Evanston Illinois to give $25,000 each to BLACK RESIDENTS ONLY.!

[QP!]

Had Ginsburg retired any time after 2014, Trump would have filled her seat. It is what it is. Not one person believed that Trump would win in 2016. It ain't RGB that 'fucked us'. Blaming her is like blaming someone for being robbed because they didn't have a deadbolt. Mitch McConnell is responsible for this. No one else. Ginsburg did her job. McConnell did not. There is lots of blame to go around for why the Supreme Court looks the way it does. Anger at Ginsburg is misdirected. My two cents.

Agree and disagree.

We know Mitch and we know who he is. So while he gets rightful blame for his deplorable actions, that also then requires the Dem's not just do nothing, and allow him the option to do deplorable things when they can be strategic and block it.


RBG's health issues were a growing concern Obama's presidency and many were quietly and respectfully trying to nudge her to retire and allow Obama to fill the seat while he had the power to do so.

We don't have to know Trump will win next. Any Republican who won before she retired would then have the chance to fill the seat and since Mitch will only push Federalist approved judges, it would have been same list.


Biden and Dems did pressure Breyer too, and HE DID step down, and that is why we have Jackson now. Had he refused, and then the Republicans won next and his health forced him out, you would be right to say, that is not his fault, and he can retire when he wants, but i would still blame him for his lack of foresight and ultimately caring about the country and the future of the court MORE than he cared about his rights.


To me, its like the person standing in the street, seeing the car breaking every road law, and refusing to move because they are in the right. They are right, but they are also dead and they could have prevented that.

 

[QP!]

But how will the court interpret that clause?

You asked how and I gave you a possible how.

I would typically disagree with you, as the reading of that is clear but with this captured Supreme Court they will simply read into things and make things up as they did with their reading of the Hereos Act.

They ultimately reject 'the secretary' using the Act to cancel the student loan debt saying that under their made up Major Questions doctrine, that Congress needed to give SPECIFIC power and instructions to the Executive on this or they cannot do it. that the Executive would be usurping COngress power of the purse without very specific mandate from Congress and so they blocked it as over reach.

This despite the Heroes Act very specifically written by COngress given the Secretary the power to "WAIVE or MODIFY" in times of "national emergency".

the SC actually argued Waive does not necessarily mean 'cancel' the loans and they pointed to other tortured definitions, when 'Waive' in financial markets absolutely does mean 'cancel'.

Banks waving fees, or interest, etc means cancelling them.

Under the HEROES Act, the Secretary “may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the [Education Act] as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.”

 

[QP!]

But how will the court interpret that clause?

You asked how and I gave you a possible how.

And think about that Clause more, as the Slave owners in the south WERE compensated for the loss of slaves by the gov't.

Imagine that. Compensated for loss of "property" they should never have owned while the slaves themselves (victims) got nothing.

Worse than nothing, as most Southern states, simply changed laws to require everyone have a job and home or they would be 'vagrants' and get arrested and subjected to contract slavery which was often worse then the original slavery. Unable to pay fines or get out of prison, they were now 'rented' out to the same plantations to pick the same crops, but since the prior slave owner no longer owned the person they had no incentive to take care of their health. Work them to near death, take them back to the prison and exchange for a new one.

That money paid to the slave owners kick started generational wealth amongst white people that they still benefit from until today. That lack of money and continued slavery of black people put them in such a hole it still impacts them generations later, today.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

And think about that Clause more, as the Slave owners in the south WERE compensated for the loss of slaves by the gov't.

Imagine that. Compensated for loss of "property" they should never have owned while the slaves themselves (victims) got nothing.

Worse than nothing, as most Southern states, simply changed laws to require everyone have a job and home or they would be 'vagrants' and get arrested and subjected to contract slavery which was often worse then the original slavery. Unable to pay fines or get out of prison, they were now 'rented' out to the same plantations to pick the same crops, but since the prior slave owner no longer owned the person they had no incentive to take care of their health. Work them to near death, take them back to the prison and exchange for a new one.

That money paid to the slave owners kick started generational wealth amongst white people that they still benefit from until today. That lack of money and continued slavery of black people put them in such a hole it still impacts them generations later, today.

While tend to agree with your post, the fact remains throwing money at people doesn't change the past and will have very little, if any, impact on the future.

Better to invest in schools and attracting jobs into poorer areas of America.

 

[martin]

It's not the racists you have to worry about, it's all the other minorities who aren't getting anything.

Why would other minorities think reparations for a historical wrong should have anything to do with them?

It's the racists we do have to worry about if we worry about it at all. Better to just let them piss and moan, e.g. this thread, until the thing is finished.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Why would other minorities think reparations for a historical wrong should have anything to do with them?

