How racist is the NBA?

We need NBA Affirmative Action to combat their anti-Asian racism

You might want to check out the employment stats for the NBA before you get your retarded ass embarrassed.

 

[IM2]

As of this very second, 24 states have all white supreme courts. 18 state supreme courts have NEVER had a non white justice. In 2019. Yet in places like this people want to argue about how things are all in the past, or some other silly auto response some whites have when people of color speak truth.

State Supreme Courts Don’t Reflect the Diversity of the Communities They Serve
A new Brennan Center report details vast racial and gender disparities on state supreme courts around the country.
Alicia Bannon, Laila Robbins
July 23, 2019

We spent a year studying the gender and racial makeup of state supreme courts, which are typically the final arbiters on state law. Our new report, State Supreme Court Diversity, paints a bleak picture of the demographic makeup of these powerful courts. It also points to judicial elections as a key inflection point for addressing the racial disparities we found.

Currently, white men are dramatically overrepresented on state supreme court benches. Though white men make up less than a third of the population, they hold a majority of seats on state supreme courts. Meanwhile, though people of color make up nearly 40 percent of the U.S. population, they hold only 15 percent of state supreme court seats.

Twenty-four states currently have an all-white supreme court bench. This includes eight states in which people of color are at least a quarter of the state’s general population. And in states that have at least one justice of color, there are substantial gaps between the diversity in a state’s general population and its high court bench: the percentage of people of color on the bench is higher than their representation in the state’s population in only five states.

Eighteen states have never had a Black justice on their state supreme court. And 13 states have not seated a single justice of color since at least 1960, the earliest year for which we had comprehensive data.

Elections have rarely been a path to the bench for people of color. Since 1960, only 17 justices of color have first reached the bench through an election, comprising 4 percent of initially elected justices. Comparatively, 141 justices of color were initially appointed to the bench since 1960, comprising 12 percent of all initially appointed justices.

Although candidates of color were more likely to have prior judicial experience as challengers to incumbents or as candidates for open seats, they won less often than their white counterparts.

State Supreme Courts Don’t Reflect the Diversity of the Communities They Serve

There’d be a lot more but so many were gunned down as youth in their neighborhoods. Thus the numbers game.

Shut the fuck up you ignorant son of a bitch. Whites shoot each other, blow themselves away committing suicide, and gun accidents. So let the fucking adults here debate and argue without your dumb ass juvenile nonsense.

Oooh, ouch! Did I hurt or offend the Negro racist?

So, any luck yet coming up with that white neighborhood USA where white criminal thugs shoot and kill one another every day? You know, like in scores of black hoods in everywhere USA. Anyway, please keep us posted with any progress.

Since about 90 percent of all whites are killed by another white person.....