Afrikkaner.

Seems I missed a pretty good thread, the usual food fights notwithstanding. Oh well.

—————————————-

JMWalker
Posted July 1, 2009 at 12:44 pm | Permalink
#
JimJohnson
Posted July 1, 2009 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

I’m white and from South African decent, which category am I in?
================================================
Stupid.

——————————————-

JM, is this one of your POSITIVE posts?

Still waiting for that example showing one of your POSITIVE UPLIFTING posts.

Only a race baiter and an idiot would ask such a question…

South Africa is a NATION So you would be of South African descent… such as a German would be

White would be your identified race.

I thought White was a color?

Why wouldn’t I be an African American?

It should be noted that this issue was decided NOT on constitutional grounds, but on statutory grounds – specifically, Title VII. In effect, the majority said that fear of lawsuit, unless there is a realistic basis in law to support the plaintiff’s claims, is not justification to discriminate under Title VII.

From the decision:
“This action presents two provisions of Title VII to be interpreted and reconciled, with few, if any, precedents in the courts of appeals discussing the issue. Depending on the resolution of the statutory claim, a fundamental constitutional question could also arise. We found it prudent and appropriate to grant certiorari. 555 U. S. ___ (2009). We now reverse.”

The majority’s final paragraph:
“Petitioners are entitled to summary judgment on their Title VII claim, and we therefore need not decide the underlying constitutional question. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

From Scalia:
“I join the Court’s opinion in full, but write separately to observe that its resolution of this dispute merely postpones the evil day on which the Court will have to confrontthe question: Whether, or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection? The question is not an easy one. See generally Primus, Equal Protection and Disparate Impact:Round Three, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 493 (2003).

“The difficulty is this: Whether or not Title VII’s disparate-treatment provisions forbid “remedial” race-based actions when a disparate-impact violation would not otherwise result—the question resolved by the Court today—it is clear that Title VII not only permits but affirmatively requires such actions when a disparate-impact violation would otherwise result. See ante, at 20–21. But if the Federal Government is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, 500 (1954), then surely it is also prohibited from enacting laws mandating that third parties—e.g., employers, whether private, State, or municipal—discriminate on the basis of race. See Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 78–82 (1917).As the facts of these cases illustrate, Title VII’s disparate-impact provisions place a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes oftheir policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes. That type of racial decisionmaking is, as the Court explains, discriminatory. See ante, at 19; Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 279 (1979).”

If you assert otherwise, tell me in what way this court was particularly “activist?” Or is this just today’s parrotted talking point?

I’m white and from South African decent, which category am I in?
================================================
Stupid.

The SCOTUS

And there is little dispute that New Haven did in fact discriminate. As the opinion notes, there is no basis in the record to support New Haven’s claim that the testing procedure was invalid.

The SCOTUS

And there is little dispute that New Haven did in fact discriminate. As the opinion notes, there is no basis in the record to support New Haven’s claim that the testing procedure was invalid.

Only a race baiter and an idiot would ask such a question…

South Africa is a NATION So you would be of South African descent… such as a German would be

White would be your identified race.

If you are also an American, then you are a citizen of the USA… and you could classify yourself as a South African American… if you’re that hung up on your national origin…

But I don’t expect neo-cons to be reasonable.

The state makes an exam has it certified by a third party. They gives the exam, but because no blacks passed the test, you think it is okay to not promote the people that did pass. Then for the courts to only come to a 5-4 decision, and then say that race had nothing to do with it. Just how stupid are you?

Justice is blind, but only when it works in your favor, is that it?

Given that race has no biological basis, it is strictly a social construct invented for the purpose of discrimination and/or economic exploitation. Skin color has no more relevance to anything but fashion than the color of one’s car or shirt does.
=========================

Agree with you Jed, and with Regular on this point.

Chas seems to think there is some meaningful definition of Race though. (See his 9:59 and 11:58 posts)

I knew you’d resort to Wiki.

Hmmmm… That would be strange, Barnie, since Latino’s and Mexicans, and Sotomayor… ARE in fact, white people(Caucasian).

Want to try again on your own racial biases??

———————————–

Chas, please clarify your view on the difference between Skin Color and Race.

Thanking you in advance. I look forward to your eloquent answer, as usual.

75.1% of respondents said they were White or Caucasian and no other race;
21.36% (60 million Americans) are of German descent; German Americans
12.3% are of Black or African American descent;
Hispanics — who may belong to any race — accounted for 12.5% of the U.S. population, up from 9% in 1990;
3.6% of respondents are Asian;
2.4% of respondents are multiracial (2 or more races). The 2000 Census was the first time survey options for multiracial Americans were provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_Census

Personally, I am not sure exactly why the Census report lists “German Americans” except as a line of national descent/origin. Since German Americans could be of any race… It would be interesting to see a further breakdown on that one…

Please note: Hispanics can be of any “RACE”

Given that race has no biological basis, it is strictly a social construct invented for the purpose of discrimination and/or economic exploitation. Skin color has no more relevance to anything but fashion than the color of one’s car or shirt does.

The NYT isnt MSM?? Quick, call El Rushbo Hannity O’Reilly… They need to know this…
————————
You didn’t hear about the case that Scalia and Thomas ruled on and sided with the Liberal Justices because it was buried in a NYT article, including this one.

The MSM hates to report cooperation.

The appellate court, with Sotomayor part of a unanimous decision, specifically did not make law, but relied on established SCOTUS precedent.

Sam (the Sham) Brownback and Patsy Roberts’ objecting to “activist” judges is audacious hypocrisy in this case. And, since Justice Souter voted to uphold the appellate court’s decision, the consequences of Sotomayor replacing is moot.

Perhaps “HLP” can shift this thread to something more relevant, like how big Sonia’s ass is.

Hmmmm… That would be strange, Barnie, since Latino’s and Mexicans, and Sotomayor… ARE in fact, white people(Caucasian).

Want to try again on your own racial biases??

———————————–

Chas, please clarify your view on the difference between Skin Color and Race.

Thanking you in advance. I look forward to your eloquent answer, as usual.

Perfect for Obama.

The Dems have the majority – Slam Dunk.

-Court Cases should be decided by skin color and sex.

-Supreme Court judges should be selected by skin color and sex.

-And President’s should be selected by skin color and sex.

I think your confused, Spanish people, from Spain, are Caucasian.