- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
WASHINGTON – As a White House adviser Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan indicated support for affirmative action as good law and good politics.
The Clinton administration was wrestling with how to weigh in on a case involving a white New Jersey school teacher who was laid off instead of an equally senior black colleague. Kagan endorsed a narrow legal argument to try to prevent a Supreme Court ruling effectively ending affirmative action policies.
The solicitor general wrote a memo saying the case could be disaster for affirmative action. In a handwritten note, Kagan said the solicitor general had "exactly the right position" legally and politically.
Kagan's stance is not a surprise and would put her in the liberal wing of the Supreme Court when it comes to affirmative action.
If corporate America were honest with itself as a whole, would most companies hire the black applicant who is clearly just as qualified if not moreso over the white applicant? I think not.
Kagan: Affirmative action good law — good politics - Yahoo! News
A chance to end AA, and she was against it, helped keep Government endorsed racism alive. Shameful.
The more we learn of this woman, the more we can see she's not interested in the Constitutionality of issues, but rather pushing an agenda.
Affirmative action isn't government endorsed racism.
I was starting to agree with you till you played this card.
Putting one's race above another and making laws to enforce it... I can see how it's viewed in those terms.
I can see how it's viewed in those terms as well. However, that doesn't make it an accurate description of what affirmative action is. After all, there were laws that have been in place that were discriminatory against African-Americans, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action, that have been on the books as closely as 60 years ago. So if the government has in the past made and enforced laws that blatantly discriminated against one group, I see nothing wrong with the government making and enforcing laws that help that group achieve opportunities they wouldn't ordinarily have access to.
These laws were not in place during most peoples lifetime, yet you say I see nothing wrong with the government making and enforcing laws that help that group achieve opportunities they wouldn't ordinarily have access to
How long should we have to pay for the sins of our fathers? Where is our access to these opportunities? Why does the law favor one over another?
I can see how it's viewed in those terms as well. However, that doesn't make it an accurate description of what affirmative action is. After all, there were laws that have been in place that were discriminatory against African-Americans, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action, that have been on the books as closely as 60 years ago. So if the government has in the past made and enforced laws that blatantly discriminated against one group, I see nothing wrong with the government making and enforcing laws that help that group achieve opportunities they wouldn't ordinarily have access to.
Affirmative action isn't government endorsed racism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?