[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I can’t understand why something like this even had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, it seems pretty clear cut in my eyes. Opinions please, do you think the idea of “reverse racism” exist?
Max:
These cases are NEVER as “simple” as us “know-it-alls” on Internet Forums try to make them.
I will be willing to bet that there were legal complexities that we all don’t completely understand.
(Where is BostonBarrister when we need him?)
Mufasa
I haven’t followed this case as closely as I could have. But reading the dissent as well as the district court opinion is a good start to understanding the complexities and the other side to this (haven’t done this myself yet). At this point, I personally think the Supreme Court got it right, and Sotomayor erred in upholding the district court opinion (until and unless I look at it more closely and conclude otherwise. But doubt i would based on what I’ve read so far)[/quote]
I agree, js.
I think the Court got it right…and I just can’t see the dissent being full of very strong arguments.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
At the very least, it seems like the anti-hate crime legislation would violate the “equal protection” clause of the Constitution.[/quote]
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
matko5 wrote:
I think America has made a 180 turn with racism.
Apparently, Eric Holder (the US Attorney General) doesn’t agree. He seems to think that the feds need to pass “hate crime” legislation (in addition to laws that already exist) to protect victims of crimes motivated by racial bias. The funny thing is, the law would only apply if the victim is a “historical minority”. So there would be no protection for white victims, without regard to whether the crime was motivated by racial bias.
Didn’t you know? Only Whites can be Racist. And isn’t any crime against another person a crime of hate? Duh, obviously LOVE is not the reason for a crime.
This is all about politics and sensationalism for politicking and career building. It’s one of the problems inherent to democratic politics. You have to do what’s in vogue or popular.
And a historical minority is interesting. Im Polish and can claim to be a historical minority also. There is a level of absurdity in wanting to eliminate racism and stereotypes based on color by implementing laws that are based on skin color and stereotypes.
[/quote]
I’m irish. My ancestors were discriminated against when they first came to this country.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
At the very least, it seems like the anti-hate crime legislation would violate the “equal protection” clause of the Constitution.
The Constitution? Is that thing still around?
[/quote]
It’s in the presidential bathroom, wrapped around a cardboard tube, hanging next to the toilet.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
matko5 wrote:
I think America has made a 180 turn with racism.
Apparently, Eric Holder (the US Attorney General) doesn’t agree. He seems to think that the feds need to pass “hate crime” legislation (in addition to laws that already exist) to protect victims of crimes motivated by racial bias. The funny thing is, the law would only apply if the victim is a “historical minority”. So there would be no protection for white victims, without regard to whether the crime was motivated by racial bias.
Didn’t you know? Only Whites can be Racist. And isn’t any crime against another person a crime of hate? Duh, obviously LOVE is not the reason for a crime.
This is all about politics and sensationalism for politicking and career building. It’s one of the problems inherent to democratic politics. You have to do what’s in vogue or popular.
And a historical minority is interesting. Im Polish and can claim to be a historical minority also. There is a level of absurdity in wanting to eliminate racism and stereotypes based on color by implementing laws that are based on skin color and stereotypes.
I’m irish. My ancestors were discriminated against when they first came to this country.[/quote]
As am I. Let me know what form I have to fill out to get MY forty acres>
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m irish. My ancestors were discriminated against when they first came to this country.[/quote]
I was interested enough in my Irish heritage at one time to do bit of research. It wes quite eye opening. The Irish would be given jobs that were deamed too dangerous for valuable slaves. Draining swamps that were thought to be infested with malaria was a common one that comes to mind.
Slaves where thought to be of more value than the Irish. Jeez, it sure is amazing that we are not tramatized by this and that there isn’t an epidemic of fatherlesness, jail time, and drug abuse in the Irish community. Maybe we need a NAAIP to tell us that we are mearly victims of systemic societal ills and our mental anguish over being oppressed is the cause for any and all ill behavior we may want to engage in?
I’m irish. My ancestors were discriminated against when they first came to this country.
As am I. Let me know what form I have to fill out to get MY forty acres>
Wow, we have quite a few Irishmen on this board. [/quote]
Slavery and discrimination is not a unique back story for African Americans.
The first slaves in the US were white.
White criminals forced into bondage by the government, and self sold indentured servants were often treated worse than black slaves, because they were cheaper. Many were also life long slaves.
And this wasnâ??t a small percentage. As much as 2/3rds of the white population was in servitude.
I know that my family altered our last name to make it sound less Irish when they immigrated so they could find work. Surely I deserve some compensation.
I’m irish. My ancestors were discriminated against when they first came to this country.
As am I. Let me know what form I have to fill out to get MY forty acres>
Wow, we have quite a few Irishmen on this board.
Slavery and discrimination is not a unique back story for African Americans.
The first slaves in the US were white.
White criminals forced into bondage by the government, and self sold indentured servants were often treated worse than black slaves, because they were cheaper. Many were also life long slaves.
And this wasnâ??t a small percentage. As much as 2/3rds of the white population was in servitude.
I know that my family altered our last name to make it sound less Irish when they immigrated so they could find work. Surely I deserve some compensation.
[/quote]
So what was it…
“DoubleDuce O’Malley?”
(Just kidding, DD! Just trying to unwind after work!)
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Slavery and discrimination is not a unique back story for African Americans.
The first slaves in the US were white.
White criminals forced into bondage by the government, and self sold indentured servants were often treated worse than black slaves, because they were cheaper. Many were also life long slaves.
And this wasnâ??t a small percentage. As much as 2/3rds of the white population was in servitude.
[/quote]
I have yet to find an ethnic group that wasn’t oppressed in some way. Wonder why it is a few seem to have some sort eclusive claim to systemic oppression?
Mine too. O’Hickey to Hickey. Not that this saved me any abuse in grade school.
I’m irish. My ancestors were discriminated against when they first came to this country.
As am I. Let me know what form I have to fill out to get MY forty acres>
Wow, we have quite a few Irishmen on this board.
Slavery and discrimination is not a unique back story for African Americans.
The first slaves in the US were white.
White criminals forced into bondage by the government, and self sold indentured servants were often treated worse than black slaves, because they were cheaper. Many were also life long slaves.
And this wasnâ??t a small percentage. As much as 2/3rds of the white population was in servitude.
I know that my family altered our last name to make it sound less Irish when they immigrated so they could find work. Surely I deserve some compensation.
[/quote]
Be grateful, my family kept my name, and my middle name has 27 letters in it (not joking).
