.
.. a subject both of them would prefer to avoid? The oral argument is October 10th.
“I’ve got to believe at this point in the campaign neither the president or Governor Romney is going to want to give a quote on any of this,” said Richard Taylor, a business diversity advocate and former Massachusetts transportation secretary under Romney. “If I was preparing either candidate for the debate, this would be on the checklist, … but I don’t think either campaign will be anxious to talk about it.”...
“It took three long years to pull [a federal government policy statement on the use of race in education] out of the Obama administration. It was only after we pestered and cajoled them that they finally got it out,” John Brittain, a civil rights activist and law professor at the University of the District of Columbia, said in an interview soon after the document was released. “The administration had a paralysis of analysis. …. Overall, the Obama administration just has a reluctance to take on race and equality, and when they do so everything is so carefully sanitized and scrubbed to make sure it’s the least offensive thing possible.”
There’s almost no chance that Romney would take a strong stance against affirmative action, according to Stuart Taylor, a veteran legal commentator and author of a new book on the policy.
... “No major national political figure has attacked affirmative action publicly since 1996 or before. It’s kind of remarkable. The Republicans who during the ’90s for a while were seeing some political profit in attacking affirmative action given the polls, don’t do it anymore.”
So both candidates — like many Americans — exhibit a bland, uncommitted acceptance of the long-term practice of affirmative action, and they don't want to have to talk about it in crisp, clear terms, looking at all the arguments for and against, and scrutinizing the constitutional texts and precedents. But that's exactly what the Supreme Court must do and will do on October 10th.
Posts
50 comments:
So both candidates — like many Americans — exhibit a bland, uncommitted acceptance of the long-term practice of affirmative action, and they don't want to have to talk about it in crisp, clear terms, looking at all the arguments for and against, and scrutinizing the constitutional texts and precedents. But that's exactly what the Supreme Court must do and will do on October 10th.
Screw the precedents, Ann. It's a clear violation of both the intent and words of "Equal Protection under the Laws."
Given telephone person, I would say the simple indication is not only doesn't AA work, neither does your misplaced anger towards "Racism." AA and government compassion don't work, and maybe even impede integration, by removing individual merit.
As an anecdote, I work in the High Tech field. Whites are under-represented, and it has been that way for years. Women are under-represented. There are 3 women of thirty in the engineering team I work in. There are 0 blacks. There are 0 Hispanics. There are 4 whites, myself included. And there are 26 Asians, most from India. And guess what, that's as it should be. We are the most qualified. And it's trending that way for 20 years.
Thank goodness AA somehow doesn't effect engineering, you know, where all the real work is done.
Willard's already trashed the 47% so what does he have to lose!
Columbus Dispatch ~ Obama 51/Romney 42 ~ Obama +9
Especially since he's already lost the election!
The Supreme Court will hold a debate, but the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
Questioning Affirmative Action is much like questioning gay marriage: you're automatically branded "ignorant" at the least and a "hater" at worst.
Shiloh,
Why do you continue to harp on who will win? I think Romney has a very low chance of winning.
How about instead of crowing about how you think Obama is going to win, why don't you explain why you think that's a good thing? We already know who you want to win.
It only makes you look like some cheerleader. If that's what you want to be viewed as, fine, but you don't seem particularly beautiful, and your dance is predictable and has no talent. At least Andy has a perspective to advance.
Moose:
Questioning Affirmative Action is much like questioning gay marriage: you're automatically branded "ignorant" at the least and a "hater" at worst.
No kidding. What Liberals can't do at the constitutional level, they have done by manipulating society. Nope, can't question telephone Mom. It's racist. Gotta stifle that free speech, and take off the table rational discussion about the destructive elements of our government programs.
Why, it might hurt some parasite's feelings.
Dante, affirmative action notwithstanding, since many of Althouse flock are totally delusional. It's always good to show them the reality of the situation.
Indeed, many here think Obama is president "only" because of affirmative action as the whine ad nauseam ...
blessings
From a wishful ?? Thinker??