It's the racists we do have to worry about if we worry about it at all. Better to just let them piss and moan, e.g. this thread, until the thing is finished.

The Chinese were wronged by the railroads. Decades of bias by the Euro-Americans on the West Coast.

The fucking Romans wronged my Gaelic, Celtic and Teutonic ancestors through murder and theft. Don't I deserve payment too.

 

[QP!]

While tend to agree with your post, the fact remains throwing money at people doesn't change the past and will have very little, if any, impact on the future.

Better to invest in schools and attracting jobs into poorer areas of America.

Totally agree with that.

Reparations should not be paid to individuals directly for generations old violations, and should be paid via massive investments in Schools, hospitals, etc, that serve predominantly those communities when the harm originally done, still has legacy issues impacting those communities.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The told the universities to stop, to which the universities responded that they fully intend to carry on.

I look forward to the first lawsuit from a white person that was denied entry in favor of a minority with lesser qualifications and credentials

 

[martin]

The Chinese were wronged by the railroads. Decades of bias by the Euro-Americans on the West Coast.

The fucking Romans wronged my Gaelic, Celtic and Teutonic ancestors through murder and theft. Don't I deserve payment too.

A little late, but if you can pull it off with those Gauls more power to you. Remind me though, were your ancestors converted under law into personal property, like farm equipment.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Why would other minorities think reparations for a historical wrong should have anything to do with them?

It's the racists we do have to worry about if we worry about it at all. Better to just let them piss and moan, e.g. this thread, until the thing is finished.

Because institutionalized racism doesn't just affect people who's ancestors were brought over as slaves, it affects everyone of color.

That is the point of reparations so saying some blacks were not as affected by it is going to piss them off.

Native Americans are also starting to demand reparations and fairly soon every minority group will be demanding them for some reason or another.

You can't single out one group and say they've suffered worse.

 

[archives]

More blatant in-your-face black privilege and discrimination against whites. I hope some whites sue over this and if the judge says "no standing" there will be hell to pay.

In other words “text” again wants to elaborate on why he hates Black Americans

My advice, don’t move to Evanston, Illinois, what do you care what some small town wants to do, I thought the right was all about local control, and now you want to tell people a country away what they should do and not do

 

[Tinkerpeach]

And think about that Clause more, as the Slave owners in the south WERE compensated for the loss of slaves by the gov't.

Imagine that. Compensated for loss of "property" they should never have owned while the slaves themselves (victims) got nothing.

Worse than nothing, as most Southern states, simply changed laws to require everyone have a job and home or they would be 'vagrants' and get arrested and subjected to contract slavery which was often worse then the original slavery. Unable to pay fines or get out of prison, they were now 'rented' out to the same plantations to pick the same crops, but since the prior slave owner no longer owned the person they had no incentive to take care of their health. Work them to near death, take them back to the prison and exchange for a new one.

That money paid to the slave owners kick started generational wealth amongst white people that they still benefit from until today. That lack of money and continued slavery of black people put them in such a hole it still impacts them generations later, today.

And how will giving them a check erase that hole?

It won't.

Once they blow through that money they will be in the exact same spot they are in now and they will be demanding more.

They will say their kids need it, their grandkids need it, it will never stop.

Every new generation of blacks will be demanding reparations.

This isn't a one and done type of deal here.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

A little late, but if you can pull it off with those Gauls more power to you.

Remind me though, were your ancestors converted under law into personal property, like farm equipment.

Late? Please define what is "late" and what is "on time".

Fuck the French.

Yes, the Romans enslaved their conquered territories. Didn't you ever hear about Spartacus and Roman slave revolts?

https://www.worldhistory.org/article/629/slavery-in-the-roman-world/
Slavery in the Roman World
Slavery was an ever-present feature of the Roman world. Slaves served in households, agriculture, mines, the military, workshops, construction and many services. As many as 1 in 3 of the population in Italy or 1 in 5 across the empire were slaves and upon this foundation of forced labour was built the entire edifice of the Roman state.

 

[Concart]

But how will the court interpret that clause?

You asked how and I gave you a possible how.

They will interpret that clause AS IT IS WRITTEN, because they are not knuckledraggging morons like you are. I asked you how it was unconstitutional, you posted something that was exactly and precisely 100% wrong. Not easy to do. That is not a possible how. I guess you could have said 'monkeys will fly out of my butt'. That would be just as relevant as the answer you gave.

