Powered by Max Banner Ads
Is Affirmative Action Constitutional?
This is a question that came up repeatedly in the last few months, especially during Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.
I’m no lawyer, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt. But I do think that it is constitutional. Let’s look at this from an originalist perspective. Nothing in the text of the constitution prohibits affirmative action. It says that the races get equal protection under the law. But it does not say that the ability to get into one’s first choice college for example falls under protection of the law.
There is nothing in the history of the time that suggests the authors of the 14th amendment wished to prohibit affirmative action. I don’t see any evidence that Thaddeus Stevens wanted to prevent the University of Michigan from using race as a plus factor to get accepted. It’s important to understand the context of the amendment. It was written during reconstruction at a time when southern states were trying to deny rights such as the right to vote to the newly emancipated black slaves.
So my understanding of the intent is that the authors wanted to protect the black minority from the white majority in these states. It’s not at all clear that the authors were against using race to help these former slaves. In fact, they set up the Freedmen’s Bureau to do that. It used a strictly racial criterion to decide who to help.
You could argue that the authors of the 14th amendment intended those measures to be temporary, and that their goal was eventually for a completely color-blind society that didn’t even consider race as a tip factor for college. But that is reading a lot into the amendment. As I said earlier, I don’t see evidence that the authors wanted to ban efforts on the part of the white majority to help the black minority.
So originalism probably doesn’t support outlawing affirmative action. Ironically enough, the one school of thought that might is the living constitution school of interpretation—the idea that the constitution should be interpreted in light of changing societal mores—something conservatives tend to dislike.
That is not to say affirmative action is a good policy, or a wise one. But those would seem questions for Congress, not the Supreme Court to address.
-Marcus Gadson
Check out my blog
Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of White Firefighters and Against Sotomayor
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut who denied a promotion based on their skin color.
The Supreme Court today narrowly ruled in favor of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who said they were denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and others that had come to play a large role in the consideration of her nomination for the high court.
The city had thrown out the results of a promotion test because no African Americans and only two Hispanics would have qualified for promotions. It said it feared a lawsuit from minorities under federal laws that said such “disparate impacts” on test results could be used to show discrimination.
In effect, the court was deciding when avoiding potential discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination against another.
The court’s conservative majority said in a 5 to 4 vote that is what happened in New Haven.
“Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
I find it absolutely stunning that any American of any color could look at this situation and believe it was fair.
A group of firefighters studied hard and passed their promotion test. When the tests were graded, the white firefighters plus two Hispanics passed.
However, the City of New Haven denied the firefighters their promotion because it feared the black firefighters who did not pass would file a lawsuit claiming racism.
I cannot think of anything more un-American than denying someone a promotion on the basis of skin color.
This kind of social engineering is about the sickest and most destructive thing I’ve ever seen.
Skin color didn’t have a damn thing to do with that test. The racial make-up of those who passed the test should be irrelevant.
Why do liberals like to assume the test was flawed simply because no blacks passed it?
Have no blacks ever passed that same test in the City of New Haven before? How do you account for the two Hispanics who passed?
I think it sells black people short for liberals to assume a test is flawed because a black person can’t pass it. Maybe the person didn’t study as hard or maybe there’s a whole host of reasons why the person didn’t pass.
The only people who refuse to get passed race in this country are liberals. As long as white liberals and black race hustlers like Jesse Jackson keep using race as an excuse for poor performance, blacks will never achieve their full potential.
Incidentally, I haven’t heard a thing from the black firefighters who failed the test. All they have to do is study harder and they’ll pass it next time.
It’s incredibly damaging to the black community for high-minded liberals to constantly accept mediocrity, on the basis of phony racism.
This notion that black people should not be blamed for failing, because the white man and his racist tests won’t let them succeed is absurd and outdated.
It’s absolutely ridiculous to believe that somehow a black person because of his skin color is unable to pass the exact same firefighters exam that whites and Hispanics can.
The final decision by SCOTUS was 5-4 so it broke along idealogical lines. However, it should be deeply troubling to all Americans that a significant portion of the country believes discriminating against one group to prevent the discrimination of another group is okay.
Ace has some excellent analysis of this ruling as well.
Breitbart: Lone Wolf Shooters Have A Lot In Common With The Left
Andrew Breitbart has written yet another great column. This week he attacks the liberal media for attempting to tie the Holocaust Museum shooter and others to the Conservative movement.
