Lawyer calls Supreme Court decision on Michigan schools 'racist'

Outragous that the LEFTERS can get away with this.

Quote:A CIVIL RIGHTS LAWYER, who argued unsuccessfully before the Supreme Court to end Michigan's affirmative action ban, says high court's decision was 'racist' and that the 'decision cannot stand.'

“The old Jim Crow [law] is now the new Jim Crow.”

How come when you guys thought the SCOTUS would strike down Obamacare, it was "Our legal system in action!"

But when they uphold the rights of gay people, black people, and other minorities...they become "racist, activist judges"?

(04-27-2014 01:04 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  How come when you guys thought the SCOTUS would strike down Obamacare, it was "Our legal system in action!"

But when they uphold the rights of gay people, black people, and other minorities...they become "racist, activist judges"?

What Robert's said was that it should be left up to the voters to decide about ZeroCare. That the individual mandate was a tax. Which the Zero Regime argued against but embraced after they won. What Zero has now done is that he unilaterally decides what laws to uphold and what laws to ignore, allowing the next president to, with the stroke of the pen (and a phone) decide not to enforce any part of ZeroCare and use that same method to enforce any regulatory policy at his whim.

You may thank Zero now, but you may hate the road he put us on in the future.

6-2 vote.

Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. Kagan recused.

It was the right decision.

(04-27-2014 01:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It was the right decision.

Yes it was.

(04-27-2014 01:04 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  How come when you guys thought the SCOTUS would strike down Obamacare, it was "Our legal system in action!"

But when they uphold the rights of gay people, black people, and other minorities...they become "racist, activist judges"?

You are aware those aren't SOAF's words, but the losing attorney's? Or are you playing the ignorance card here, as well?

(04-27-2014 01:04 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  How come when you guys thought the SCOTUS would strike down Obamacare, it was "Our legal system in action!"

But when they uphold the rights of gay people, black people, and other minorities...they become "racist, activist judges"?

Right back at you...

(04-27-2014 01:04 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  How come when you guys thought the SCOTUS would strike down Obamacare, it was "Our legal system in action!"

But when they uphold the rights of gay people, black people, and other minorities...they become "racist, activist judges"?

In this particular case, is it your position that a minority should get preferential treatment over a white guy simply because he's a minority? If so, you're a racist.

(04-27-2014 02:08 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 01:04 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  How come when you guys thought the SCOTUS would strike down Obamacare, it was "Our legal system in action!"

But when they uphold the rights of gay people, black people, and other minorities...they become "racist, activist judges"?

You are aware those aren't SOAF's words, but the losing attorney's? Or are you playing the ignorance card here, as well?

of course, my question was to SOAF...It has nothing to do with that case.

(04-27-2014 02:17 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 01:04 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  How come when you guys thought the SCOTUS would strike down Obamacare, it was "Our legal system in action!"

But when they uphold the rights of gay people, black people, and other minorities...they become "racist, activist judges"?

Right back at you...

Affirmative action is not a right...it has outlived it's need, nothing more.

The whole argument is less about rights and more about the role of the state in rectifying de jure discrimination.

(04-27-2014 04:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 02:08 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 01:04 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  How come when you guys thought the SCOTUS would strike down Obamacare, it was "Our legal system in action!"

But when they uphold the rights of gay people, black people, and other minorities...they become "racist, activist judges"?

You are aware those aren't SOAF's words, but the losing attorney's? Or are you playing the ignorance card here, as well?

of course, my question was to SOAF...It has nothing to do with that case.

Not when in the process of upholding the rights of gay people, black people, and other minorities, you discriminate against other people. The 14th amendment is clear. The SCOTUS took the first step in restoring the 14th.

(04-27-2014 04:51 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 04:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 02:08 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 01:04 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  How come when you guys thought the SCOTUS would strike down Obamacare, it was "Our legal system in action!"

But when they uphold the rights of gay people, black people, and other minorities...they become "racist, activist judges"?

You are aware those aren't SOAF's words, but the losing attorney's? Or are you playing the ignorance card here, as well?

of course, my question was to SOAF...It has nothing to do with that case.

