Political Cartoons

Had it been a corporation that was denied entry, the ruling would have been entirely different.

From:

Well, corporations are clearly people, whereas
the status of racial minorities is somewhat indeterminate.

From:

How so?

From:

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a three-member plurality, sided with the voters, who he said had undertaken “a basic exercise of their democratic power” in approving the amendment. He cautioned that the ruling took no position on the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies themselves. “This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it.”

Interesting given how the Prop 8 appeal went (I understand the court dismissed the appeal on a procedural grounds).

Not so, Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded, in a stinging 58-page dissent. “Our Constitution places limits on what a majority of the people may do,” she wrote, such as when they pass laws that oppress minorities.That’s what the affirmative action ban does, by altering the political process to single out race and sex as the only factors that may not be considered in university admissions.While the Constitution “does not guarantee minority groups victory in the political process,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, “it does guarantee them meaningful and equal access to that process. It guarantees that the majority may not win by stacking the political process against minority groups permanently.” The Michigan amendment has already resulted in a 25 percent drop in minority representation in Michigan’s public universities and colleges, even as the proportion of college-age African-Americans in the state has gone up

In the most eloquent part of her dissent, Justice Sotomayor rightly took aim at the conservative members of the court, who speak high-mindedly of racial equality even as they write off decades-old precedent meant to address the lingering effects of “centuries of racial discrimination” — a view that is “out of touch with reality.” The reality, she wrote, is that “race matters.”

In response to her pointed rebuke, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote a terse concurrence chiding Justice Sotomayor for questioning her colleagues’ “openness and candor.”

New York Times editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/)

From:

Yes, it is striking how this Court seems more permissive of gay rights, since I imagine there is just as much of a majoritarian animus against it. I don't have a handle on why that is, but I suppose the Court has really yet to decide the matter, if I'm not mistaken. As you pointed out, the Court opted to evade the substantive issue on that case you raise. It may be that the Court thinks that gay rights needs more time percolating in the body politic, whereas the fight against affirmative action has been a long one.

From:

The "substantive issue" of this case was whether states could ensure that racial preferences would not be enshrined into law. It's entirely consistent with their rulings so far on gay rights.

From:

I didn't think that racial preferences were 'enshrined into law' before. I thought universities wanted to use them, and they were allowed to even if the legislature did not want them to, and now this case held that if a majority of the people vote against such use, the universities must abide by that decision. So, instead of courts protecting minorities from majoritarianism, this Court is now leaving minority protections to twist in the majoritarian winds same with voting rights. In sum, minorities cannot rely on courts for protection any more. The lions may have at them.

From:

This case was specifically about the Constitutionality of an initiative to keep affirmative action policies out of public endeavors. How, exactly, would allowing state governments to discriminate based on race help with equality?

This does not keep minorities from relying on courts for due process, it does not keep minorities under the thumb of the majority opinion. It simply keeps the government from using race as a factor.

From:

It was about an initiative to keep critical social institutions from addressing racial discrimination, by continuing to insure a meaningful presence of minorities in these institutions. Now the way is clear to have lily white universities, and minorities can no longer cry to the courts about it. Now, how do you figure this is a blow for equality?

From:

It was about an initiative to keep critical social institutions from addressing racial discrimination, by continuing to insure a meaningful presence of minorities in these institutions.

...by enacting policies that showed racial preferences. Are you arguing in favor of racial preferences?

Now the way is clear to have lily white universities, and minorities can no longer cry to the courts about it.

Of course they can. This case had nothing to do with legalizing inequality, it merely ensured that inequality cannot be part of public institutions. That's not unreasonable.

Now, how do you figure this is a blow for equality?

It's merely a question as to whether the law can allow for racial preferences in public institutions or not. I'm not in favor of them.

From:

I don't know how to make you see on this point, since you also don't see how it can hurt minorities to allow businesses to deny them service.

I'll try one more time. If all races were equal in public esteem to begin with, then there might be something in what you say, about not having any racial preferences. However, when you have a majority population that is prejudiced against politically weaker races, then you need to be able to counter that to insure a just society. Alas, that correction is going by the wayside, and we are reverting to a pre-1960s Jim Crowism, where minorities cannot vote, cannot get an education, and in your world, cannot even get served in a restaurant.