Here’s a little taste:
While Mr. von Brunn is currently being made out to be the poster child of the Republican Party, even a cursory look at his professed views shows he is the avowed enemy of the GOP in its current incarnation. Among many others, Mr. von Brunn hates Rupert Murdoch, Fox News (that means you, too, Shep!), George W. Bush and John McCain. And according to the FBI, Mr. von Brunn even had in his vehicle the address of the Weekly Standard, home base of the dreaded "neo-cons."
Seems Mr. von Brunn wasn’t a big fan of the Iraq War and also believed that 9/11 was an "inside job." Given this political sketch, Mr. von Brunn would feel at home at Camp Casey, Cindy Sheehan’s antiwar outpost in Crawford, Texas, and at the Daily Kos convention, rather than partaking in a National Review cruise with pro-Israeli war hawks Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson.
The inconvenient truth is that David Duke and James von Brunn currently share more in common with Markos Moulitsas and Arianna Huffington than with Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer. But the right wouldn’t be so crass or foolish to try to blame the political left for the existence of – or motivation behind – haters like Mr. von Brunn.
It’s the left side of the aisle that hates Jews. You won’t find anyone at a Conservative gathering wearing pro-Palestinian or pro-Hamas attire, but you’ll sure as hell see it at any liberal “progressive” rally.
How ironic that just a couple of days after the Holocaust Museum shooting, Obama’s former pastor, Rev. Wright, said “them Jews” won’t let him talk to Obama.
He went on to blather about “Zionism” controlling the government and other such nonsense. Sounds pretty racist to me, and Wright is to the left of Karl Marx.
The reality is that the surge in violence is primarily a cause of the economic downturn. A surge in violence almost always accompanies a recession or depression.
The people who were barely hanging on to their sanity prior to the recession are starting to snap.
It doesn’t have anything to do with political parties. It’s about crazy and not crazy.
-Chris Jones
Case Dismissed Against 3 Racist Black Panthers
This from The Washington Times:
Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.
The incident – which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube – had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.
This was an open and shut case of racism and voter intimidation that was caught on video, but the Obama Justice Department chose to dismiss it — purely coincidental I’m sure.
Here’s what a prominent 1960s civil rights activist said about the incident:
Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as “the most blatant form of voter intimidation” that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.
This goes right along with the far left thinking that currently permeates The White House and most of the government.
The same people who spent a lifetime fighting racial discrimination against blacks, now suddenly don’t worry about it too much when it’s reversed. Racist blacks can say anything and do anything, without anyone saying a word about it.
Ironically, members of the so-called New Black Panther Party were on National Geographic a couple of months back smearing Barack Obama, saying he was a tool of the white devil, etc.
These black racists are no different than Neo-Nazi skin head groups or any other hate groups. Yet, somehow the far-left still feels a kind of kinship with these fools.
I don’t dispute the legitimate need for groups like the Panthers back in the 1960s, but this new group is nothing like the original and is totally uncalled for today.
The Eric Holder DOJ will no doubt continue this kind of one-sided justice just as Sonia Sotomayor did with the white firefighters who were denied promotions because they were white.
Everyone in America should be subject to the same rules regardless of skin color or ethnicity.
-Chris Jones
Black Community Can’t Decide Whether To Criticize Obama
I bet Dr. King never thought his vision of judging people not by their skin color, but by the content of their character would be slowed by members of his own community.
The Washington Post has a tedious article about the strong divisions within the black community over whether it’s okay to criticize Barack Obama. More moderate blacks who don’t obsess over their skin color and that of the president’s fear being called an “Uncle Tom” for trying to “bring a brother down” as the WaPo puts it.
Barack Obama is now the President Of The United States, not the President of black people. He’s everyone’s president and should be judged according to how he governs and whether the country is better after his presidency than it was before it.
This obsession about skin color continues to come from the black community and pretty much only from the black community. Whether it’s blacks in Oakland coming out in mass to support a quadruple cop killer and rapist who was “forced” into a life of crime, or racist blacks in Chicago using the race card to get another black in Obama’s old senate seat even if he’s corrupt.
Blacks should let the rest of us know when they’re ready to move past race and we’ll gladly come along.
California’s Attempt To Ban Black Cars Is Racist
I had high hopes that president Obama would usher in a new ear of post racial harmony and then California had to go and mess it up with this:
In a move that will likely get California’s consumers in a huff, impending legislation may soon restrict the paint color options for Golden State residents looking for their next new vehicle. The specific colors that are currently on the chopping block are all dark hues, with the worst offender seemingly the most innocuous color you could think of: Black. What could California possibly have against these colors, you ask? Apparently, the California Air Resources Board figures that the climate control systems of dark colored cars need to work harder than their lighter siblings – especially after sitting in the sun for a few hours. Anyone living in a hot, sunny climate will tell you that this assumption is accurate, of course. In fact, legislation already exists for buildings that has proven successful at reducing the energy consumption of skyscrapers.
