tvc184

Some people are stuck in 1865 and/or 1965 and they shall never progress any further.

What is there to say? A fool let his mouth runneth over and got caught. Cruz then put on the smack down.

The where did he get it from question reminds me…. About 30 years ago I had arrested a guy for Public Intoxication. After the arrest I found a little marijuana in his pocket and arrested him for that also. Public Intoxication is a class C misdemeanor so goes to city court and marijuana possession is at least a B misdemeanor and anything above a C has to go to the county or district courts run by the county. A class C carries a maximum penalty of a $500 fine. So the guy I arrested for Public Intoxication actually went to a trial in the city court. He decided to act as his own attorney and then took the witness stand in his own defense. The reason that in most situation is a lawyer does not want you to take the stand in your own defense is because you cannot refuse to answer a question. The Fifth Amendment doesn’t allow a person to make a statement from the stand but then refuse to answer questions from the prosecution. So the guy took the stand and gave his scenario of what happened. I guess you could say as his own attorney, he questioned himself. After he made his statement, the city prosecutor got his chance to ask questions. The judge had admonished the man that if he took the stand in his old defense, he couldn’t refuse to answer questions for the prosecution. So the city prosecutor ask him something like, you said you were not intoxicated but didn’t you have marijuana on you at the time? The defendant said yes. The prosecutor then asked, where did you get it? The defendant said, it’s none of your business. The judge then told the defendant something like, I told you that once you take the stand, you have to answer questions or make a legal objection as to why you should not have to answer it. So where did you get the marijuana? Defendant….. It’s none of your business either! Within about two seconds the judge slammed the gavel and said, Guilty, $500 fine… next case. And… he still had to go to trial for the marijuana possession. 😂

That is what I was talking about in a prior post. Being denied a test is discrimination under EEOC. Affirmative action is what happened at Beaumont PD maybe 25 years ago. Beaumont PD I believe had a three tier hiring process. I think (been so long ago) the three lists were, a Black person from the first list, a female of any race from the second list and then White males. A White male could not be hired until a Black person (or maybe or Hispanic), then a female were hired. In that particular case I (again) believe that a White male came out number one on the test scores but could not be hired unless two other minorities were hired in front of him. Apparently the other two lists could not hire at least two qualified minorities so the guy who came out number one (who was already an officer at a local agency) was denied being hired because he was automatically in the third list and not enough qualified persons from the first two lists were hired. He filed a federal lawsuit and I believe settled out of court for over 6 figures. BPD had to do away with their discriminatory hiring practice. Actually, what BPD did would be against state civil service law however the union agreed to it in order to settle their collective bargaining contract. That is affirmative action. The person who came out on top and with police experience was denied a job by affirmative action discrimination. It was still allowed in college admissions.

I believe what you keep referring to as Affirmative Action (AA) is actually the EEOC. That has not been overturned nor will it ever be. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is federal law to give the chance to take the test, be hired, be promotions, etc., regardless of race, age, sex, national origin, religion, etc. That law is still in full effect and was not challenged in this ruling. In other words, “employment opportunity” or the chance to compete. That is understandable and completely correct. I don’t think you could find a person in this forum who would advocate doing away with equal opportunity. That however is not AA. AA is not a chance to compete. AA gives special consideration usually based solely on race and sex. AA is taking a person of one race scoring a 75% on a hiring/admissions test and putting him/her above a person scoring 95% who is from the (apparently) wrong skin color. The Supreme Court has in this ruled only that entrance should not be based solely on race because that is discriminatory and unconstitutional under equal protection. Do you have an argument against the Supreme Court upholding the Fourteenth Amendment or will you simply rehash history that everyone is aware if?

How long are you going to relive history that cannot change as a justification for any grievance? You claim that many years ago your father scored the highest but would have been denied a job by race. Apparently you believe that the most qualified by score should be at the top of the list. That coincidentally is your solution through AA, deny other races who scored higher. So if it was wrong against your father, why is it the right thing to do now? How many people are now forced to the back of the bus? This is a quote from the last sentence in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment: “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Please point out why under the Constitution, which is what the Supreme Court ruled on, equal protection of the laws should allow a lower scoring student of one race to deny entry to a college for a higher scoring student of another race. See if you can do so without going back 60, 100 or 150 years ago.

I don’t know by numbers but going by the Postsecondary National Policy Institute (pnpi.org), it is 12.5%. According to a US government website, the percentages of people from 18-24 years of age who attend postsecondary education by race are. Asian 60% White 38% Black 37% Hispanic 33% American Indian 28% Mixed/2 or more races 35% If we include everyone in the listed races (although Hispanic is not a race) from 18-24 years of age, that is how many are enrolled in postsecondary education. So 38% of all White adults in that age range, are going to school. All Blacks combined are at 37% and so on.

Why, SF is not a guaranteed loss.

The choice always has been and always will be the lesser of evils, with a rare exception like the second term of Ronald Reagan.

I have not commented in this thread but I have four government issued photo IDs. That’s all.

Mine aren’t beliefs, they are facts. Do you honestly believe that someone other than a Democrat or Republican is going to be the next president… which is all that I said. I didn’t even name who would be the nominee from either party. In just know that some magical third party, under the Constitution, will not be taking the presidential oath of office in January 2025. Like I said, you can vote for whoever or no one at all. We don’t even have to explain our reasoning to justify what we do. But an R or a D will be the next president. That is a fact.

