The Pollitics of White Privilege

[AZrailwhale]

Constitutional grounds would be respecting previous precedents.

Not that it matters... Harvard will just find other ways to do it.

Precedents don’t matter at the SCOTUS level. Either a law or practice conforms to the Constitution or they don’t. If precedent was important, we would still have segregation.

 

[Hollie]

Constitutional grounds would be respecting previous precedents.

Not that it matters... Harvard will just find other ways to do it.

Yes, you’re infuriated that the court upheld the constitution and acknowledged that quotas were in conflict with the equal protection clause.

No, you can’t admit that quotas and discrimination is against the law because discrimination in the form of quotas was directed at the very group you despise: whitey.

How typical of the entitled left. You make these pompous claims that you will “ignore with impunity” the SC ruling. Did you make that same announcement at your CRT Cult meeting? I’m guessing there was a willing audience of antifa groupies doing the fist pumping, “we dun’ gotta’ stick it to whitey’’, chant.

 

[JoeB131]

Precedents don’t matter at the SCOTUS level. Either a law or practice conforms to the Constitution or they don’t. If precedent was important, we would still have segregation.

Yes, they kind of do. How many other key precedents do you want to strike down? Heck, let's get rid of Griswold v. Connecticut. Brown vs. Topeka. Those silly earlier precedents, we don't need them. Let's just strike them all down until we get a liberal majority, and strike them all down again.

Yes, you’re infuriated that the court

decided to slap an oppressed minority one more time for shits and grins, um, yeah.

No, you can’t admit that quotas and discrimination is against the law because discrimination in the form of quotas was directed at the very group you despise: whitey.

Except there were no quotas. Quotas were specifically prohibited by Bakke vs. California. The ONLY requirement was that race be considered as a factor.

How typical of the entitled left. You make these pompous claims that you will “ignore with impunity” the SC ruling.

Well, I won't, but Harvard certainly will.

Hey, sweetie, I hate to break this to you, big organizations find ways to get around the law all the time. Just ask the Trump Organization. It's taken the law something like 50 years to finally catch up with Trump.

Harvard will continue to promote black admissions, simply by -
1) counting life story as a bigger part of the admissions process.
2) Dumping Athletics, Legacies, Dean's Interest and Children of Staff admissions that favor whites.
3) Dumping the racist SAT and ACT tests.

And here in lies the problem. We've already made Harvard "Above the Law" in that it has an outsized influence in business and government. The Harvard Law Review is considered almost holy writ in legal circles.... You don't think they already have the best brains in their legal department figuring out ways to flip off the hacks on SCOTUS.

Do you also still believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, they kind of do. How many other key precedents do you want to strike down? Heck, let's get rid of Griswold v. Connecticut. Brown vs. Topeka. Those silly earlier precedents, we don't need them. Let's just strike them all down until we get a liberal majority, and strike them all down again.


decided to slap an oppressed minority one more time for shits and grins, um, yeah.


Except there were no quotas. Quotas were specifically prohibited by Bakke vs. California. The ONLY requirement was that race be considered as a factor.



Well, I won't, but Harvard certainly will.

Hey, sweetie, I hate to break this to you, big organizations find ways to get around the law all the time. Just ask the Trump Organization. It's taken the law something like 50 years to finally catch up with Trump.

Harvard will continue to promote black admissions, simply by -
1) counting life story as a bigger part of the admissions process.
2) Dumping Athletics, Legacies, Dean's Interest and Children of Staff admissions that favor whites.
3) Dumping the racist SAT and ACT tests.

And here in lies the problem. We've already made Harvard "Above the Law" in that it has an outsized influence in business and government. The Harvard Law Review is considered almost holy writ in legal circles.... You don't think they already have the best brains in their legal department figuring out ways to flip off the hacks on SCOTUS.

Do you also still believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny.

In typical leftist fashion, you’re completely befuddled about precedent. The SC has no requirement or obligation to follow precedent on unconstitutional law. You simply parrot slogans you hear from Joy Reid and unquestionably believe it to be the “twoof”.

You see, Pumpkin, bad law is not to be maintained forever because Dems / Marxists scream out precedent. You obviously don’t understand that justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution. You obviously missed the part where the SC decision speaks to the equal protection clause. Quotas and discrimination based on race and ethnicity are in obvious conflict to equal protection. That’s obvious to everyone but Dems / Marxists.
Why don’t you lecture us on some Supreme Court precedents so feel should be blindly followed:

Here’s one: Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the internment of Japanese Americans.

The reason Dems / Marxists are infuriated with the SC has everything to do with that body not being subservient to Dems / Marxists barking out orders insisting the court do as they’re told.

Please lecture on precedent as it applies to Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld "separate but equal" segregation for blacks.