I think any fair minded person can see the obvious stealth racism here. All this talk of “cars” is really code word for people. California wants to ban black people. To suggest somehow that “lighter siblings” AKA light skinned people are somehow superior is an outrage! This is the worst case of racism I’ve seen since the monkey cartoon.
Where in the hell is Al Sharpton on this?
-Chris Jones
Dick Durbin: Race Played Role In Seating Burris
Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin confirmed today what most of us already knew — the democrats caved to race baiting in their decision to seat Blago appointee Roland Burris. Without a doubt, the shrewdest person in this whole affair was Blago himself. He knew without a doubt that nominating a black man to Obama’s seat would guarantee that appointee being seated. Nothing tweaks a liberal more than being labeled a racist and not seating Burris would of course be labeled as “racist” — by black racists in Chicago.
Here’s what Dick Durbin said:
Durbin, a fellow Democrat and Illinois’ senior senator, noted that Rep. Bobby Rush, a Chicago Democrat, appeared at Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s announcement of his appointment of Burris and used racially charged language to defend the appointment.
“My colleague from Illinois, Congressman Bobby Rush, made strong statements along those (racial) lines,” Durbin said on WGN-AM (720). “They were painful and hurtful, and it became part of this calculation.”
If you don’t remember what former black panther Bobby Rush said then allow me to remind you:
“I would ask you not to hang or lynch the appointee as you try to casitgate the appointor,” Rush added. ”Separate, if you will, the appointee from the appointor. Roland Burris is worthy.”
“There are no African-Americans in the Senate, and I don’t think that anyone, any U.S. Senator who is sitting right now would want to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate. I don’t think they want to go on record doing that.
Painful and hurtful? What a liberal pussy. His comments were fucking stupid and ignorant not painful or hurtful.
I love how black racism is just accepted and not called out. The racial makeup of the senate should be irrelevant. What should matter is competence and honesty not skin color. Racist blacks in Chicago have been terrified that Obama’s “black senate seat” might fall into white hands, so getting any black appointed regardless of honesty or integrity was the order of the day. Bobby Rush predictably played the race card and liberal democrats still trying to work out their white guilt issues played right along.
So Illinois and by extension America ended up with another corrupt politician from Illinois — but at least he was black.
-Chris Jones
(hat tip Hot Air)
Black Race Hustlers Find Their Voice In The Age Of Obama Over “Racist” Cartoon
I often wondered how Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rev Wright, and every other black race hustler in America was going make a living now that we have a black president. The fact that a black man reached the highest office on planet earth pretty much takes the wind out of their sales — or at least it did for a minute.
Fortunately for the race hustlers, the liberal media threw them a life line in the form of phony racism claims directed at a cartoon. I bet Al Sharpton was relieved to have an opportunity to break out the bullhorns and picket signs. It’s ironic that just yesterday, our new Attorney General was calling America a “nation of cowards” when it comes to discussing race. As I wrote yesterday, it is this kind of nonsense over the cartoon that makes people afraid to talk about race.
That cartoon clearly coincided with the huge national story about the Chimp that went wild and had to be shot. Only a paranoid kook or a person who makes a living labeling people and things as ‘racist’ (the race hustlers) could think that cartoon was racist.
Anyone can look at the cartoon above and get the idea. The stimulus bill couldn’t have been any worse if we had just let a crazed monkey write it. It was full of pork, nobody read it, and it cost a trillion dollars. The race hustlers want you to believe the real message was nothing more than a stealth attempt to call president Obama a monkey. First of all, Obama isn’t the one who wrote the damn stimulus bill. It was Nancy Pelosi, David Obey, and Barney Frank with a little help from Harry Reid. Secondly, the cartoon follows exactly what happened with the real monkey case. The police did in fact the shoot the crazed chimp.
I was blown away when I first heard the racism claims. It would have never occurred to me to see a racist meaning in it. I didn’t think the cartoon was very good or very funny, but racism never entered my mind. The cartoon came out within a day of the chimp story so it was quite timely. This is nothing more than a desperate attempt by liberals and race hustlers to keep their societal role as perpetual victims of “white devils.”
Real racism does still exist in this country, but when you label things racist that clearly are not it makes people cynical. Then when a real act of racism occurs nobody pays attention, because they figure they’ve heard it all before.