Bugger the polls Mitt is not toast. Or shud the election be canceled? And we crown BHO? Let's count the votes first.
Questioning is not the same thing as condemning. Its a hard argument to make in a contentious setting and not come off as bigot. The problem is that someone other than blacks have to question what precisely affirmative action actually does for minorities and society as a whole..
"Bugger the polls Mitt is not toast."
The prosecution rests ...
Republican candidates have given up on affirmative action because they're tired of getting slimed.
After this election, I think that's gonna change.
shiloh said...
Columbus Dispatch ~ Obama 51/Romney 42 ~ Obama +9
And a couple of weeks ago, he was trashing that poll.
Just like Ann yesterday.
Btw, link - so we can see how bad the skew might be?
Actually, the absentee ballots don't look good for Zero so far, and neither does Demo registration, so that number is gonna look like Scott Walker's "close" recall.
Especially since he's already lost the election!
Hah! Last I looked it took 270 electoral votes to win.
Choomie's still short on the great RCP average that factors in all the skewed polls.
Whoopee!
Dante said...
Why do you continue to harp on who will win? I think Romney has a very low chance of winning.
No, you need to read the numbers a little closer.
Indeed, many here think Obama is president "only" because of affirmative action as the whine ad nauseam ...
I recall the very first time I saw Obama have an interview. Immediately after that, I called up my conservative friend in arms, and said "That man is going to be president." He said "No chance, he doesn't have the experience."
I also distinctly remembering a feeling the guy had something real. He was so reasonable, and maybe he could "heal" or bring together the big social divides.
I learned a lesson. He can't. He is a part of the same crowd.
So the people who are tired of these so called solutions are hoping against hope to turn the stupid clock back, to a time when marriage was the structural unit that powered society.
I don't see any value in goading these people. They rightfully see our country in a near free-fall decline. It's not only leftists, for sure, there are large changes going on in the world. But let's face it, government has made it worse. The CRA, massive government and the pressure it puts on families, foolish programs that get embedded as rights and that are not proven to have ANY good outcome.
So goad away, if that's what floats your boat, but you:
a) Aren't changing anyone's mind
b) Are helping to polarize people's position
c) Seem to be getting some kind of perverse satisfaction in doing it.
edutcher:
I said it's what I think, and I'm pretty certain I know what I think. You can tell me my conclusion is wrong, and maybe that's what you meant.
For what it's worth, while I'm no Romney fan, I would view his loss as almost certainly bad for the country. Obama, in my view, is a very dangerous man. His authoritarian moves for votes prove this. The entire leftist agenda in my view is destroying this country, and enslaving our children to the state, at least those who will work.
As I said, you need to look at the numbers more closely.
That was a disagreement, not a reproach.
shiloh said...
The prosecution rests ...
Bad idea 40 days before the case goes to the jury.
"a) Aren't changing anyone's mind
b) Are helping to polarize people's position
c) Seem to be getting some kind of perverse satisfaction in doing it."
No one's mind is ever changed at a political blog.
ailes/atwater/turdblossom, Bachmann/Demint/West/Akin/Joe Walsh/Steve King/Santorum/ et al have been polarizing Americans for quite some time.
Yes, the delusion of Althouse con flock is somewhat amusing/entertaining.
>
I yield back the balance of my time to cons who are 100% sure the re-election of Obama means the end America! The same cons who were totally silent during (8) years of Cheney/Bush ...
Ann adjures us to look at the text of the constitution. Here it is the equal protection under the laws:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
It looks pretty damn clear to me.
Attended the Jeffrey Toobin, author of the Oath: Obama and Rorberts book talk at the book festival. He loves Obama. SO, we love him. He thinks Roberts is a fraud. We in the WH know that already. Our Future POTUS voted against him. Roberts was jealous and so he messed up the Oath.
Toobin loves Warren. His new New Yorker profile on the brilliant Warren is a must-to-read in the DNC.
Only Romney will be asked to comment, and then whatever he says will be distorted. When would the press have the opportunity to ask Obama, even if they were so inclined?
As I said, you need to look at the numbers more closely.
