We have to balance two competing objectives. One, we recognize that racially discriminatory policy is obnoxious and risks balkenizing America by inflaming hostility of one group towards another. The other objective is to bring more African Americans into mainstream society.

What is needed, therefore, is policy that is intended to help blacks disproportionately, but which does so in a way that is not blatant and obvious. Against accusations of anti-white racism and reverse-discrimination we must maintain plausible deniability. That's all the Supreme Court is saying.

In the case with the firefighters, the anti-white racial discrimination was simply too blatant. Blatant racism went out in the 1960s; since the Civil Rights Act was passed, only subtle racism may be tolerated.

What's wrong with blatant and obvious? Affirmative Action was MOST effective when it WAS blatant and obvious. The Little Rock integration was hardly a calming influence on the existing racial hostility. Yet it worked. Same is true of quotas.

Now that the goal has become the prevention of public breakouts of racist responses (the blacks did poorly because being lazy like blacks are, they didn't study as hard), we are redefining racism in such a manner that MLK's Freedom March becomes racist by definition.

I have absolutely no problem with inflaming those tensions. Because frankly the more honest and open we get about racism, the more clear it becomes that the Ricci defenders are necessarily reasoning along the above described bigotted lines, the faster the sunshine makes those noxious behaviours shrivel up and die.

What faster way to reject those ideas than to have them in the open so that our youth can see them for the hypocrisy that they are.

You get disparate results because of 50,000 years divergent evolution. This is why you see group differences in rates of maturation, bone density, brain volume etc. Local selective pressures exerted even over several hundred years can cause big changes in cognitive function.

<link>

Affirmative action is illegal.

gringo_911:

Affirmative action is illegal.

Of course - because you say so...

SEC. 703. (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

(b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Your move, comrade.

Try section 2 subchapter K.

Still waiting for your take on it.

So what to do when two pieces of law seem to be at odds with each other?

A. The Supreme Court rules one or the other to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.

B. We play musical chairs with judge after judge ruling first based on one, then the other. In this case the music stopped with the Supreme Court and they picked which of the laws they wanted to use to base a ruling on, but they did not remove or settle the conflicting direction of these laws.

Except the two laws are not at odds with each other.

What you have is a redefinitional reading of Title VII. Because in essence it is a Catch-22 based reading of the anti-discrimination laws.

Why? Because the act of recognizing racial bigotry requires making discriminations based on race. And ameliorating the same racial bigotry ALSO requires making discriminations based on race.

And yet the claim being made by Gringo et. al. is that such recognition of bigotry itself is racist.

And that's simply oxymoronic.

BTW there is a third choice to the above, you clarify the "seeming" conflict so that no conflict exists. What we had in Ricci, was no attempt to make this distinction, instead it was an intentional CREATION of conflict for the purposes of eventually eviscerating the law.

Hopefully though that age will take care of the over-representation of conservatives old men on the court.

Any other reading of Title VII is at odds with the actual text of the law...

Except the two laws are not at odds with each other.

If racial discrimination is forbidden, then you cannot discriminate based on race.

What you have is a redefinitional reading of Title VII. Because in essence it is a Catch-22 based reading of the anti-discrimination laws.

On the contrary. You cannot promote discrimination based on race on the basis of laws that forbid racial discrimination.

Why? Because the act of recognizing racial bigotry requires making discriminations based on race. And ameliorating the same racial bigotry ALSO requires making discriminations based on race.

The law is not about recognizing bigotry or ameliorating bigotry. The law is about prohibition on discrimination. Any other reading is at odds with the plain words of the law.

And yet the claim being made by Gringo et. al. is that such recognition of bigotry itself is racist.

You can claim anything you please - but you are NOT allowed to discriminate based on race. This is pretty straightforward.

And that's simply oxymoronic.

It's moronic to claim that you want to stop racial discrimination and immediately demand racial discrimination.

BTW there is a third choice to the above, you clarify the "seeming" conflict so that no conflict exists. What we had in Ricci, was no attempt to make this distinction, instead it was an intentional CREATION of conflict for the purposes of eventually eviscerating the law.

The good old law from 1963 was pretty clear - no discrimination allowed. Period.

Hopefully though that age will take care of the over-representation of conservatives old men on the court.

You meant to say ACORN and Court stuffing, right?

Racism is prohibited. Factually accurate amelioration of racial bigotry is an action not only protected by the law, but envisioned by it.

And it is completely consistent with the concept of "equal PROTECTION" by the law, not equal treatement. The 1963 law was ammended in 1991 and the whole law applies today. You don't get to pick and chose.

Hopefully though that age will take care of the over-representation of conservatives old men on the court.

You meant to say ACORN and Court stuffing, right

You mean the ACORN that 100% complied with election law by submitting all the voter registration cards it was given to the State Auditors?

Your paranoia is showing Gringo. Reality is that the GOP is at most 30% of the population. For the Court to accurately represent the populace, that means you need to get rid of 2 of any of the 5 following justices: Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy.

Which 2 will it be? Or do you believe that a court that dramatically (by almost 170%) over-represents a minority view is healthy for the democracy?

Racism is prohibited.

Not in America. If it were prohibited, you would be sitting in a jail cell with Cotomayor...

Factually accurate amelioration of racial bigotry is an action not only protected by the law, but envisioned by it.

Not according to US laws and Constitution.

And it is completely consistent with the concept of "equal PROTECTION" by the law, not equal treatement.

Racial discrimination is consistent with anti-discrimination laws? That's called scizophrenia - sorry for the wrong spelling...

The 1963 law was ammended in 1991 and the whole law applies today. You don't get to pick and chose.

Tell it to the Supreme Court, the one which chose to ignore the 1964 law. Good luck, comrade.

Hopefully though that age will take care of the over-representation of conservatives old men on the court.

You meant to say ACORN and Court stuffing, right

You mean the ACORN that 100% complied with election law by submitting all the voter registration cards it was given to the State Auditors?

Yes, the one which forged thousands and thousand of voter registration documents. I advise these guys to get damn good lawyers, cause in 2013 there will be hell to pay. Maybe even in 2011.

Your paranoia is showing Gringo. Reality is that the GOP is at most 30% of the population. For the Court to accurately represent the populace, that means you need to get rid of 2 of any of the 5 following justices: Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy.

You propose free elections of the Supreme Justices? Not a good idea for your gang - it's damn close to 2010, when the libs will pay for all the shenanigans.

Which 2 will it be? Or do you believe that a court that dramatically (by almost 170%) over-represents a minority view is healthy for the democracy?

Again, "affirmative action" lost every time it was put to an open vote. I suggest you change the story, cause if you keep pushing it, people will agree to elect the judges - and then your liberal paradise will come down...

After all, few people in this country are flaming liberals...

Again, what myth is being imposed on white males when actions are taken to ameliorate unearned privileges?

And it is completely consistent with the concept of "equal PROTECTION" by the law, not equal treatement.

Racial discrimination is consistent with anti-discrimination laws? That's called scizophrenia - sorry for the wrong spelling...

Not schizophrenic at all. Discrimination is simply the act of distinguishing or differentiating. The mere act of recognizing racism is therefore race based discrimination. In fact claiming that precluding the ability to indentify race as a way of determining if racism has occurred is the Catch-22 redefinition that you and other conservatives are trying to engage in.

By YOUR definition of "racism"

• MLK's Freedom March was racist
• Montgomery Bus Boycott was racist
• Freedom Summer was racist

And that's just outright dishonest.