Scalia Scary!

apple0154 said:
Because the goal is not to discriminate against any particular party. The goal is to address the pervasiveness of discrimination against blacks.
Click to expand...

Other races besides black have protections under AA programs. All non white races have protected status. You are mistaken. you are discriminating against white males, since women are also a protected class.

You are mistaken in your understandings.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And here's why Scalia was deemed wrong by his colleagues Justices Ginsburg Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer:

Justice Ginsburg wrote:

"We find no persuasive evidence in this record that VMI's male-only admission policy 'is in furtherance of a state policy of diversity.' No such policy, the Fourth Circuit observed, can be discerned from the movement of all other public colleges and universities in Virginia away from single-sex education. A purpose genuinely to advance an array of educational options, as the Court of Appeals recognized, is not served by VMI's historic and constant plan- a plan to 'afford a unique educational benefit only to males.' However 'liberally' this plan serves the State's sons, it makes no provision whatever for her daughters. That is not equal protection."

... "VWIL affords women no opportunity to experience the rigorous military training for which VMI is famed.... Instead, the VWIL program 'deemphasize' military education, and uses a 'cooperative method' of education 'which reinforces self-esteem.'

"In myriad respects other than military training, VWIL does not qualify as VMI's equal. VWIL's student body, faculty, course offerings, and facilities hardly match VMI's. Nor can the VWIL graduate anticipate the benefits associated with VMI's 157-ye ar history, the school's prestige, and its influential alumni network....

"In sum, Virginia's remedy does not fix the constitutional violation; the State has shown no 'exceedingly persuasive justification' for withholding from women qualified for the experience premier training of the kind VMI affords."
Click to expand...



Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. This is a fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is, mistaken. Hindsight makes this clear: there were times when the majority of the population believed that the Earth is the still centre of the universe, and that diseases are caused by evil spirits; neither of these ideas was true, despite its popularity.
Click to expand...
Damn Yankee said:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-popularity/
Click to expand...


What you quote here is EXACTLY what Scalia is harping on...popularity of tradition, which does NOT fit into the legal precedents of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW for American CITIZENS. This is what the 7 justices were pointing out when they said, "... However 'liberally' this plan serves the State's sons, it makes no provision whatever for her daughters. That is not equal protection."

Like it or not, Scalia has been proven wrong legally and logically....and no stubborn stance against a decision that grants women equal rights in the USA is going to change that.

Thanks for helping me emphasize my point, DY.
 
Most of the brilliant minds throughout history were considered "whack jobs" by their inferior contemporaries. Again:

Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. This is a fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is, mistaken. Hindsight makes this clear: there were times when the majority of the population believed that the Earth is the still centre of the universe, and that diseases are caused by evil spirits; neither of these ideas was true, despite its popularity.
Click to expand...
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/rel...to-popularity/
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
What you quote here is EXACTLY what Scalia is harping on...popularity of tradition...
Click to expand...


Damn Yankee said:
No he's not.
Click to expand...

Then your quote/link has no bearing on the discussion at hand then.

Scalia was proven wrong logically and factually, as I demonstrated with the decision quote from the other justices. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS....and last time I checked, citizenry has not been gender specific in America for a LONG time.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=752601&postcount=83
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
Then your quote/link has no bearing on the discussion at hand then.

Scalia was proven wrong logically and factually, as I demonstrated with the decision quote from the other justices. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS....and last time I checked, citizenry has not been gender specific in America for a LONG time.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=752601&postcount=83
Click to expand...

Which is why Affirmative Action programs aimed at discriminating against white males are clearly unconstitutional. Do you have the courage to be honest?
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Then your quote/link has no bearing on the discussion at hand then.

Scalia was proven wrong logically and factually, as I demonstrated with the decision quote from the other justices. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS....and last time I checked, citizenry has not been gender specific in America for a LONG time.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...1&postcount=83
Click to expand...


AssHatZombie said:
Which is why Affirmative Action programs aimed at discriminating against white males are clearly unconstitutional. Do you have the courage to be honest?
Click to expand...


I'm always honest....something a man with his ass in his hat just cannot accept.