I look only at Rasmussen, and he has Romney on the bottom end of the swing states. It's been consistently been this way. True, it's in the margin of error, but Rasmussen has an uncanny way of being quite accurate.
I'll be glad if Romney wins, despite his many failures. And to Crack, in my view Cult of Romney is vastly less dangerous than Cult of Obama.
No one's mind is ever changed at a political blog.
Eh. My mind was changed. I was thinking four more years of Obama would be good as people as they realized how damaging this president would be to the future of the US.
In any event, by your own reasoning, you've pushed your posting to this blog down to the perverse pleasure you get from needling people who don't like Obama.
shiloh said...
a) Aren't changing anyone's mind
b) Are helping to polarize people's position
c) Seem to be getting some kind of perverse satisfaction in doing it.
No one's mind is ever changed at a political blog.
Really?
Nobody exposed to an intelligent discussion of issues, being exposed to different points of view, ever changes his mind?
The little weasel's opinions are locked in his mind, solid.
Like a rock.
ailes/atwater/turdblossom, Bachmann/Demint/West/Akin/Joe Walsh/Steve King/Santorum/ et al have been polarizing Americans for quite some time.
As opposed to Ivins/Anthony Lewis/Teddy Kennedy/Slobbering Barney/Pelosi Galore/Dingy Harry/Mary McGrory, Colman McCarthy, MoDo/ Choom, Halo Joe/Chuckie Schumer etc., etc., etc.?
Yes, the delusion of Althouse con flock is somewhat amusing/entertaining.
The delusions of the Left are absolutely hilarious!
Undoubtedly, the little weasel thinks he'll be somehow immune from the next crash.
If he's even aware it's coming. His head's so far up his ass in Zero worship, he probably thinks there really is a recovery on.
I yield back the balance of my time to cons who are 100% sure the re-election of Obama means the end America!
And, of course that's what it means.
QED
The same cons who were totally silent during (8) years of Cheney/Bush ... amusing/entertaining.
Also a lie.
Nobody has screamed louder about the PATRIOT Act than Conservatives and no one objected more to Dubya's spending.
In fact, the little weasel merely applauds Zero doing the same things he claims to hate under Dubya.
Willard lemmings cons hyprebole
*< %{ #[
lol lol lol lol
Don't squeeze the Charmin.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
Well, that part of the 14th Amendment was pretty much gutted back in the late 1800s by the Slaughter-House Cases, so there's not much room to move there. Which is kind of ironic, given the subject matter and title of the cases.
Makes sense they want to avoid the topic.
As yesterday's threads show, topics of race and response simply aren't topics to be discussed rationally. There's just no shared ground.
There's significant issues of worldview and entrenched assumptions. It will be something later generations can more adequately address, generations who did not grow up with experiences or images of institutionalized racism.
Dante
I'm not going to do the research nor do I want a big eugenics debate. But when it comes to 'East' Indians, white/black/Asians structure doesn't fit we'll.
Many 'Indians' are darker than many folks we call Black here. Have a gene pattern extremely close to folks we call 'white' and of course live in Asia.
Most are Aryans by language and genetics.
Ps: making 'Indians' part of the AA spoils system seems a travesty of skin color for a people, many of whom start with English as a native tongue, a western education system and a culture with 4000 years of mathematics and written literature. Hardly disadvantaged post colonial people of color
We all know that you are really a racist -- the kind that Rush appeals to -- if you respect the God-given abilities of people of color and thereby reject the idea that blacks are incapable of making it on their own merits and, thus, they need the white man to be their savior and provide them with special benefits, etc.
As yesterday's threads show, topics of race and response simply aren't topics to be discussed rationally. There's just no shared ground.
Let's see what Ann has to say:
I had a big problem with Rush Limbaugh playing this clip over and over on his show yesterday. There's some kind of political point to be be made about they way some people become dependent on government or unrealistic about what government can or should do, but there's an emotional level, below the rational mind, that this video/audio can reach, and when someone repeatedly plays it, as Rush did, it seems as though he's trying to stir up racial fears.
