College bigwigs warned of personal lawsuits ($$) if they don't obey Prop209 and end reverse racism

1 posted on 10/12/2001 4:24:40 PM PDT by laureldrive

2 posted on 10/12/2001 4:27:31 PM PDT by Kryptonite

HA! About time to make someone PERSONALLY responsible. Who's this Pacific Legal Foundation? Never heard of em. Sounds like they deserve some support.

3 posted on 10/12/2001 4:29:54 PM PDT by okie_tech

I'm liking the balls out, aggressive approach to making these losers to do the LEGAL thing.

4 posted on 10/12/2001 4:30:04 PM PDT by Thebaddog

Fantastic post, wrong link.

5 posted on 10/12/2001 4:30:10 PM PDT by mrustow

You are kidding, aren't you? Well, (just in case you are not) Pacific Legal Foundation is the foremost legal advocacy group for conservative causes in the country, particularly property rights. They have won numerous and significant cases in the Supreme Court.

6 posted on 10/12/2001 4:36:27 PM PDT by Carry_Okie

Oh, good. I wasn't the only one thrown off by this:

Coming Soon

The future home of

Pioneer Leathertouch Fabrics, Inc.

2250 E. Ontario Street

Philadelphia, Pa 19134

7 posted on 10/12/2001 4:38:54 PM PDT by general_re

8 posted on 10/12/2001 4:39:57 PM PDT by jla

sorry if I posted the wrong link: it's www.pacificlegal.org

9 posted on 10/12/2001 4:40:12 PM PDT by laureldrive

It's okay - I can always use a chuckle ;)

10 posted on 10/12/2001 4:41:48 PM PDT by general_re

I never use the term "reverse racism". Racism is racism!

But hey....thats just me!

11 posted on 10/12/2001 4:43:38 PM PDT by lormand

Yeah, I got a laugh out of that. Some relatively obscure folks were so aggressive about buying up domains, that you can't assume anything about the domain names of many more serious outfits.

12 posted on 10/12/2001 4:54:28 PM PDT by mrustow

About time. Get our lawyers to start smoking them out of their holes. Out into the daylight.

The arrogance of these rats!!!

13 posted on 10/12/2001 4:54:42 PM PDT by dennisw

14 posted on 10/12/2001 4:55:15 PM PDT by mrustow

Considering that higher ed has been deliberately violating the law since the Bakke decision ca. 1978, I'm surprised no one thought to do this earlier. Better late than never, I guess. (And of course, academia had been violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act before that, but so, for that matter, had the USSC!)

15 posted on 10/12/2001 4:58:04 PM PDT by mrustow

The authors of the United States Constitution and Bill Of Rights could never have in their wildest imaginations conceived today's government and people that support it. Just one example of thousands. The Forth Amendment was written to place severe restrictions on when government could gain access to private property -- due process. Yet there are virtually no restrictions on when citizens can enter a private business or private school. The rhetoric cry of discrimination, gays, lesbians, Blacks, the elderly, you name it, is granted government access to private property while smokers are prohibited access.

I don't get it. The government, especially the legislators are supposedly the paragons of intellect and virtue, yet they are not to be trusted; reason for the Forth Amendment. The "little people" are not as intelligent or trustworthy and they are able to waltz right into any private business and private school. Can you say "huge disconnect!"

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind.
"They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority." -- Frederick Bastiat, The Law (1850)

How does society benefit by seventy-eight innocents massacred at Waco? How does government-forced bankruptcy of 1,500 Klamath Falls farmers benefit society? The supposed paragons of intellect and virtue in the Senate violated their oath of office when they didn't remove Clinton from office. ...Because it depends on what the meaning of "is", is. Because everyone lies about sex before a judge and court of law. That's who the parasites claiming to be so intelligent and virtuous are.

That's not a stretch. It is fact. It's not even a stretch to the founding fathers. To them it would be unfathomable/unimaginable. Yet today the sheeple cry for the parasites to protect them from themselves. Of course, the sheeple will never admit that. They claim they are able to stand on their own two feet and that it's other people that can't -- just like the legislators proclaim their superiority.

We hear the rhetoric cry of nights for Blacks, Hispanics, lesbians, gays, non-smokers, humans, plants and animals, employees, patients, the criminal's rights (but seldom the victim,) the elderly ...but for all that a person will hear only one out of a thousand times the mention of individual-rights/property-rights. One mention of individual rights for a thousand mentions of a dozen other rights -- illusionary rights.

That is a Grand-Canyon size disconnect/void because, when the smallest minority, the lone individual's rights are protected, all other larger-than-one minorities are protected. Individual/property rights is the solid foundation Americans seek. They will find it. And then implement a system of government that abides it.

Neo-Tech Constitution
Article 1
No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual.
Article 2
Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1.
Article 3
No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.
Neo-Tech

16 posted on 10/12/2001 5:04:56 PM PDT by Zon

I am not certain that college administrators can be personally sued in connection with their duties. I think the college (mostly meaning taxpayers) kicks in and defends the administrators -- even as another group of taxpayers bring the initial suit. Administrators, you can be sure, don't take chances with their own careers. Most are an example of the old "Peter Principle," meaning that incompetents tend to rise to the top in an organization. The ones who keep things afloat promote the administrators to get them out of the way of real business.

17 posted on 10/12/2001 5:09:12 PM PDT by Theodore R.

18 posted on 10/12/2001 5:10:19 PM PDT by homeschool mama

You're not the only one. Racism is racism, regardless of the race. There's no such thing as 'reverse discrimination'...it's pure and simple discrimination. :o)

19 posted on 10/12/2001 5:11:57 PM PDT by homeschool mama

That a civil servant can be sued in civil court when violating the law in performance of his duty is as old as civil service itself.

20 posted on 10/12/2001 5:15:19 PM PDT by Carry_Okie

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794