Who is complaining? I have never been concerned about college admissions rates but I applaud the Supreme Court upholding the Constitution I am only putting out facts. So while putting out facts, the 2020 census has the White population at about 62%. The same federal government shows that Whites in college are at 55%. Nice cherry picking on Baylor. Maybe I could choose Texas Southern where out of 7,015 students, 139 are White. A country which has a population that is about 38% minorities, has a college population of 45%. So according to your percentage based analysis, Whites are underrepresented in college according to the federal government. So who is complaining about the Supreme Court decision?

If Ramaswamy is correct about work-arounds….. Universities have gone from being discriminatory in admissions to certain groups (so affirmative action was needed to force a change) to those same universities now trying to figure out a work-around against the Supreme Court to keep those same groups on campus. Oh, how times have changed. The Civil Rights Act was signed into law almost 60 years ago. Several generations have passed and the roles have reversed with schools fighting to keep minority students, not exclude them. History appears to have moved on. Some people haven’t apparently cannot.

You are not in the Constitution, the president is. The only constitutional requirements are being over 35 years old and not having served more than two prior terms. I always find humor in the idea of the protest vote as in, I am not voting because whatever or I will not be voting Democrat or Republican this election. You can skip voting altogether, go into the booth but turn in a blank ballot, vote for a third party, stomp your feet, hold up protest signs outside of polling places or if your state allows, write in any name, even Mickey Mouse. In January 2025 either the Republican or Democrat candidate will be sworn in as the next president however. Both Republicans and Democrats often use the phrase, “he’s not MY president!”. Yes, he is because no matter who you support, you are stuck with the policies of the person currently holding the office. So every four years we have a percentage of people who deny the legitimacy or ability of the president. Unlike boycotting a product out of protest though, where we can simply choose not to take part in it, we are stuck with the president. Voting for a third party, refusing to vote or whatever, in January 2025 a Democrat or Republican will be sworn into office.

Why should they do that, Big Girl say the ruling only applies to two universities.

America might be, the Democrats certainly aren’t.

Yeah and the Miranda warning was for Ernesto Miranda and Brown v. Board of Education was a ruling for Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington DC. Supreme Court rulings don’t typically only give a verdict in a single case but are guidelines for all lower courts. In fact the judgments from the Supreme Court don’t decide money damages, guilt or innocence, etc. That is for trial courts. The Supreme Court only decides if the Constitution was violated. For example, a person might get his case overturn by the Supreme Court. That does not mean he is innocent or does not have to pay damages. It typically means that a piece of evidence was galined outside of the Constitution. So, if a guy is convicted of a murder and part of his trial was a confession, and it was later ruled to be inadmissible, he is not all of a sudden innocent. The DA can bring the same person back to trial for the same crime but simply can’t use that confession in the trial. The person can still be guilty even after the Supreme Court threw out his conviction. Unless you want to suggest that discrimination by Harvard is unconstitutional but discrimination by Yale would not be.

Therein lies the problem of relying on articles for court rulings. The “some legal experts” (whatever those are) is a clue. Some legal experts think that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to private gun ownership. See how that works. The proposed law ( it is not a law as of yet) doesn’t say anything about pronouns. It says that intimidation of another person due to sex, race, religion, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc., is a hate crime. That’s it. So apparently some people would have you believe that it is perhaps okay to file charges on a person if he is intimidating or threatening another person due to his sex, or sexual orientation, or race, etc., but if you do the same because a man wants to dress in dresses, it is okay. Here if the proposed law…. It is a crime to use force or violence against a person, cause bodily injury, intimidate, damage-destroy or deface property or threaten any of those actions. That is the proposed law. I generally don’t like hate laws but this discussion (news articles) has a lot of political spin from the “experts”.

That is false. To the contrary, the Supreme Court addressed exactly that issue. This is a quote from the actual decision from Supreme Court’s government website, not a news organizations spin on the decision. “Universities, may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly” So the Supreme Court itself has specifically said that the applicant for admission cannot simply write an essay “or other means” as a way to get around the decision. It followed up by saying that if you cannot do it directly, you cannot do it indirectly, which is what the notion of an essay or similar means would attempt to do. Not only does it not allow essays or some other minority base discussion on an entrance application, the decision strikes down the blanket acceptance of race, national origin, sex, etc. as a means of allowing entry that might otherwise be denied. To that extent, it seems that it would now allow what previously was not allowed and that is to have individual student applicants file a lawsuit for discrimination if denied entry based on race, etc. Prior to this decision, a university could accept a possibly less qualified applicant and if another applicant disagreed, the university could fall back on the law, saying basically, oh, well, we can do it. Now they likely can’t without risking continuous litigation.

It seems like a stupid law but using the “wrong” pronoun is not a crime in the proposed law. If it was, it would be nullified by the First Amendment. Basically they want to add pronouns to hate crimes.

I think that is correct however that is a state level issue, not from SCOTUS. If the federal government passed a law next week (and they obviously don’t have the numbers to do so) about not carrying a firearm without a license, those state laws would be overturned unless SCOTUS stepped in.

Said while looking into a mirror?

Constitutional carry has not been secured.

The Supreme Court actually brought that up in their decision. From the Supreme Court website: ”Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it”. I believe that affirmative action had its place. Three generations later it seems to be time to move on. The Supreme Court agreed

It appears that the 14th Amendment finally applies to everyone. [Hidden Content]