So playing the audio is a problem. Did Rush identify the woman as "Black"? I don't know, I don't listen to Rush. Maybe Ann will tell us. Somewhere in the 700 comments, I recall Ann remarking on the woman's teeth. Did that come across in the audio?
This is leftist fabrication. Leftists created this world for Blacks, and they are making a new one with Hispanics. Leftism has failed to elevate the black culture in a meaningful way.
Ann, in my view, is part of the problem. The real problem is the culture, the culture of dependence, the race trade.
I also see no rational value to appealing to hard-core racists. Their vote isn't going to change.
Obongo is in the White House because he's black. Though he has no ties to racism against blacks in this country and was raised by bourgeoise whites. Emotions matter more than facts to leftists and people like Ann.
I'm not going to do the research nor do I want a big eugenics debate. But when it comes to 'East' Indians, white/black/Asians structure doesn't fit we'll.
Let's not have the eugenics debate. Let's have the culture debate.
Most are Aryans by language and genetics.
Actually, you got me. You said you didn't want to talk about Eugenics, but then you intend to. The fact is Northern Indians have been invaded many, many times. Yes, by Aryans, but also be about every other race.
Southern Indians were largely insulated by this because of the geography, and I work with both kinds.
Of course, the amazing capabilities of these people could simply be the filter that these people went to the top colleges, and the best of those came to the US. Sounds like goodness for the US.
A whole lot better than letting in millions from south of the border with no filter other than a willingness to violate our laws, drop down a kid in a US hospital, etc. Not that I blame them, I blame our leaders. And I do mean that. In my experience, these people work a whole lot harder than my kids do.
"Why do you continue to harp on who will win? I think Romney has a very low chance of winning.
How about instead of crowing about how you think Obama is going to win, why don't you explain why you think that's a good thing? We already know who you want to win."
Some of us remember 1994 and the shock when the GOP won both houses of Congress by large margins. Nobody predicted that. I don't remember the polls that time but I am sure they did not anticipate the result.
If Romney wins, and I think it is a tossup, there will be a lot of angry rhetoric from the usual suspects.
I can't understand why so many people are happy with Obama and the 47% is probably the best explanation, including government unions, but HL Mencken said, "Nobody ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American public." Watching the ads during NFL games helps me to understand.
Will the Supreme Court affirmative action case force the presidential candidates to talk about a subject both of them would prefer to avoid?
I'm becoming ashamed to live in a country where the people let politicians decide what they will or won't talk about.
It's fucking weak,...
Institutional discrimination is only one of a comprehensive set of issues that most of our so-called "adults" and "leaders" are unwilling to discuss. Some avoid it or, rather, exploit it, because it serves to advance their political, economic, and social standing. While others avoid it for fear of political, economic, and social persecution. Both approaches to the issues have resulted in a progressive infantilization (and dependence) of Americans.
Fortunately, we have promises to fulfill our dreams of instant gratification (i.e. physical, material, ego) without perceived consequences to comfort us in our regression to a primitive or naive state of existence.
If Roberts can torture Obamacare out of the Constitution, can anyone doubt that he will consider affirmative action to be stare decisis?
I'm becoming ashamed to live in a country where the people let politicians decide what they will or won't talk about.
You can't talk about things. Leftists have made it damaging to do so. Like Ann's statement that playing audio of "Got my cell phone, Gonna vote for Obama" too many times is racist.
On the other hand, she likes to claim that free speech needs to be combated by more free speech. Except there is no way Romney can play that video as an ad. It's racist, and Americans have been programmed to know it is racist.
Instead of seeing the results of encouraging parasitic behavior with entitlement spending, they see evil conservatives trying to push down blacks.
"If Romney wins, and I think it is a tossup"
Michael K delusions aside, when you explain why you think it's a toss-up. I'll say why Obama is a better leader than Willard.
Oh hell, just read what the conservative press has been sayin' about Romney and you'll know why he's a god awful candidate and would be clueless as president! Indeed, nothing has changed in the (4) years since he lost to McCain. Again, cons don't like Romney, but they had to nominate someone, eh.
blessings
shiloh,
Dante, affirmative action notwithstanding, since many of Althouse flock are totally delusional. It's always good to show them the reality of the situation.
