• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Slew of SCOTUS Decisions.

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First big one.

In a tie vote the SCOTUS leaves a lower court ruling that Obama did not have the authority in his immigration EO. So his EO on immigration is reversed.

in another case the SCOTUS upholds racial discrimination in college admittance. basically if you are white and do better than a minority on a test it doesn't matter
they will get the spot over you.

In an interesting twist the SCOTUS now requires law enforcement to require warrents before a Alcohol blood test.
a warrant is not required for breathe tests.
 

Hypothetical

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
8,626
Reaction score
2,554
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
if there is one good reason to vote for Trump, it's that we know EXACTLY the type of SCOTUS appointments we will get with Clinton.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
43,659
Reaction score
23,753
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
in another case the SCOTUS upholds racial discrimination in college admittance.

This one I don't understand. Why aren't black people enraged by this racial discrimination?
 

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
30,953
Reaction score
9,018
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This one I don't understand. Why aren't black people enraged by this racial discrimination?

Because they benefit from it? We are talking affirmative action...right?
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
43,659
Reaction score
23,753
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Because they benefit from it? We are talking affirmative action...right?

Yes. So they're a-okay with racial discrimination if they get something positive out of it.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This one I don't understand. Why aren't black people enraged by this racial discrimination?

Because many view it as repayment and restitution for what they believe is a broken system in which discrimination against them and their forefathers have caused them a significant handicap from the onset.

This is similar to someone feeling justified in a civil court garnishing the wages of an individual to pay for child support; they may believe theft is wrong, but in that particular case this form of "legal theft" is simply rectifying a situation that was wrong in the first place.

Not saying that it's right or wrong, but it's not hard to step back and "understand" something even if you disagree with it, if one truly wants to understand it.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Because many view it as repayment and restitution for what they believe is a broken system in which discrimination against them and their forefathers have caused them a significant handicap from the onset.

This is similar to someone feeling justified in a civil court garnishing the wages of an individual to pay for child support; they may believe theft is wrong, but in that particular case this form of "legal theft" is simply rectifying a situation that was wrong in the first place.

Not saying that it's right or wrong, but it's not hard to step back and "understand" something even if you disagree with it, if one truly wants to understand it.

True, but we have long ago repaid out debt to these people. Enough is enough.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,849
Reaction score
2,407
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Josie said:
Yes. So they're a-okay with racial discrimination if they get something positive out of it.

Hmmmm....I kidnap you and your family members, take all your stuff, and make you live in a shack for the rest of your life, while I use your property to become wealthy. We die, our children and grandchildren die, but my descendents do quite well, while yours do not.

Someone finally realizes that your family used to be about as wealthy as mine, and the reason yours is poor is because of my crime. It's fair to just do nothing?
 

CycloneWanderer

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2013
Messages
1,577
Reaction score
584
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Hmmmm....I kidnap you and your family members, take all your stuff, and make you live in a shack for the rest of your life, while I use your property to become wealthy. We die, our children and grandchildren die, but my descendents do quite well, while yours do not.

Someone finally realizes that your family used to be about as wealthy as mine, and the reason yours is poor is because of my crime. It's fair to just do nothing?

Do you live in a caste system or something?
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,849
Reaction score
2,407
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
CycloneWanderer said:
Do you live in a caste system or something?

Depends on what you mean. What exactly are you asking, and why?
 

CycloneWanderer

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2013
Messages
1,577
Reaction score
584
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Depends on what you mean. What exactly are you asking, and why?

In your hypothetical situation, does the person live in a strict caste system (e.g., India, Saudi Arabia)? No reason.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,849
Reaction score
2,407
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
CycloneWanderer said:
In your hypothetical situation, does the person live in a strict caste system (e.g., India, Saudi Arabia)? No reason.

Until relatively recently, yes. Sociological and psychological studies also show that, though the legal imposition of caste is no longer present, psychologically, discrimination against Josie's descendants remains a reality. People are less willing to employ her descendants than mine, and pay them less overall, for example.
 

CycloneWanderer

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2013
Messages
1,577
Reaction score
584
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Hmmmm....I kidnap you and your family members, take all your stuff, and make you live in a shack for the rest of your life, while I use your property to become wealthy. We die, our children and grandchildren die, but my descendents do quite well, while yours do not.

Someone finally realizes that your family used to be about as wealthy as mine, and the reason yours is poor is because of my crime. It's fair to just do nothing?

