Judge halts Biden's race-based aid for farmers, says challenge is 'likely to succeed'

[Anthony60]

Biden's racist aid


"The obvious response to a government agency that claims it continues to discriminate against farmers because of their race or national origin is to direct it to stop: it is not to direct it to intentionally discriminate against others on the basis of their race and national origin," Griesbach continued.

This one seemed pretty much a no brainer, but you can't always trust the courts.

 

[MTAtech]

So, it’s ok to have systemic discrimination against farmers of color, who have lost 90 percent of their land over the past century because of racist policies but it’s not ok to redress this wrong?

Courts have repeatedly ruled that policies that redress past discrimination are legal, such as policies that redress past discrimination in college admissions.

From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/08/reparations-black-farmers-stimulus/

Discrimination started a century ago with a series of federal Homestead Acts that offered mainly White settlers deeply subsidized land. Since then, local U.S. Department of Agriculture offices charged with distributing loans have frequently been found to deny Black farmers access to credit and to ignore or delay loan applications. Many Black farmers don’t have clear title to their land, which makes them ineligible for certain USDA loans to purchase livestock or cover the cost of planting, and they have seldom benefited from subsidy payments or trade mitigation compensation — almost all of President Donald Trump’s $28 billion bailout for those affected by the China trade war went to White farmers.

 

[Taylor]

So, it’s ok to have systemic discrimination against farmers of color, who have lost 90 percent of their land over the past century because of racist policies but it’s not ok to redress this wrong?

Who said it's ok to discriminate? If Biden wants to "redress this wrong" he needs to find a way to do it legally.

 

[Chomsky]

Biden's racist aid


"The obvious response to a government agency that claims it continues to discriminate against farmers because of their race or national origin is to direct it to stop: it is not to direct it to intentionally discriminate against others on the basis of their race and national origin," Griesbach continued.

This one seemed pretty much a no brainer, but you can't always trust the courts.

While I empathize with the plight of racism over the many years, In agree with Judge here. We need equal opportunity, not more racial descrimination.

 

[Chomsky]

Who said it's ok to discriminate? If Biden wants to "redress this wrong" he needs to find a way to do it legally.

Fair point.

 

[ecofarm]

"We gotta stop the black people from getting stuff!!"

Like that's not a Klan meeting.

 

[Anthony60]

So, it’s ok to have systemic discrimination against farmers of color, who have lost 90 percent of their land over the past century because of racist policies but it’s not ok to redress this wrong?

Courts have repeatedly ruled that policies that redress past discrimination are legal, such as policies that redress past discrimination in college admissions.

From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/08/reparations-black-farmers-stimulus/

Discrimination started a century ago with a series of federal Homestead Acts that offered mainly White settlers deeply subsidized land. Since then, local U.S. Department of Agriculture offices charged with distributing loans have frequently been found to deny Black farmers access to credit and to ignore or delay loan applications. Many Black farmers don’t have clear title to their land, which makes them ineligible for certain USDA loans to purchase livestock or cover the cost of planting, and they have seldom benefited from subsidy payments or trade mitigation compensation — almost all of President Donald Trump’s $28 billion bailout for those affected by the China trade war went to White farmers.

Not a very good article, it just compares land size, income, etc... Nothing at all that is systematic or specific racism. Why are you even linking to it? It doesn't back up what you are saying.

Besides, any black farmer that is a victim of government sanctioned racism can bring a federal lawsuit.

 

[Steve N]

"We gotta stop the black people from getting stuff!!"

Like that's not a Klan meeting.

Who said that?

 

[ecofarm]

Who said that?

You never know anything. Why ask me? It's always "I don't know anything at all, nothing!" Eventually, someday, you've gotta know something about something, anything.

It's tiresome. Seek enlightenment elsewhere.

 

[Anthony60]

You never know anything. Why ask me? It's always "I don't know anything at all, nothing!" Eventually, someday, you've gotta know something about something, anything.

It's tiresome. Seek enlightenment elsewhere.

I'm guessing it was FDR or Woodrow Wilson. Jeez, Wilson may have said it 1,000 times.

 

[ecofarm]

I'm guessing it was FDR or Woodrow Wilson. Jeez, Wilson may have said it 1,000 times.

You've probably been a victim of black people as long as you can remember.

 

[dcsports]

So, it’s ok to have systemic discrimination against farmers of color, who have lost 90 percent of their land over the past century because of racist policies but it’s not ok to redress this wrong?

Courts have repeatedly ruled that policies that redress past discrimination are legal, such as policies that redress past discrimination in college admissions.