Not when in the process of upholding the rights of gay people, black people, and other minorities, you discriminate against other people. The 14th amendment is clear. The SCOTUS took the first step in restoring the 14th.

You don't get to decide that...

(04-27-2014 05:00 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 04:51 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 04:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 02:08 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 01:04 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  How come when you guys thought the SCOTUS would strike down Obamacare, it was "Our legal system in action!"

But when they uphold the rights of gay people, black people, and other minorities...they become "racist, activist judges"?

You are aware those aren't SOAF's words, but the losing attorney's? Or are you playing the ignorance card here, as well?

of course, my question was to SOAF...It has nothing to do with that case.

Not when in the process of upholding the rights of gay people, black people, and other minorities, you discriminate against other people. The 14th amendment is clear. The SCOTUS took the first step in restoring the 14th.

You don't get to decide that...

You don't either...

SCOTUS says the majority does... now

Time for the big boy pants....

(04-27-2014 05:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 05:00 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 04:51 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 04:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 02:08 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  You are aware those aren't SOAF's words, but the losing attorney's? Or are you playing the ignorance card here, as well?

of course, my question was to SOAF...It has nothing to do with that case.

Not when in the process of upholding the rights of gay people, black people, and other minorities, you discriminate against other people. The 14th amendment is clear. The SCOTUS took the first step in restoring the 14th.

You don't get to decide that...

You don't either...

SCOTUS says the majority does... now

No, the SCOTUS says they have the final opinion, as always...

You sound positively giddy over this. I suggest you read post #11

(04-27-2014 05:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 05:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 05:00 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 04:51 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 04:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  of course, my question was to SOAF...It has nothing to do with that case.

Not when in the process of upholding the rights of gay people, black people, and other minorities, you discriminate against other people. The 14th amendment is clear. The SCOTUS took the first step in restoring the 14th.

You don't get to decide that...

You don't either...

SCOTUS says the majority does... now

No, the SCOTUS says they have the final opinion, as always...

You sound positively giddy over this. I suggest you read post #11

If you really believe what you posted in #11, you would then have to agree with me that the narrow view of the SCOTUS leaves open year after year of additional challenges to the rights of the majority.

(04-27-2014 05:42 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 05:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 05:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 05:00 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 04:51 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Not when in the process of upholding the rights of gay people, black people, and other minorities, you discriminate against other people. The 14th amendment is clear. The SCOTUS took the first step in restoring the 14th.

You don't get to decide that...

You don't either...

SCOTUS says the majority does... now

No, the SCOTUS says they have the final opinion, as always...

You sound positively giddy over this. I suggest you read post #11

If you really believe what you posted in #11, you would then have to agree with me that the narrow view of the SCOTUS leaves open year after year of additional challenges to the rights of the majority.

The court interprets the constitution, nothing more.

(04-27-2014 05:44 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 05:42 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 05:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 05:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 05:00 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  You don't get to decide that...

You don't either...

SCOTUS says the majority does... now

No, the SCOTUS says they have the final opinion, as always...

You sound positively giddy over this. I suggest you read post #11

If you really believe what you posted in #11, you would then have to agree with me that the narrow view of the SCOTUS leaves open year after year of additional challenges to the rights of the majority.

The court interprets the constitution, nothing more.

What are you going to do when SCOTUS rules against your gay "brethren"? It may not happen in the near-term, but I can guaran-damn-tee it will happen in the long term. If you weren't such a straight-hating a$$hat, you'd know I'm right!

(04-27-2014 05:56 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 05:44 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 05:42 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 05:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 05:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  You don't either...

SCOTUS says the majority does... now

No, the SCOTUS says they have the final opinion, as always...

You sound positively giddy over this. I suggest you read post #11

If you really believe what you posted in #11, you would then have to agree with me that the narrow view of the SCOTUS leaves open year after year of additional challenges to the rights of the majority.

The court interprets the constitution, nothing more.

What are you going to do when SCOTUS rules against your gay "brethren"? It may not happen in the near-term, but I can guaran-damn-tee it will happen in the long term. If you weren't such a straight-hating a$$hat, you'd know I'm right!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollingsworth_v._Perry