Hmmmm....A guy kills you and your family members, takes all your stuff, and uses your property to become wealthy. You die, but the guy's descendants do quite well, while yours never exist.

Someone finally realizes that your family used to be about as wealthy as the guy's, and the reason yours doesn't exist anymore. Is it fair to force the children of this guy to pay for their ancestor's crime?

Slightly modified version because you are asking whether or not children should be punished for the actions of their ancestors.
 

Hypothetical

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
8,626
Reaction score
2,554
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Hmmmm....I kidnap you and your family members, take all your stuff, and make you live in a shack for the rest of your life, while I use your property to become wealthy. We die, our children and grandchildren die, but my descendents do quite well, while yours do not.

Someone finally realizes that your family used to be about as wealthy as mine, and the reason yours is poor is because of my crime. It's fair to just do nothing?

the law would sure say so , because you can't prosecute someone for the crimes or indiscrepancies of their ancestors. That is what it appears you are proposing.
 

Tanngrisnir

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
34,150
Reaction score
15,598
Location
No longer Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First big one.

In a tie vote the SCOTUS leaves a lower court ruling that Obama did not have the authority in his immigration EO. So his EO on immigration is reversed.

in another case the SCOTUS upholds racial discrimination in college admittance. basically if you are white and do better than a minority on a test it doesn't matter
they will get the spot over you.

In an interesting twist the SCOTUS now requires law enforcement to require warrents before a Alcohol blood test.
a warrant is not required for breathe tests.

LOL! "Discrimination"? In this case, poor little Abby wasn't even in the top 10 percentile of her class.

SCOTUS Upholds UT's Affirmative Action Program, Knocking Abigail Fisher on Her Ass

"Since Fisher was not in the top ten percent of her class, she was not admitted in into the University’s 2008 freshman class. She argued that the “holistic” approach to fill remaining spots, “disadvantaged her and other Caucasian applicants, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”

Previously the Fifth District court sided with the university, but Thursday, in a 4-3 ruling (Kagan had recused herself), SCOTUS upheld the lower court, reaffirming that “race-conscious admissions” does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. SCOTUS also hinted that the problem might have been Abigail Fisher herself, who have had a clear road to UT if she had finished in the top ten percent of her class. The court noted that the vast majority of the university’s admissions (75 percent) came from this process. From today’s ruling:

The component with the largest impact on petitioner’s chances of admission was not the school’s consideration of race under its holistic-review process but the Top Ten Percent Plan. Because petitioner did not challenge the percentage part of the plan, the record is devoid of evidence of its impact on diversity."
 

Howler63

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
553
Location
Just this side of senility.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Hmmmm....I kidnap you and your family members, take all your stuff, and make you live in a shack for the rest of your life, while I use your property to become wealthy. We die, our children and grandchildren die, but my descendents do quite well, while yours do not.

Someone finally realizes that your family used to be about as wealthy as mine, and the reason yours is poor is because of my crime. It's fair to just do nothing?

Yes, all the principles are dead. LONG DEAD.
 

Howler63

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
553
Location
Just this side of senility.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
LOL! "Discrimination"? In this case, poor little Abby wasn't even in the top 10 percentile of her class.

SCOTUS Upholds UT's Affirmative Action Program, Knocking Abigail Fisher on Her Ass

"Since Fisher was not in the top ten percent of her class, she was not admitted in into the University’s 2008 freshman class. She argued that the “holistic” approach to fill remaining spots, “disadvantaged her and other Caucasian applicants, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”

Previously the Fifth District court sided with the university, but Thursday, in a 4-3 ruling (Kagan had recused herself), SCOTUS upheld the lower court, reaffirming that “race-conscious admissions” does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. SCOTUS also hinted that the problem might have been Abigail Fisher herself, who have had a clear road to UT if she had finished in the top ten percent of her class. The court noted that the vast majority of the university’s admissions (75 percent) came from this process. From today’s ruling:

The component with the largest impact on petitioner’s chances of admission was not the school’s consideration of race under its holistic-review process but the Top Ten Percent Plan. Because petitioner did not challenge the percentage part of the plan, the record is devoid of evidence of its impact on diversity."

If the color of skin is used as ANY amount of the metric for admittance, it's WRONG.
 