Bottom line: Scalia was proven WRONG. And as usual, willfully ignorant sheet wearers like yourself try to lie about the reasons for a law that you don't like: Affirmative Action was enacted to correct the congenital bias against black Americans in the admissions/hiring system in various aspects of American society. It wasn't gender specific, and I defy you to produce the language in the law that states such in no uncertain terms.

Was it a perfect solution? No. But until you REMOVE such things as "legacy" admissions into college/university (i.e., GW Bush getting into Yale), then Affirmative Action will remain.
 
Taichiliberal said:
I'm always honest....something a man with his ass in his hat just cannot accept.

Bottom line: Scalia was proven WRONG. And as usual, willfully ignorant sheet wearers like yourself try to lie about the reasons for a law that you don't like: Affirmative Action was enacted to correct the congenital bias against black Americans in the admissions/hiring system in various aspects of American society. It wasn't gender specific, and I defy you to produce the language in the law that states such in no uncertain terms.

Was it a perfect solution? No. But until you REMOVE such things as "legacy" admissions into college/university (i.e., GW Bush getting into Yale), then Affirmative Action will remain.
Click to expand...

What did i lie about? Nothing.

White males are discriminated against for their gender and race. It's unconstitutional.

Discrimination is not an antidote to discrimination.

Zealousness to correct past wrongs does not justify new wrongs. Learn that.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Then your quote/link has no bearing on the discussion at hand then.

Scalia was proven wrong logically and factually, as I demonstrated with the decision quote from the other justices. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS....and last time I checked, citizenry has not been gender specific in America for a LONG time.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=752601&postcount=83
Click to expand...

Again you are wrong. This is merely your opinion about the opinions of others.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I'm always honest....something a man with his ass in his hat just cannot accept.

Bottom line: Scalia was proven WRONG. And as usual, willfully ignorant sheet wearers like yourself try to lie about the reasons for a law that you don't like: Affirmative Action was enacted to correct the congenital bias against black Americans in the admissions/hiring system in various aspects of American society. It wasn't gender specific, and I defy you to produce the language in the law that states such in no uncertain terms.

Was it a perfect solution? No. But until you REMOVE such things as "legacy" admissions into college/university (i.e., GW Bush getting into Yale), then Affirmative Action will remain.
Click to expand...


AssHatZombie said:
What did i lie about? Nothing.

Either you are truly fucking stupid, AZ, or you're a terrible liar. Here's YOUR quote:
"Which is why Affirmative Action programs aimed at discriminating against white males are clearly unconstitutional. Do you have the courage to be honest?"
Now, all YOU have to do is provide the TEXT from the Affirmative Action law that states it is "gender specific".....or for that matter that it's purposely discrimminatory. Your opinion, supposition or conjecture is worthless; provide the law that states as you do in no uncertain terms or go blow it out your dishonest asshat.

White males are discriminated against for their gender and race. It's unconstitutional.

Really? Because "legacy" admissions have been a policy of many universities and colleges for a generation or two.....so little asshat's and their sisters must be okay with being discriminated against by their richer, more connected bretheren all these years....yet they scream like banshee's because of an acknowledgement of admission/hiring discrimination against minorities and steps to correct that. Like I said AZ, nothings perfect, but as long as one system exists, the attempt to correct the other will also....so blow it out your ignorant, hypocritical asshat.

Discrimination is not an antidote to discrimination.

See above.
Zealousness to correct past wrongs does not justify new wrongs. Learn that.
Click to expand...

See above. Scalia was proven wrong, and you're too much of an asshat to deal with it.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Then your quote/link has no bearing on the discussion at hand then.

Scalia was proven wrong logically and factually, as I demonstrated with the decision quote from the other justices. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS....and last time I checked, citizenry has not been gender specific in America for a LONG time.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...1&postcount=83
Click to expand...


Damn Yankee said:
Again you are wrong. This is merely your opinion about the opinions of others.
Click to expand...


Not merely my opinion, DY...FACT: EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS IS NOT GENDER SPECIFIC.

You and Scalia can repeat your attempts at "exception to the rule" until doomsday, but that won't make you correct. 7 other Justices logically demonstrated how this applies to the case at hand...which makes Scalia look like just some insipidly stubborn old fogey stuck in his mysogynist ways. You're entitled to your beliefs and opinions, DY.....but facts and logic have a way pointing to the truth....and a decision becomes a ruling of law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top