Thanks. I’ll look forward to seeing your chapter of the CRT Cult marching in support of segregation because, hey, it was precedent, therefore it must be maintained.

 

[JoeB131]

In typical leftist fashion, you’re completely befuddled about precedent. The SC has no requirement or obligation to follow precedent on unconstitutional law.

Actually, they do. It's called "Stare Decisis"

Here’s one: Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the internment of Japanese Americans.

Um, okay. And here's the thing... the fact that everyone felt bad about it later didn't stop shit like Gitmo or Rendition or any of the other stuff we did during the War on Terror. So you kind of proved my point.

Now, since you brought up Plessy and Brown, you've really made my point.

We ended legal segregation, but we are VERY MUCH still a segregated society. That's why we are having this discussion at all about affirmative action.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, they do. It's called "Stare Decisis"



Um, okay. And here's the thing... the fact that everyone felt bad about it later didn't stop shit like Gitmo or Rendition or any of the other stuff we did during the War on Terror. So you kind of proved my point.

Now, since you brought up Plessy and Brown, you've really made my point.

We ended legal segregation, but we are VERY MUCH still a segregated society. That's why we are having this discussion at all about affirmative action.

Um, okay. How predictable. You’re using a slogan you heard while watching Joy Reid.

What she didn’t tell you is that Stare decisis is not law and is not in the Constitution.

Dems / Marxists are infuriated with the recent SC decisions because they believe it’s better for the Court to be consistently wrong when the rulings are in favor of their wish to maintain discriminatory policies. Dems / Marxists don’t want to correct bad decisions.

Um, okay. Since you brought up Stare Decisis, make your best case for maintaining Korematsu v. United States, upholding the internment of Japanese Americans.

Similarly, you apparently are in full agreement with the court’s decision regarding Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld "separate but equal" segregation for blacks.


Um, okay. I’m expecting an announcement from your DEI Cult stating that previous decisions such as Dred Scott, in which the Court held that black Americans were not United States citizens, and those decisions I noted above in which the Court upheld racial segregation and the internment of Japanese should not have been overturned because of stare decisis.

Obviously you won’t, because your attempt at argument is just flailing around, moving the goalposts and one blatant contradiction after another.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Actually, they do. It's called "Stare Decisis"



Um, okay. And here's the thing... the fact that everyone felt bad about it later didn't stop shit like Gitmo or Rendition or any of the other stuff we did during the War on Terror. So you kind of proved my point.

Now, since you brought up Plessy and Brown, you've really made my point.

We ended legal segregation, but we are VERY MUCH still a segregated society. That's why we are having this discussion at all about affirmative action.

Segregation that exists today is de facto segregation. In other people living with other people they feel comfortable with. The only way to end that would be to ignore the freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment. How much of the Constitution are you willing to trample upon to support liberal policies that benefit no one. De Jure segregation has been dead for over half a century and blacks can work and live anywhere they desire to.

I don't agree that we are a segregated society, I've lived in a lot of places and none of them were segregated. White neighborhoods aren't segregated, Latino neighborhoods aren't segregated, Asian neighborhoods aren't segregated. Oddly enough, the only neighborhoods I've ever seen that were segregated were Black neighborhoods, and then only the poor ones. Baldwin Hills in L.A. is largely upper middle class and upper class black but isn't segregated. It's mostly black, but there are a few white families there. Hell, IM2 claims to live in Kansas, if there is a whiter bread state, I can't think of it. If you want to see segregation, try to move to Niihau Island in Hawaii. Non-Hawaiians are forbidden to live there and can only visit with an invitation from a resident. Non-Hawaiians can't even land on its beaches from boats.

 

[JoeB131]

Um, okay. How predictable.

whatever, Chatbot.

SCOTUS has no credibility when they ignore precedents that had stood for decades, and they will be ignored.

Segregation that exists today is de facto segregation. In other people living with other people they feel comfortable with. The only way to end that would be to ignore the freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment. How much of the Constitution are you willing to trample upon to support liberal policies that benefit no one. De Jure segregation has been dead for over half a century and blacks can work and live anywhere they desire to.

Horseshit. You try driving in some white neighborhoods as a black person. A shitload of Karens will report you until the cops arrest you.

 

[AZrailwhale]

whatever, Chatbot.

SCOTUS has no credibility when they ignore precedents that had stood for decades, and they will be ignored.



Horseshit. You try driving in some white neighborhoods as a black person. A shitload of Karens will report you until the cops arrest you.

Try driving in a black neighborhood, you are far more likely to get shot. The cops can’t arrest a driver if he does nothing illegal.

 

[JoeB131]

Try driving in a black neighborhood, you are far more likely to get shot. The cops can’t arrest a driver if he does nothing illegal.