-Chris Jones
Former Black Panther Urges Public Not To “Hang” Or “Lynch” Blago Appointee
Besides being the most corrupt state in America, Illinois also knows how to play the race card better than anyone. Corrupt Gov. Blago appoints Roland Burris who gave a ton of money to his campaign in the past, but since he’s black he should get to keep the appointment? Racist black leaders in Chicago have been grumbling for weeks about how Obama’s senate seat is “black” and it must remain “black” because somehow that is what is best for the country. As I said last week, I didn’t know Barack Obama’s senate seat was black. In fact, I’m quite sure it’s exactly the same color as every other seat in the senate.
Seeing as how Obama supposedly transcends race, I find it interesting that Congressman Bobby Rush decided to get up during Blago’s press conference and say this:
He urged people “not to hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer” and, after saying repeatedly that Burris would be the only African-American in the Senate, said that he believed no senator would want “to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the US Senate”.
Wow, talk about taking two steps forward and one step back. What difference does it make if he’s the only black member of the senate? The senate has to have a black person in it? Does it also have to have a Hispanic, an Asian, and an Arab as well? Also, what’s with all the talk about lynching? Sounds like he’s been hanging out with Rev. Wright too much.
How about electing someone based on the content of their character and their record of achievement instead of the color of their skin.
-Chris Jones
Racist Black Leaders In Chicago Fighting To Keep Obama’s “Black Senate Seat”
If you thought Barack Obama’s election to the highest office in the land would usher in a new post-racial period for America — think again. Laura Washington’s column in the Chicago Sun-Times today is about the perceived ‘hijacking’ of Barack Obama’s “black Senate seat” through a possible special election in light of Gov. Blago’s corruption.
The so-called “Concerned Clergy of Illinois” (meaning concerned black clergy concerned about black people) believes that the federal corruption investigation of Blagojevich is cover for a conspiracy by whites to take Obama’s “black senate seat.”
Meanwhile, the concerned clergy, a cadre of several dozen prominent black ministers, are “appalled” by the fallout of the sensational federal investigation. They see it as a thinly veiled attempt by white pols to hijack the seat, says Stephanie Gadlin, the coalition’s spokeswoman.
There’s a massive conspiracy afoot, Gadlin says. “We see it for what it is. What we are really looking at is ‘The Luck of the Irish’ — two Madigans, Fitzgerald, Durbin, Cullerton, Claypool, Daley, and all the rest. They’re making a power play to regain the control of the politics, money and jobs in this state.”
…White voters don’t and won’t accept the idea that America and Illinois need — and deserve — a black senator. (When the Senate was all white, they never complained).
So white people were fine with electing a black president, but electing a black senator is a bridge too far? The real issue here is that Chicago is full of black racists who flat out don’t like white people. Secondly, I wasn’t aware that Barack Obama had a ‘black’ seat in the senate. I thought his seat was the same color as all the other seats. People like Laura Washington (racist people) aren’t interested in filling a job with the most competent or qualified person, but rather with someone who shares the same skin color as them.
Black leaders in Chicago don’t want the people to have a chance to vote, because they may not elect a black person to fill Obama’s seat. The blacks who claim a racial conspiracy are in fact the only ones motivated by race in this situation. Barack Obama’s senate seat is not the property of black people simply because the guy who filled it was black.
Assuming his senate seat was filled by another black guy, what would that really mean? Did the south side of Chicago get any less corrupt, poor, or violent when Obama was a senator from Illinois? How did having a black senator from Chicago help the black community in Illinois?
The one thing about Barack Obama that sets him apart from his black colleagues in Chicago is that he doesn’t view everything through a racial lens. His blackness doesn’t come before everything in his life. He’s interested in doing the right thing for the whole community not just the black community. Unlike his pastor of 20 years, Obama doesn’t see a conspiracy cooked up by ‘white devils’ around every corner.
Blacks in Chicago need to wise-up and get with the times. Stop playing the perpetual victim. Stop pretending to be persecuted.
-Chris Jones
You Might Be A Racist If — You’re Not Voting Obama
Everyone needs to read Jonah Goldberg’s new piece in National Review about the phony racism charges constantly being leveled at McCain from the left. I wrote something about this issue the other day, but of course Jonah’s is vastly superior.
Murtha Calls Western PA “Racist Area”
John Murtha is shooting his stupid, ignorant mouth off again:
The 17-term Democratic congressman tells the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in a story posted Wednesday on its Web site that, as he put it: “There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area.”
He says it’s taken time for many Pennsylvania voters to come around to liking Obama, but he should still win the state, though not in a runaway.
The message of this election is that anyone who doesn’t support Obama is a racist. It’s not possible to disagree with Obama’s policies, you have to hate him because he’s black.
Posts