From:

I don't know how to make you see on this point, since you also don't see how it can hurt minorities to allow businesses to deny them service.

You can't. But you will find this thread (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1208177.html?thread=96096625#t96096625)with

prock on the same ideas extremely informative.

From:

I can only suppose, in being charitable, that he has an absolute faith in complete and total 'freedom by agents/actors' and a blind spot to the vulnerabilities of racial minorities. Though,when one considers his discussion on subjects like the minimum wage - making arguments that some people are not worth a livable wage - it is hard to avoid seeing a callousness toward the weak and to victims.

From:

I think you need to consider that there may be a separation between the policy and the personal.

From:

But policies have personal repercussions, and if you favor monstrous policies, then you may need to take a longer look in the mirror.

From:

Indeed. There are many here who really need to start carrying mirrors with them.

From:

I can only suppose, in being charitable, that he has an absolute faith in complete and total 'freedom by agents/actors' and a blind spot to the vulnerabilities of racial minorities.

As that linked thread shows, the issue is a lot more than that.
Substitute other adjectives and verbs as you wish, but callous was a good start.

From:

I've always loved that exchange.

From:

rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com

You sure showed him.

From:

I can never decide whether the denial of supermarkets being private or the assertion of a market for public schools was funnier.

From:

rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com

Lolz, it's almost as if you don't understand basic economic terminology. A supermarket is a 'market participant', as is a public school. The public school provides a 'public good' and generally operates in a relatively 'open market' with private schools. They supply 'private goods'. A supermarket that refused to sell to minorities would be engaging in 'economic discrimination' which is a kind of 'market failure'.

From:

Lolz, it's almost as if you don't understand basic economic terminology.

You got me with the *almost*

Edited Date: 2014-04-24 02:07 am (UTC)

From:

It's almost as if basic economic terminology had nothing to do with the discussion!

From:

rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com

Kudos then for basically coming right out and admitting that one of your favorite conversations on livejournal was basically just an unproductive shitstorm of you being intentionally obtuse! Keep fucking that chicken.

From:

I don't know how to make you see on this point, since you also don't see how it can hurt minorities to allow businesses to deny them service.

Odd that you think that the second part is my point of view.

There's plenty of debate as to whether affirmative action is a good outcome for minorities on a whole. That's wholly irrelevant to the case at hand, which had to do with the ability of the population to keep race-based policies out of state law and out of public activity. The ramifications of this law works in all directions.

I'll try one more time. If all races were equal in public esteem to begin with, then there might be something in what you say, about not having any racial preferences. However, when you have a majority population that is prejudiced against politically weaker races, then you need to be able to counter that to insure a just society

This is all well and good, but this is also a policy issue that isn't relevant to the case decided yesterday, no matter how much Sotomayor wants it to be.

Whether all races are "equal in public esteem" does not change the fact that governments should not be making race-based policy, and cannot from a Constitutional standpoint.

Alas, that correction is going by the wayside, and we are reverting to a pre-1960s Jim Crowism, where minorities cannot vote, cannot get an education, and in your world, cannot even get served in a restaurant.

It's actually really funny that you invoke Jim Crow here, as Jim Crow laws were government actions that created race-based policies. I assume you're against Jim Crow laws, and yet you don't want to empower the people to keep the government from creating laws that discriminate based on race?

From:

Odd that you think that the second part is my point of view.

So you do know that it can hurt minorities, but you just don't care, okay.

It's actually really funny that you invoke Jim Crow here, as Jim Crow laws were government actions that created race-based policies.

You may indeed find it funny, perhaps having a perverse sense of humor, but I think I have to accept that you are just willfully denying the difference between race-based policies that are used to keep races down, and race-based policies that are used to defend minorities from majoritarian racism.

From:

So you do know that it can hurt minorities, but you just don't care, okay.

Also not my point of view. It's not that I don't care at all, but that there are competing interests at play.

You may indeed find it funny, perhaps having a perverse sense of humor, but I think I have to accept that you are just willfully denying the difference between race-based policies that are used to keep races down, and race-based policies that are used to defend minorities from majoritarian racism.

Or, I am accepting them both as unacceptable from a policy standpoint, from a Constitutional standpoint.

