• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

Maybe take a look at UNC’s arguments defending themselves and the lower court rulings supporting their position.
 
ConnorEl said:
Maybe take a look at UNC’s arguments defending themselves and the lower court rulings supporting their position.
Click to expand...

This isn't a great week to brag about UNC's ability to defend. They couldn't defend anything the other night. I predict they'll have as much success at the Supreme Court.

UNC has resisted even making the data/formulas public, let alone actually defend them on the merits. They know that their time is borrowed here (as I suspect most of you do too, if you were capable of honesty) and they're just running out the clock for as long as they can.

The "borrowed time" reference isn't my own. I the Bollinger case, O'Connor's majority opinion stated "race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time,... "Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." That was 2003. Time's running out.
 
ConnorEl said:
Your unsavory glee is showing.
Click to expand...

There's a reason the Courts have applied strict scrutiny to race-based discrimination. It's inherently wrong. Good riddance.

Now go make a class-based argument. Go make a "first in my family to go to college argument". Go make your "top 5% of my high school argument". Those are all well-intended and likely more effective arguments to spread opportunities that don't invoke the issues of race-based discrimination. There's more than one way forward. You don't have to cling to the ineffective, illegal one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WokeandBroke said:
This isn't a great week to brag about UNC's ability to defend. They couldn't defend anything the other night. I predict they'll have as much success at the Supreme Court.

UNC has resisted even making the data/formulas public, let alone actually defend them on the merits. They know that their time is borrowed here (as I suspect most of you do too, if you were capable of honesty) and they're just running out the clock for as long as they can.

The "borrowed time" reference isn't my own. I the Bollinger case, O'Connor's majority opinion stated "race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time,... "Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." That was 2003. Time's running out.
Click to expand...

Back to the Future II said we’d have flying cars and hoverboards 30 years later. Predictions for the future don’t always come true.
 
BarcaDeac said:
Back to the Future II said we’d have flying cars and hoverboards 30 years later. Predictions for the future don’t always come true.
Click to expand...

"We've just got to give racism a little more time" is an interesting argument.
 
Has jhmd ever explained when racism ended and how?
 
PhDeac said:
Has jhmd ever explained when racism ended and how?
Click to expand...

It hasn't, of course. The goal is to eradicate it. A wise man once said, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That's the goal, right?

Right?
 
Ok but you people haven’t stopped being racist against blacks, at all. In fact you are worse than you’ve been in years. So I mean you know fuck off
 
WokeandBroke said:
Make a full-throated argument for race-based discrimination by the government in 2022. The floor is yours.
Click to expand...

Systemic racism in this country has and continues to limit opportunities to people based on their race. The government should work to 1) eliminate the discrimination and 2) work to amend the harm.

Is it enough to make thievery illegal, or should the thief also return what was stolen?
 
WFFaithful said:
Systemic racism in this country has and continues to limit opportunities to people based on their race. The government should work to 1) eliminate the discrimination and 2) work to amend the harm.

Is it enough to make thievery illegal, or should the thief also return what was stolen?
Click to expand...

Conservative logic: The only way to stop theft is to stop theft, so obviously the thief should keep what they stole.
 
WokeandBroke said:
This isn't a great week to brag about UNC's ability to defend. They couldn't defend anything the other night. I predict they'll have as much success at the Supreme Court.

UNC has resisted even making the data/formulas public, let alone actually defend them on the merits. They know that their time is borrowed here (as I suspect most of you do too, if you were capable of honesty) and they're just running out the clock for as long as they can.

The "borrowed time" reference isn't my own. I the Bollinger case, O'Connor's majority opinion stated "race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time,... "Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." That was 2003. Time's running out.
Click to expand...

The court was way too optimistic in predicting the end of racism in this country. It's alive and well thanks to (mostly) Republican whites.
 
WokeandBroke said:
There's a reason the Courts have applied strict scrutiny to race-based discrimination. It's inherently wrong. Good riddance.

Now go make a class-based argument. Go make a "first in my family to go to college argument". Go make your "top 5% of my high school argument". Those are all well-intended and likely more effective arguments to spread opportunities that don't invoke the issues of race-based discrimination. There's more than one way forward. You don't have to cling to the ineffective, illegal one.
Click to expand...

Affirmative action is not race based discrimination. It's a weak attempt at correcting hundreds of years of race based discrimination.
 
WFFaithful said:
Affirmative action is not race based discrimination. It's a weak attempt at correcting hundreds of years of race based discrimination.
Click to expand...

Yep. Affirmative action is just the government saying “Please try not to discriminate based on race.” But to people who benefit from that discrimination, it looks like discrimination against them.
 
WFFaithful said:
Systemic racism in this country has and continues to limit opportunities to people based on their race. The government should work to 1) eliminate the discrimination and 2) work to amend the harm.

Is it enough to make thievery illegal, or should the thief also return what was stolen?
Click to expand...

What did the high school junior you're discriminating against steal? You don't punish one innocent person because someone else stole something.
 
WFFaithful said:
Affirmative action is not race based discrimination. It's a weak attempt at correcting hundreds of years of race based discrimination.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure we both know it is. This is your attempt at a second wrong to make a right.
 
PhDeac said:
Yep. Affirmative action is just the government saying “Please try not to discriminate based on race.” But to people who benefit from that discrimination, it looks like discrimination against them.
Click to expand...

Because it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top