I was in downtown Chicago today with my girlfriend. Including driving on the notorious Lower Wacker Drive. While the traffic is truly terrifying, the people really aren't.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I was in downtown Chicago today with my girlfriend. Including driving on the notorious Lower Wacker Drive. While the traffic is truly terrifying, the people really aren't.

The important phrase was “TODAY”. Try it Friday or Saturday night. And I said you were more likely to be shot than arrested for driving while black in a white neighborhood.

 

[ninja007]

haven't been 'round for all of 'em, have you? ~S~

IVE NEVER SEEN A NON BLACK CARE SO MUCH ABOUT BLACKS.

 

[Hollie]

whatever, Chatbot.

SCOTUS has no credibility when they ignore precedents that had stood for decades, and they will be ignored.



Horseshit. You try driving in some white neighborhoods as a black person. A shitload of Karens will report you until the cops arrest you.

Keep chattering, Chatbot.

Dems / Marxists who insist they want unlawful, discriminatory practices to continue have no credibility.

In typical fashion, you came up short when tasked with addressing ''precedent'' as it applied to Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld "separate but equal" segregation for blacks. As is the case with Dems / Marxists, you have no ethical standards to support your nonsense claims. You simply chatter away with your ideology of race hatreds.

 

[Lisa558]

whatever, Chatbot.

SCOTUS has no credibility when they ignore precedents that had stood for decades, and they will be ignored.



Horseshit. You try driving in some white neighborhoods as a black person. A shitload of Karens will report you until the cops arrest you.

You sure are quick to defend blacks while you spew your antisemitism against - and I quote - my “fucking religion.”

Typical lib. Cry over the bigotry against blacks, and then freely spew it against another minority.

 

[wamose]

Blacks, bitching about White privilege are like a White, sissy boy midget, bitching about Black privilege in the NFL-NBA.

 

[22lcidw]

Yes, they kind of do. How many other key precedents do you want to strike down? Heck, let's get rid of Griswold v. Connecticut. Brown vs. Topeka. Those silly earlier precedents, we don't need them. Let's just strike them all down until we get a liberal majority, and strike them all down again.


decided to slap an oppressed minority one more time for shits and grins, um, yeah.


Except there were no quotas. Quotas were specifically prohibited by Bakke vs. California. The ONLY requirement was that race be considered as a factor.



Well, I won't, but Harvard certainly will.

Hey, sweetie, I hate to break this to you, big organizations find ways to get around the law all the time. Just ask the Trump Organization. It's taken the law something like 50 years to finally catch up with Trump.

Harvard will continue to promote black admissions, simply by -
1) counting life story as a bigger part of the admissions process.
2) Dumping Athletics, Legacies, Dean's Interest and Children of Staff admissions that favor whites.
3) Dumping the racist SAT and ACT tests.

And here in lies the problem. We've already made Harvard "Above the Law" in that it has an outsized influence in business and government. The Harvard Law Review is considered almost holy writ in legal circles.... You don't think they already have the best brains in their legal department figuring out ways to flip off the hacks on SCOTUS.

Do you also still believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny.

Progs have acted like asses. Everything is right from their agendas with no discussions of whether they should even do it, and you all walk in lockstep. You are now affecting women's sports and children in schools with the fruits of your craziness. Two groups that have moved down the list of protected.

 

[JoeB131]

The important phrase was “TODAY”. Try it Friday or Saturday night. And I said you were more likely to be shot than arrested for driving while black in a white neighborhood.

Actually, I wouldn't try it on a Saturday night because downtown is crowded and hard enough to navigate during the daytime. My biggest complaint about driving downtown is people will walk right out in front of your car with no attention to what is going on around them.

Dems / Marxists who insist they want unlawful, discriminatory practices to continue have no credibility.

I agree.. so let's get rid of legacies, and all the other practices that favor white folks.

You sure are quick to defend blacks while you spew your antisemitism against - and I quote - my “fucking religion.”

Yes, your religion is truly messed up, it's why you are such an awful human being.
You are not "God's Special people". Not even in the "Special, Short Bus" kind of way. There is no God.

 

[Hollie]

I agree.. so let's get rid of legacies, and all the other practices that favor white folks.

Let's help self-loathing Dems / Marxists get rid of their self-loathing'isms.

 

[JoeB131]

Let's help self-loathing Dems / Marxists get rid of their self-loathing'isms.

It's not about self-loathing. It's about giving everyone a fair shot.

The real fear of white racists is competition on an even playing field.

 

[JoeB131]

Progs have acted like asses. Everything is right from their agendas with no discussions of whether they should even do it, and you all walk in lockstep. You are now affecting women's sports and children in schools with the fruits of your craziness. Two groups that have moved down the list of protected.

Does your doctor know you are off your meds again?

Teaching kids to be more accepting is a good thing. Let your bigotry die with your generation.