From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/08/reparations-black-farmers-stimulus/

Discrimination started a century ago with a series of federal Homestead Acts that offered mainly White settlers deeply subsidized land. Since then, local U.S. Department of Agriculture offices charged with distributing loans have frequently been found to deny Black farmers access to credit and to ignore or delay loan applications. Many Black farmers don’t have clear title to their land, which makes them ineligible for certain USDA loans to purchase livestock or cover the cost of planting, and they have seldom benefited from subsidy payments or trade mitigation compensation — almost all of President Donald Trump’s $28 billion bailout for those affected by the China trade war went to White farmers.

This was a program to help farmers struggling, not to redress past wrongs. To make that help available only to those with certain racial or ethnic characteristics is wrong.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Looks like the system of checks and balances still functions. Be interesting to see how this case plays out.

 

[mrjurrs]

Biden's racist aid


"The obvious response to a government agency that claims it continues to discriminate against farmers because of their race or national origin is to direct it to stop: it is not to direct it to intentionally discriminate against others on the basis of their race and national origin," Griesbach continued.

This one seemed pretty much a no brainer, but you can't always trust the courts.

What a fool. This process was set up to distribute proceeds from a lawsuit that had been denied for decades to redress wrongs that occurred decades before that. See Pigford v.Glickman.

 

[Chomsky]

This was a program to help farmers struggling, not to redress past wrongs. To make that help available only to those with certain racial or ethnic characteristics is wrong.

I agree!

I really hate delineating benefits by things like income, sex, race, etc. If a benefit is worth giving, all should be able to avail themselves, not just a select few.

 

[Chomsky]

What a fool. This process was set up to distribute proceeds from a lawsuit that had been denied for decades to redress wrongs that occurred decades before that. See Pigford v.Glickman.

First of all, thanks. I was not aware of this case.

However, the OP article makes no mention of this being a Pigford payment. If it is, I may take back my earlier opinion. But if it's not, then I believe I will still disagree with what Biden's doing here.

Irregardless, thanks for bringing 'Pigford' to my attention!

 

[Metric Mouse]

First of all, thanks. I was not aware of this case.

However, the OP article makes no mention of this being a Pigford payment. If it is, I may take back my earlier opinion. But if it's not, then I believe I will still disagree with what Biden's doing here.

Irregardless, thanks for bringing 'Pigford' to my attention!

FYI, there was a later case as well, for people that qualified but were left out of Pigford.

 

[JANFU]

While I empathize with the plight of racism over the many years, In agree with Judge here. We need equal opportunity, not more racial descrimination.

This directed aid was to address current & ongoing inequities that many black farmers face today

 

[Chomsky]

This directed aid was to address current & ongoing inequities that many black farmers face today

I'm not sure tht's going to be legal, nor do I like it. I abhor race & means-tested benefits. If racial issues need to be addressed, than address them through the courts. But if you're going to help suffering farmers, help them all.

 

[Chomsky]

FYI, there was a later case as well, for people that qualified but were left out of Pigford.

You know, that's fair. But if that's the case, I'd prefer to have those cases administered specifically to the cases. If Biden wants to give aid to struggling farmers, then give the aid to all of them that need it. I'm not a fan of this 'picking winners & losers' stuff.

 

[MTAtech]

Not a very good article, it just compares land size, income, etc... Nothing at all that is systematic or specific racism. Why are you even linking to it? It doesn't back up what you are saying.

Besides, any black farmer that is a victim of government sanctioned racism can bring a federal lawsuit.

I excerpted the relevant which discusses the passed discrimination. Not wanting to understand what the article said doesn’t undercut what it said.

 

[sjmay]

And here we go....all the social ****ing justice warriors going OMG....that's a racist decision, because you know.....combatting racism.......with racism, doesn't ****ing equate in their heads, they are too outraged about the first racism, to acknowledge that the fix to that...is not more racism.

 

[JANFU]

And here we go....all the social ****ing justice warriors going OMG....that's a racist decision, because you know.....combatting racism.......with racism, doesn't ****ing equate in their heads, they are too outraged about the first racism, to acknowledge that the fix to that...is not more racism.

Right, no racism up north here. Nope, Nada, None

 

[MTAtech]

And here we go....all the social ****ing justice warriors going OMG....that's a racist decision, because you know.....combatting racism.......with racism, doesn't ****ing equate in their heads, they are too outraged about the first racism, to acknowledge that the fix to that...is not more racism.

It's been long established that that race can be considered in decisions. See: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin,
I could cite other cases but I'm lazy tonight.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Fox News headline, anyone surprised?