I would like to know what that was intended to convey, shiloh. Could you clarify? I am willing to bet that you'd mock mercilessly a sentence as grammatically haphazard as your first one here.
"Again, cons don't like Romney, but they had to nominate someone, eh."
Shiloh, you lack the perspective necessary to understand what real-world conservatives actually think. Reading the "conservative press" won't get you there. Unlike the left, it seems, conservatives don't require oaths of fealty to our politicians.
MDT, only Althouse anal retentive cons like yourself, continue to harp on grammar minutia.
But since you asked:
"affirmative action notwithstanding"
obviously means the subject matter of this thread aside.
The rest is self-explanatory ie many Althouse con sheep believe the political polls are skewed, hence, ergo, therefore they are delusional. Yes, even more than usual re: the presidential election.
The reality of the situation are the polls, where 46% "could" be Willard's ceiling.
>
As always MDT, Althouse cons want to party w/you! After you dot all their i's and cross their t's. Althouse grammar queen marches on!
blessings
Dante,
You can't talk about things. Leftists have made it damaging to do so.
I was referring to the Left and Right.
My recent experience with the subject of Mormonism - after I've talked about everything else - told me everything I need to know about conservatives and their love of free speech. It doesn't exist. They, too, practice situational ethics in pursuit of power, just like liberals.
That statement has now been made, loud and clear,...
shiloh,
MDT, only Althouse anal [-] retentive cons like yourself[,] continue to harp on grammar minutia[e].
As you like, shiloh. My day job involves editing, and I do try to write sentences that make actual sense. I'm sorry if you find that offensive.
No MDT, I find it amusing that I bother you so much you feel the need to dissect my grammar and sentence structure and proofread my punctuation. Hey, as long as I have your undivided attention!
btw, it's obvious what your day job is, but your ad nauseam anal-attentiveness is probably wasted at a political blog. Maybe your off-time could be put to better use ... or not.
blessings
10/10/12? That is when the South Park sarcastibal episode premieres on TV.
Oral argument indeed.
10/10/12? That is when the South Park sarcastibal episode premieres on TV.
Oral argument indeed.
Anal-retentiveness, although surely MDT will find other grammatical errors w/my last post because hey, that's how she rolls ...
'Dante' wrote, "Thank goodness AA somehow doesn't effect engineering..."
If Title X could result in a proportionality test for school athletics, what makes you think it couldn't and won't be applied in a similar matter to schools of engineering?
If Title X could result in a proportionality test for school athletics, what makes you think it couldn't and won't be applied in a similar matter to schools of engineering?
I'm merely glad it doesn't. What the future holds, who is to say. Very little surprises me anymore.
My recent experience with the subject of Mormonism - after I've talked about everything else - told me everything I need to know about conservatives and their love of free speech. It doesn't exist. They, too, practice situational ethics in pursuit of power, just like liberals.
We've all been trained to not attribute group behavior to individuals of the group. I've seen some of that line of reasoning applied to your arguments. Whether it is verbotten to attribute group stereotypes to all members, and in this case Romney, is open to thinking. I recall in a post long ago you pointed out that Romney consulted religious leaders before every major vote in MA. If true, that certainly buttresses your claims. And you have pointed out Ann Romney's stupid supplement business. The rest has all been "Mormon's suck" and "you all suck because you don't know that." At least that's my interpretation of what you've written.
The press has used its influence to stop the people from extending "group behavior" to "individual behavior" as an acceptable form of reasoning. So people have accepted the meme, and argue against you using that method. I say, you are arguing against a leftist meme, that has been absorbed by many here.
I also suspect that very few people's vote here count. Mine doesn't, I live in CA. Yours doesn't, you live in Utah. So most of the discussions are people pursuing their intellectual curiosity, along with some who want to vent.
I would say buck it up. Not everyone rejects your arguments, and I suspect a lot of people find them interesting. Whether that's going to change minds, who knows.
Post a Comment