CycloneWanderer

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2013
Messages
1,577
Reaction score
584
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Until relatively recently, yes. Sociological and psychological studies also show that, though the legal imposition of caste is no longer present, psychologically, discrimination against Josie's descendants remains a reality. People are less willing to employ her descendants than mine, and pay them less overall, for example.

So, let's say we implement governmental controls that benefit Josie above others. What happens if in 100 years Josie's descendants are doing significantly better than other peoples' for several of the reasons you list? What if it has an unintended, opposite effect and leads to Josie's descendants doing even worse?
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Hmmmm....I kidnap you and your family members, take all your stuff, and make you live in a shack for the rest of your life, while I use your property to become wealthy. We die, our children and grandchildren die, but my descendents do quite well, while yours do not.

Someone finally realizes that your family used to be about as wealthy as mine, and the reason yours is poor is because of my crime. It's fair to just do nothing?

No black family kidnapped from Africa was wealthy, in fact bringing them here gave their descendants a much better life than if they had remained in Africa.

We wont mention that they were kidnapped and sold into slavery by other blacks.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,849
Reaction score
2,407
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
CycloneWanderer said:
Hmmmm....A guy kills you and your family members, takes all your stuff, and uses your property to become wealthy. You die, but the guy's descendants do quite well, while yours never exist.

Someone finally realizes that your family used to be about as wealthy as the guy's, and the reason yours doesn't exist anymore. Is it fair to force the children of this guy to pay for their ancestor's crime?

Pay whom? If my ancestors don't exist, then who are they paying?

In my original scenario, then yes, it is fair to make the wealthy children equalize their wealth with the poor children. Had it not been for the crime ever so long ago, that's probably how things would be today. That's not punishment. That's returning stolen property. It is not fair to send the wealthy descendents to prison--that would be punishment.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,849
Reaction score
2,407
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Hypothetical said:
the law would sure say so , because you can't prosecute someone for the crimes or indiscrepancies of their ancestors. That is what it appears you are proposing.

No. Affirmative action isn't about sending people to jail last I looked.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LOL! "Discrimination"? In this case, poor little Abby wasn't even in the top 10 percentile of her class.

that is what it is called when you based admission or anything on race is it not? how is it not discrimination?

"Since Fisher was not in the top ten percent of her class, she was not admitted in into the University’s 2008 freshman class. She argued that the “holistic” approach to fill remaining spots, “disadvantaged her and other Caucasian applicants, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”

If she scored higher than someone else but someone else was let in because of their skin color that is discrimination. in fact that is the very definition of discrimination no matter how your bias source wants to put it.

Previously the Fifth District court sided with the university, but Thursday, in a 4-3 ruling (Kagan had recused herself), SCOTUS upheld the lower court, reaffirming that “race-conscious admissions” does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. SCOTUS also hinted that the problem might have been Abigail Fisher herself, who have had a clear road to UT if she had finished in the top ten percent of her class. The court noted that the vast majority of the university’s admissions (75 percent) came from this process. From today’s ruling:

The component with the largest impact on petitioner’s chances of admission was not the school’s consideration of race under its holistic-review process but the Top Ten Percent Plan. Because petitioner did not challenge the percentage part of the plan, the record is devoid of evidence of its impact on diversity."

excusing discrimination does not mean that it isn't discrimination. the fact that the college give more points in admittance to programs because of skin color means that they are discriminating.
in fact having a litmus test based on skin color is the very essence of discrimination, but I guess it is ok to discriminate because she is white.
 

Hypothetical

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
8,626
Reaction score
2,554
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
So, let's say we implement governmental controls that benefit Josie above others. What happens if in 100 years Josie's descendants are doing significantly better than other peoples' for several of the reasons you list? What if it has an unintended, opposite effect and leads to Josie's descendants doing even worse?

It's really about what we want America to be about. You can't make right one injustice by levying the SAME injustice on another group of people. That is just as wrong as the first injustice, and you know it is going to keep the problem going, because now members of that group are going to be angry.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hmmmm....I kidnap you and your family members, take all your stuff, and make you live in a shack for the rest of your life, while I use your property to become wealthy. We die, our children and grandchildren die, but my descendents do quite well, while yours do not.

Someone finally realizes that your family used to be about as wealthy as mine, and the reason yours is poor is because of my crime. It's fair to just do nothing?

so can someone point me to someone that did this recently? if not then well it is discrimination but selective discrimination.
still doesn't make it any less wrong.
 
Top Bottom