Acceptance Based Solely on the Color of Skin Discrimination

Hey folks,

Happy Friday to you. Yesterday was a GREAT day. We killed the Illegal Alien Amnesty bill. It was also a great day when it comes to racism and discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that acceptance of someone based solely on the color of their skin IS discrimination and racism. Even if that skin color is white.

According to the AFP -Outrage as Supreme Court dents affirmative action in US schools

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Supreme Court's conservative majority flexed its muscles Thursday by dismantling a key plank of affirmative action programs that promote racial diversity in US schools.

Provoking outrage from Democrats and civil-rights campaigners, the nation's highest court found that school authorities cannot use race alone in deciding the mix of their student populations.

By five to four, the justices ruled in favor of white parents whose children were denied places at their nearest schools in Seattle, Washington, and the Kentucky city of Louisville because of such admission policies.

Simply because the school districts may seek a worthy goal doesn't mean that they are free to discriminate on the basis of race to achieve it, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority decision.

Finally, someone told the TRUTH.

The decision could affect hundreds of US districts that try to give preference to black and other ethnic-minority children, if a school is over-subscribed and is deemed to have enough white children already.

Of course this was a BAD day for the LWL.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said the ruling was appalling, turning a landmark anti-segregation ruling of the 1950s upside down.

If this isn't judicial activism, I don't know what is, he said, reflecting Democratic suspicion of a court that, under President George W. Bush, has tilted markedly to the right.

Yeah like Affirmative Action, Roe vs Wade, and others are NOT judicial activism. Right?

Brenda Wright, legal director for the voting rights organization Demos, said ethnic-minority children in poorer areas would be condemned to languish in depressed schools.

The narrow Supreme Court majority has done a grave disservice not just to educational equity but to our democracy as a whole, she said.

But backed by the Bush administration, the aggrieved parents argued that the admission policies were just as discriminatory as the racial segregation long enforced in southern schools after the abolition of slavery.

That segregation was struck down in the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education ruling of 1954, a watershed moment in the historic civil rights movement.

In dissenting opinions, members of the court's liberal minority expressed their passionate disapproval of Thursday's ruling.

Told you who was having a bad day. {Smile}

This is a decision that the court and the nation will come to regret, justice Stephen Breyer wrote.
The last half-century has witnessed great strides toward racial equality, but we have not yet realized the promise of 'Brown.'

The court's longest-serving justice, John Paul Stevens, accused his conservative colleagues of standing history on its head.

It is my firm conviction that no member of the court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today's decision, he wrote.

This is because the court is starting to INTERPRET the Constitution and Law, and not CREATE it. They are doing their job, instead of furthering a cause.

In 2003, the Supreme Court narrowly upheld race-based admissions policies at the University of Michigan Law School, but said that race must be only one of several factors considered by school authorities.

That decision went through on the swing vote of liberal justice Sandra Day O'Conner, who was replaced last year by the conservative Samuel Alito. Chief Justice Roberts is another recent addition to the court on Bush's nomination.

We knew that the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts and of Justice Alito would be a setback for civil rights, but it's painful to watch years of progress undone so recklessly, said People For the American Way Foundation president Ralph Neas.

Roberts wrote that permitting racial balancing as a compelling state interest would justify the imposition of racial proportionality throughout American society, contrary to the constitutional right to equal protection.

Again, they are doing their job, NOT furthering a cause. If you tell me I cannot do something based on the only fact that I look “White,” then you are discriminating against ME. You cannot have equality base on a government founded and backed racist policy. I love this statment.

The court's only black justice, Clarence Thomas, a conservative opponent of affirmative action, backed the majority. What was wrong in 1954 cannot be right today, he wrote.

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, while backing the majority, left the door open to some race-based admissions while stressing that other demographic factors, plus special talents and needs, should also be considered.

Of course. But that is NOT what was happening. What was happening was “Your White, you cannot go here.”

Then I absolutely love the first paragraph of this story by the AP -Dems say march to racial unity not over By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 41 minutes ago

A historically diverse field of Democratic presidential candidates — a woman, a black, an Hispanic and five whites — denounced an hours-old Supreme Court affirmative action ruling Thursday night and said the nation's slow march to racial unity is far from over.

{Laughing} Yes I know, we still have discrimination and racism in this country. But just like the Illegal Alien thing, we already have laws to deal with it. We do not need someone to create bad laws to further bad causes. Of course the Democratic Candidates are going to politicalize this to try to get the Black votes.

"We have made enormous progress, but the progress we have made is not good enough," said Sen. Barack Obama, the son of a man from Kenya and a woman from Kansas.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first female candidate with a serious shot at the presidency, drew the night's largest cheer when she suggested there was a hint of racism in the way AIDS is addressed in this country.

"Let me just put this in perspective: If HIV-AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34 there would be an outraged, outcry in this country," said the New York senator.

What an completely idiotic statement.

In their third primary debate, the two leading candidates and their fellow Democrats played to the emotions of a predominantly black audience, fighting for a voting bloc that is crucial in the party's nomination process.

One issue not raised by questioners, the war in Iraq, dominated the past two debates. Queries about AIDS, criminal justice, education, taxes, outsourcing jobs, poverty and the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina all led to the same point: The racial divide still exists.

Notice this? Read that again. “One issue not raised by questioners, the war in Iraq,” Did you get it? The “questioners” the MMD {Mass Media Drones} was simply asking what they we TOLD to ask. They are furthering an agenda that Republicans are racists, bigots, Homophobs, ETC.

"There is so much left to be done," Clinton said, "and for anyone to assert that race is not a problem in America is to deny the reality in front of our very eyes."

But you cannot fix it by creating and Federally backing Racism.

While the first two debates focused on their narrow differences on Iraq, moderator Tavis Smiley promised to steer the candidates to other issues that matter to black America. In turn, the candidates said those issues mattered to them.

"This issue of poverty in America is the cause of my life," said John Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee.

{Laughing} So that’s why you give so much to the Black community? That’s why you live in the homes, drive what you do, fly around in the Privet Jets, get $400.00 dollar hair cuts? You know, if you took $400.00 and bought sandwiches, went down to the inner city USA, you could feed a lot of truly poor. {Sign}

OK, enough of this. It was TRULY a great day yesterday. You spoke, the Government heard you. The Supreme Court heard you. Government is working. For the people, by the people. Not for the Minority with deep pockets. Remember though folks, like I warned you yesterday. All this can be destroyed if in 08, you elect to keep the Looneys in charge, and chose to elect a Looney into the White House. Your voice and the progress we have made is gone. There will be NOTHING you can do to stop these loons then.
Peter