 

[Concart]

Caveat here. I don't think reparations solve the problem, but to suggest that SCOTUS will overturn this is to be utterly ignorant of the Constitution and the authority of the courts. I loathe lazy stupid people. Nora is as lazy and stupid as they come.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

They will interpret that clause AS IT IS WRITTEN, because they are not knuckledraggging morons like you are. I asked you how it was unconstitutional, you posted something that was exactly and precisely 100% wrong. Not easy to do. That is not a possible how. I guess you could have said 'monkeys will fly out of my butt'. That would be just as relevant as the answer you gave.

The Supreme Court has said that racial set-asides and other entitlements are only permissible to remedy the present effects of the government’s own widespread discrimination in the relatively recent past. That means discrimination by the government that provides the special treatment—not by a different government. A racial entitlement is only permissible to remedy the government’s own discrimination, not societal discrimination. It cannot provide race-based “remedies that are ageless in their reach into the past, and timeless in their ability to affect the future.” (See Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 497 (1995)). Reparations for slavery would be just such an improper “remedy.” On the other hand, the government need only show a “prima facie” case of such discrimination, not smoking-gun evidence of it, to adopt race-based affirmative action.

The federal government is thus not allowed to provide special treatment to blacks in one state just because another state once practiced slavery or segregation. Even when federal officials in one state were in some sense complicit in discrimination against black people, that does not mean that the government can give blacks special treatment in an entirely different state. (See Western States Paving Co. v. Washington State Department of Transportation, 407 F. 3d 983 (9th Cir. 2005)).

Even when the government is remedying the present effects of its own past discrimination, discrimination that happened more than twenty years ago is usually too far in the past to justify giving minorities special treatment today, according to the courts. (See, e.g., Brunet v. City of Columbus, 1 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 1993) (court rules that gender discrimination that occurred 17 years earlier does not support affirmative action); Hammon v. Barry, 813 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (court rules that racial discrimination that occurred 14 years earlier does not support affirmative action)).

https://fee.org/articles/reparations-would-cost-trillions-and-are-unconstitutional/

Any other questions?

 

[Concart]

https://fee.org/articles/reparations-would-cost-trillions-and-are-unconstitutional/

Any other questions?

Yes. Why do you post bullshit? I asked how this was unconstitutional. You have utterly failed to answer that question. You don't know anything, do you Nora?

 

[martin]

Late? Please define what is "late" and what is "on time".

Fuck the French.

Yes, the Romans enslaved their conquered territories. Didn't you ever hear about Spartacus and Roman slave revolts?

https://www.worldhistory.org/article/629/slavery-in-the-roman-world/
Slavery in the Roman World
Slavery was an ever-present feature of the Roman world. Slaves served in households, agriculture, mines, the military, workshops, construction and many services. As many as 1 in 3 of the population in Italy or 1 in 5 across the empire were slaves and upon this foundation of forced labour was built the entire edifice of the Roman state.

Yes, I know about Roman slavery. Would classify that as an example of "late". I don't much like reparations myself, like less the hair pulling over them by evident racists. So when I see a thread like this am tempted to put a stick in it.

 

[QP!]

And how will giving them a check erase that hole?

It won't.

Once they blow through that money they will be in the exact same spot they are in now and they will be demanding more.

They will say their kids need it, their grandkids need it, it will never stop.

Every new generation of blacks will be demanding reparations.

This isn't a one and done type of deal here.

As stated

Totally agree with that.

Reparations should not be paid to individuals directly for generations old violations, and should be paid via massive investments in Schools, hospitals, etc, that serve predominantly those communities when the harm originally done, still has legacy issues impacting those communities.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, I know about Roman slavery. Would classify that as an example of "late". I don't much like reparations myself, like less the hair pulling over them by evident racists. So when I see a thread like this am tempted to put a stick in it.

I agree with your assessment that paying the ancestors of former slaves is "late".

I, too, like putting a stick in silly arguments. Especially bigoted ones.

Our nation needs more unity, not more division by taxing one group based on race and giving the money to others based on race. Ensuring that every American child has a quality education is a better way to spend that money. The average global literacy rate is about 86%. The American literacy rate is 79%*. What's wrong with this picture? Part of the problem is that the Federal government only provides 8% of school funding. The rest is local. Poor states and poor counties have poorer schools.


*depending how you measure it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States
According to the 2012-2014 data, 79% of U.S. adults (or 43.0 million people) have "English literacy skills sufficient to complete tasks that require comparing and contrasting information, paraphrasing, or making low-level inferences." In this study, immigrants are over-represented in the low English literacy population. Adults born outside the U.S. make up 34% of adults with low literacy skills while making up only 15% of the population. However, of the adults with low English literacy skills, 66% were born in the U.S.