Yes.
Posted on 04/23/2014 6:08:15 AM PDT by bestintxas
The American public has woken up to the folly of trying to end racial discrimination by practicing it, dooming affirmative action to a slow death, and the racialist left is not taking the news very well. That is the only conclusion to draw from the extraordinary dissenting opinion yesterday by Justice Sonia Sotomayor in Schuette v BAMN, the case in which the Court upheld Michigan’s law outlawing racial preferences in state-funded higher education. Sotomayor took the unusual step of reading the dissent aloud from the bench, indicating her vehemence.
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent was actually longer than all the other opinions in the case combined, so that reading took a while. But she was faced with a difficult task in explaining why refusing to treat races differently is actually racial discrimination, so of course she need a lot of verbiage, background, and pretzel twisting.
Four aspects of her argument stand out:
She attempted to re-brand “affirmative action” as “race-sensitive admissions.”
“Although the term “affirmative action” is commonly used to describecolleges’ and universities’ use of race in crafting admissions policies, Iinstead use the term “race-sensitive admissions policies.” Some comprehend the term “affirmative action” as connoting intentional preferential treatment based on race alone—for example, the use of a quota system, whereby a certain proportion of seats in an institution’s incoming class must be set aside for racial minorities; the use of a “points” system,
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Theoretically, yes. Impeachment of a SCOTUS judge follows the same procedure as impeachment of any other Federal official. The House would have to approve articles of impeachment. Even that seems unlikely as a practical matter, though. Even if the wide latina were impeached, removal from the bench would be pretty much impossible, given the current makeup of the Senate and the fact that a 2/3 vote would be needed to remove her.
"Lowering Standards" was not a part of the original deal. It merely worked out that way because of the shortage of qualified Affirmative Action candidates. The original deal was, "all other factors being equal, the break goes the minority candidate's way." That lasted about 45 minutes!
Also, Affirmative Action, or as our British Cousins more appropriately call it, "Positive Discrimination," was not supposed to be permanent. True, no one ever said when it would end, or what the criteria might be for that. But as originally conceived, it was supposed to eventually end. Whether it's "fair" or not in the first place is another story.
Overall, it has certainly been a disaster, as personified by the faux-POTUS. A short trip through your local Board of Education offices will prove that to you right quick. However, it has also done some (maybe a little) good. I have definitely met wonderfully capable and intelligent people who used it to get a leg up ... or that "first break."
While I know what you mean by it, I really hate the term “reverse discrimination”. Discrimination is the unequal treatment of people based solely on race, religion, nationality, etc. There is no need for the word “reverse”; it’s just discrimination, or at least that’s the way it should be.
Perhaps, impeachment would launch the Wise Latina on a new career in Congress -- as it did with Federal Judge Alcee Hastings. Hizzoner is now known as Cong. Alcee Hastings (D-FL).
Yes.
‘Impeachment of a SCOTUS judge follows the procedure as impeachment of any other Federal official.’ The idea that we can not use impeachment as a deterrent to the runaway, power mad Federal officials currently in office because the Senate would not remove them is just another excuse to do nothing used by the GOP. You and I both know it might wake some folks up and be an major source of embarrassment for the Lefties. Think of all the candidates for impeachment, Obozo, Biden, Holder, Reid, Nancy, Debbie, the Wide Latina, the current head of the BLM, the head of the IRS, the list is endless. Even if they have just taken the job, we know they have left a slimy trail behind on the way up. Why not just do it? What do we have to lose?
Liberal is EVIL.
Sure it is. Unfortunately, you can't impeach one due to mere stupidity.
You ought to go to a big-league ball game in Japan. If one team pulls way ahead ( a flexible definition) the strike zone suddenly expands for the winning team and contracts for the losing side. The winning team gets struck out on called strikes, the losing team gets walked until thinks get more evened up. Other funky adjustments, too.
How the Japs direct this process is inscrutable.
It's OK to win or lose ... but "Face" must be saved.
You cannot end intolerance by being intolerant.
You cannot end fascism by being fascist.
You cannot end poverty by taking money away from people.
Simple laws of human nature that progressives lack the mental capacity to understand.
“Is it possible to impeach a supreme court judge?”
absolutely
"It has come to this. Called upon to explore the jurisprudential twilight zone between two errant lines of precedent, we confront a frighteningly bizarre question:
Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid what its text plainly requires?"
I don’t disagree with you. I was just pointing out that the likelihood of actually removing any of them from office is essentially zero.
“I don’t disagree with you. I was just pointing out that the likelihood of actually removing any of them from office is essentially zero.”
I really hate wimpy statements like that.
George Washington was general of a ragtag force who was against the greatest military power of his time.
Where would we be if he made some ludicrous hide-behind-the-pillows statement like you made?
Defending liberty is tough work. Get used to it or leave for France.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Sotomayor on the board of La Raza?
Yes, the wide one is the La Raza justice.
Thanks!
Welcome!
3g connection is slower than usual tonight.
Excuse me, but where exactly did I say that impeachment should not be pursued? Like I said, I agree with you on the topic. All I was pointing out was that the likelihood of success is essentially nonexistent. That being the case, we should concurrently pursue other remedies, like, you know, actually getting conservatives elected to the Presidency and Senate seats so that we can replace SCOTUS justices like Sotomayor with actual constitutional conservatives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.