From:

Or, I am accepting them both as unacceptable from a policy standpoint, from a Constitutional standpoint.

Don't blame the Constitution for your beliefs. It is open enough that we can have the kind of society that we want. As shown by its history, the Constitution can support such diverse and contrary policies as slavery and affirmative action, depending on the era and its people; in significant part, what it stands for is up to us. You may accept invidious racism as acceptable, but it does not really have to be that way. It's not the Constitution's fault; that is on you.

From:

Don't blame the Constitution for your beliefs.

My beliefs are rooted in the Constitution here from a policy standpoint. This might be why you're struggling with this.

As shown by its history, the Constitution can support such diverse and contrary policies as slavery and affirmative action, depending on the era and its people

I wouldn't agree with that.

You may accept invidious racism as acceptable

I also wouldn't agree with that.

It may be worth your while to stick to what I actually believe, and not whatever fantasy you're peddling here.

From:

Me; You may accept invidious racism as acceptable

You: I also wouldn't agree with that.

Do you accept businessmen, say restaurateurs, denying service on the basis of race? Yes or no?

From:

Do you accept businessmen, say restaurateurs, denying service on the basis of race? Yes or no?

Do I accept them doing it, or do I accept their right to do so? Depending on what your question is impacts what the answer is.

From:

Do you accept the outcome, people being denied service because of their race? You are drawing complications to hide behind, but it is really very simple.

From:

I'm not really drawing complications, as the complications are already drawn and you're ignoring them. Are you asking whether I accept the outcome, or do I accept the rights exist that have outcomes that I may not prefer?

From:

I only care about the outcome, not in any rationalizations that you can cook up to distance yourself from them.

From:

And yet you only seem to care about one outcome, as opposed to perhaps all of them. Why is that?

From:

Because it's such an ugly outcome, Jeff, and as I have told you before, I know what if feels like to be diminished like that. Moreover, you may think that maybe only a few economically foolish people will do that, but I believe that's just another rationalization. I know you don't believe that racism exists anymore, or at least that is what you like to say, but that is just another reflection of your strange thought patterns.

I am nor peddling a fantasy, but I am afraid that you are lost in one.

From:

fizzyland.livejournal.com

Interesting how difficult it is to get a simple yes or no answer, isn't it?

Also, asking questions while refusing to answer previously posed questions should receive some kind of internet penalty.

From:

When a question is unclear, a clarification is in order. Seeing as it's not a simple yes or no as the implications are unclear...

From:

Because it's such an ugly outcome, Jeff, and as I have told you before, I know what if feels like to be diminished like that.

Okay, but, for the umpteenth time, there are ugly outcomes in both directions. You can favor one over the other as can I, but we're both pushing for ugly outcomes. With that reality, we have to ask which outcome is more beneficial, and, really, what outcome is more likely.

. I know you don't believe that racism exists anymore, or at least that is what you like to say, but that is just another reflection of your strange thought patterns.

Also not my position. This might actually be the root of your problem here.

From:

there are ugly outcomes in both directions.

Umm, what's the ugly outcome in the other direction?? Having to look at a colored person in your restaurant who isn't just mopping the floors?

Also not my position. This might actually be the root of your problem here.

You keep dancing around, which I can understand, considering how untasty some of your thoughts are, You don't recall saying that racism no longer exists in this country in this century? No the root of the problems lies elsewhere.

From:

Umm, what's the ugly outcome in the other direction?? Having to look at a colored person in your restaurant who isn't just mopping the floors?

The ugly outcomes are many. Freedom of association in any direction. Pushback against minority-only establishments, safe space establishments, etc. Just to name a few.

I would fault you or impugn your character for disagreeing with me, but I will say that I don't believe you've thought about it quite as much as you might think.

You keep dancing around, which I can understand, considering how untasty some of your thoughts are

I'm not dancing at all, I'm simply not going to take a position that I don't hold. This isn't debate club, and I'm happy to correct you when you misstate my positions.

You don't recall saying that racism no longer exists in this country in this century?

"Racism is delegated to the fringe of society" is not "racism no longer exists."

From:

mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com

The "substantive issue" of this case was whether states could ensure that racial preferences would not be enshrined into law.

Yeah, now it's just the more covert stuff like legacy admissions.

From: