Scalia still pushing Nixon's Southern Strategy

[easy91_rivals]

http://thehill.com/regulation/court...lack-students-belong-at-less-advanced-schools

Scalia is 78, been on the SC since 1986, appointed by Reagan--still offering judicial opinions today consistent with the message of veiled bigots in 1861 and 1968. These comments butress the argument that institutionalize racism is alive and espoused in 2015. Comments and beliefs like this are viable arguments that humans are not evolving.

 

[WVPATX]

http://thehill.com/regulation/court...lack-students-belong-at-less-advanced-schools

Scalia is 78, been on the SC since 1986, appointed by Reagan--still offering judicial opinions today consistent with the message of veiled bigots in 1861 and 1968. These comments butress the argument that institutionalize racism is alive and espoused in 2015. Comments and beliefs like this are viable arguments that humans are not evolving.

You're dumber than a sled track. Even the very liberal Mediaite recognizes Scalia's question.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/media-jumps-the-gun-attack-scalia-for-perfectly-reasonable-question/

 

[dave]

It is an interesting debate.

I have always thought that the best school to attend isnt always the most prestigious school but the school where the student will best learn the material. I think every STEM student would ultimately want to graduate from MIT but in many cases WVU or Virginia Tech is the best fit.

 

[easy91_rivals]

I'm dumber than a sled track? I'm not the one who agrees with a bigot trying to frame a racist comment and agenda as a hypothetical. Scalia is pissing on minorities' legs and telling them it is raining. I don't care what mediaite's opinion is, I can form my own and don't have to have to post other people's ideas daily to feel like I matter and show others how dumb they are. If you don't like equality, own it--it would be much more refreshing than your tired, lemming-like schtick you try to frame as original thought on here ad nauseum.

You're dumber than a sled track. Even the very liberal Mediaite recognizes Scalia's question.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/media-jumps-the-gun-attack-scalia-for-perfectly-reasonable-question/

 

[easy91_rivals]

It is an interesting debate.

I have always thought that the best school to attend isnt always the most prestigious school but the school where the student will best learn the material. I think every STEM student would ultimately want to graduate from MIT but in many cases WVU or Virginia Tech is the best fit.

I agree with that point in theory. In this scenario, do you believe Scalia is actually looking out for minorities' best interests or pushing his agenda? Would you agree with the NCAA telling WVU that they're doing us a favor by not letting us into a P5 conference bc we're really not that great and we're better off in CUSA?

 

[dave]

I agree with that point in theory. In this scenario, do you believe Scalia is actually looking out for minorities' best interests or pushing his agenda? Would you agree with the NCAA telling WVU that they're doing us a favor by not letting us into a P5 conference bc we're really not that great and we're better off in CUSA?

After reading the links was Scalia offering his opinion or was he stating opinions from briefs? I am no lawyer so I dont pretend to understand all the formalities of how that debate goes.

 

[easy91_rivals]

He was asking Texas' attorney questions during the attorney's oral arguments. Typically that's what appellate judges do because the parties' briefs have been submitted to the Court in advance. Scalia framed his question(s) from an outside source that fit his viewpoint. Something akin to, "Wouldn't you agree with esteemed WV reporter, Chuck Landon, that Marshall is in fact the state's flagship football program?" His questions regarding whether minorities may be better off in less prestigious schools, were not actual questions he wanted answered. He was opining veiled in the guise of a question(s).

 

[easy91_rivals]

But you may want to ask Xbox to wax poetic since I'm dumber than a sled track.

 

[WVPATX]

After reading the links was Scalia offering his opinion or was he stating opinions from briefs? I am no lawyer so I dont pretend to understand all the formalities of how that debate goes.

This is from a lib site:

Most of these reports came out before the transcript was released, based on accounts of those who were in the courtroom at the time (oral arguments are never televised). But once the transcript emerged, it turned out that critics had jumped the gun. Scalia wasn’t sharing his own views, he was asking about a very serious academic critique of affirmative action that others had made.

First of all, it’s worth noting that oral arguments are not an avenue for justices to share their views on the case at hand; it’s an opportunity to suss out any holes in the arguments of both parties. To that end, justices often advance arguments and theories they do not necessarily hold. Take for example Chief Justice John Roberts‘extremely harsh questioning of government lawyers in NFIB v. Burwell, even though he eventually voted to uphold the individual mandate anyways.

 

[WVPATX]

Even the perilously liberal LA Times understands Scalia's question. Libs see racism everywhere. It does a great disservice when real racism occurs, the boy cries wolf.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opin...mativeaction-supremecourt-20151209-story.html

 

[Airport]

I guess most don't follow the actual questions of the SC. They asked provocative questions as part of their stick. Some of the questions are really off the wall sometimes. More out of intellectual exercise than some of the things you are bringing up.

 

[mule_eer]

Given the full context of the question, I'm not all that bothered by it. I am bothered by this case, and here's why. The woman who claims that she was not accepted into UT because of affirmative action was rated academically behind 160 minority applicants who also did not get into UT. She isn't disputing the process that grants automatic acceptance to the top 10% of every high school graduating class in the state of TX, one of the processes by which UT guarantees some diversity. She's making the claim that she was more deserving on merit than others who fell outside the top 10% range in high school. Without a court going through the applicants rated ahead of her, and maybe even behind her, how can they really make that assessment?

I don't pretend to know how exactly the USSC, or even the appellate courts, make decisions on what cases to take. It seems to me based on her relative rank among those not accepted that her case holds little merit. This seems like an excuse to rule on affirmative action as a process.

 

[Airport]

There's a lot of people who thinks affirmative action violates the Equal protection clause which is what was use to validate same sex marriage. I guess you can't have your Kate and eat it too.

 

[WVPATX]

Given the full context of the question, I'm not all that bothered by it. I am bothered by this case, and here's why. The woman who claims that she was not accepted into UT because of affirmative action was rated academically behind 160 minority applicants who also did not get into UT. She isn't disputing the process that grants automatic acceptance to the top 10% of every high school graduating class in the state of TX, one of the processes by which UT guarantees some diversity. She's making the claim that she was more deserving on merit than others who fell outside the top 10% range in high school. Without a court going through the applicants rated ahead of her, and maybe even behind her, how can they really make that assessment?

I don't pretend to know how exactly the USSC, or even the appellate courts, make decisions on what cases to take. It seems to me based on her relative rank among those not accepted that her case holds little merit. This seems like an excuse to rule on affirmative action as a process.

I don't think you solve discrimination by discriminating against non preferred groups. Caucasians are actually not affected by this reverse discrimination as much as Asians. Texas has the 10% rule (actually I think it is now top 8%) that states that all graduates who finish in the top 8% of their respective graduating classes are automatically admitted. That is a great way to get a more diverse student body without resorting to reverse discrimination.

 

[mule_eer]

I don't think you solve discrimination by discriminating against non preferred groups. Caucasians are actually not affected by this reverse discrimination as much as Asians. Texas has the 10% rule (actually I think it is now top 8%) that states that all graduates who finish in the top 8% of their respective graduating classes are automatically admitted. That is a great way to get a more diverse student body without resorting to reverse discrimination.

My point is that 160 minorities had better academics than she did, and they did not get accepted at UT either. I don't think her case has a ton of merit based on that.

 

[WVPATX]

My point is that 160 minorities had better academics than she did, and they did not get accepted at UT either. I don't think her case has a ton of merit based on that.

I don't think that has anything to do with her case. The fact that they were also discriminated against doesn't impact her case in the least. The question for the court would be was she discriminated against based on her race. I assume it's possible the other 160 candidates were from a non-preferred minority group? Or that the other 160 candidates did not have great essays? Or perhaps they did not have her extracurricular activities? Lots of facts used to judge candidates.

 

[mule_eer]

I don't think that has anything to do with her case. The fact that they were also discriminated against doesn't impact her case in the least. The question for the court would be was she discriminated against based on her race. I assume it's possible the other 160 candidates were from a non-preferred minority group? Or that the other 160 candidates did not have great essays? Or perhaps they did not have her extracurricular activities? Lots of facts used to judge candidates.

As I heard the story on those numbers, they used the term minority. It came from UT, but they didn't specify. I assume they would use folks who supposedly had an advantage due to AA to make that computation, but I can't back that up.

Schools do use a lot of factors to judge candidates. What other qualifications did she have to gain her acceptance by the school? I haven't seen those, and I wonder if you can objectively judge that without seeing the files of her competition for a spot. I doubt the files are made available to the court - can you imagine the time they would need to review those? - but they may have some sort of spreadsheet of the candidates with some details about their qualifications.

I don't think this is a haphazard process either. You have multiple people going through multiple applications. They take the givens, then fight to decide who takes the remaining spots. If 160 minority applicants were rated ahead of this woman, how many people in total were rated ahead of her. That's useful info.

 

[Airport]

My point is that 160 minorities had better academics than she did, and they did not get accepted at UT either. I don't think her case has a ton of merit based on that.

Were their academics better because of a less than rigorous school? I have never been against affirmative action in this case. You can get a quality education at a number of universities.

 

[mule_eer]

Were their academics better because of a less than rigorous school? I have never been against affirmative action in this case. You can get a quality education at a number of universities.

That's always a problem in comparing students from different schools. That problem doesn't go away at colleges either. I remember the VT math department used to boast that they didn't teach anything below calculus. I taught a second semester calc class for scientists there. The topics started with trigonometry and ended in differential calc. The first semester "calc" class was college algebra. You can't necessarily trust course titles to be standard. At WVU a class with Calculus in the title covered calc from day one - Business Calc, Calc I.

 

[easy91_rivals]

Here are Justice Scalia's comments from the Supreme Court transcript:

JUSTICE SCALIA: There are there are those who contend that it does not benefit AfricanAmericans to to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school, a less a slowertrack school where they do well. One of one of the briefs pointed out that that most of the most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas.

MR. GARRE: So this Court

JUSTICE SCALIA: They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're that they're being pushed ahead in in classes that are too too fast for them.

I don't need to have a liberal or conservative reporter/commentator/website validate my thoughts or tell me whether this is veiled racism. As I said earlier, Scalia is pissing on black legs and telling them it's raining. You may choose to disagree.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Here are Justice Scalia's comments from the Supreme Court transcript:

JUSTICE SCALIA: There are there are those who contend that it does not benefit AfricanAmericans to to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school, a less a slowertrack school where they do well. One of one of the briefs pointed out that that most of the most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas.

MR. GARRE: So this Court

JUSTICE SCALIA: They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're that they're being pushed ahead in in classes that are too too fast for them.

I don't need to have a liberal or conservative reporter/commentator/website validate my thoughts or tell me whether this is veiled racism. As I said earlier, Scalia is pissing on black legs and telling them it's raining. You may choose to disagree.

Veiled? Seems pretty damn overt to me.

 

[easy91_rivals]

Veiled? Seems pretty damn overt to me.

Happy to have company in the "dumber than a sled track" ranks.

 

[WVPATX]

Veiled? Seems pretty damn overt to me.

Why don't you read the two lib op eds that I posted on this before branding Scalia a racist. Outside of far left sites, this is a huge non issue.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Why don't you read the two lib op eds that I posted on this before branding Scalia a racist. Outside of far left sites, this is a huge non issue.

Because I can judge a man on his actions on my own. What I read was a man posing a very racist and loaded question. I'm also not a party apologist.

 

[WVPATX]

Because I can judge a man on his actions on my own. What I read was a man posing a very racist and loaded question. I'm also not a party apologist.

It doesn't take a party apologist to recognize reality. Scalia was citing an academic study which is the job of a judge. That study was part of a brief filed in this case. It's absolutely dispicable to use this ridiculous situation to brand him a racist. Intellectually lazy.

From yet another liberal:

Scalia being racist?

by James WarrenPublished Dec. 10, 2015 7:55 amUpdated Dec. 10, 2015 12:20 pm

Good morning.

1. May it please the court…
   The perils of analyzing Supreme Court arguments, especially if you’re not in the chamber and don’t know your stuff, are ample. They were underscored Wednesday with suggestions that Justice Antonin Scalia was being racist in questions he asked in a big affirmative action case. Mother Jones and The Hill jumped to that de facto conclusion. (Mediaite) “Justice Scalia Suggests Blacks Belong at ‘Slower’ Colleges,” declared Mother Jones. The New York Daily News said the same, even tagging Scalia a “Supreme Dope” on this morning’s front page. (Daily News) In fact, Scalia was citing serious academic work on affirmative action, even if his hands weren’t totally clean. Fortunately, there are terrific Supreme Court analysts, such as Lyle Denniston, who actually was there and offered the proper context without letting Scalia totally off the hook for questioning that “became quite clumsy.” (SCOTUSblog)
   
   Scalia alluded to a theory called “mismatch” as he declared, “There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to — to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less — a slower-track school where they do well.” (The Washington Post) The New York Times duly noted that one Scalia remark “drew muted gasps in the courtroom.” (The New York Times) But “far from being racist, that proposition is an acknowledgment of racial inequality — and it’s central to the argument for racial preferences. Those preferences wouldn’t be necessary if applicants from all racial and ethnic groups possessed exactly the same paper credentials.”(The Los Angeles Times) Unfortunately, the digital age brings a few too many reporters sitting at desks and doing facile, Twitter-friendly rewrites of stuff they know little about.

 

[Mntneer]

Gotta agree with PATX on this one.

It's his job to ask loaded questions. He's not citing his opinion, his citing the opinions of others and giving the attorney a chance to either tear those opinions down or not. If that attorney can't, then it's on him or her, not on Scalia for asking the question.

 

[Mntneer]

That's always a problem in comparing students from different schools. That problem doesn't go away at colleges either. I remember the VT math department used to boast that they didn't teach anything below calculus. I taught a second semester calc class for scientists there. The topics started with trigonometry and ended in differential calc. The first semester "calc" class was college algebra. You can't necessarily trust course titles to be standard. At WVU a class with Calculus in the title covered calc from day one - Business Calc, Calc I.

Like pitt claiming they "sell out" at football games.

 

[easy91_rivals]

Second verse, same as the first. You can parade someone else's opinions around all day, but they do not absolve Scalia of his own words. By claiming Scalia was merely using a theory (Mismatch Theory) to question and thus not using his position of authority to push his racially discriminatory beliefs is myopic.

What if Scalia had questioned using Voltaire's "Polygenist Theory" which states that Africans evolved from primates and whites were created from God? Would that be racist?

What if Scalia had questioned using the Rush "Negroidism Theory" which states that blacks are black because they suffer from an incurable skin disease? Would that be racist?

What if Scalia had questioned using the "Pruner Theory" which states that blacks have the brains of apes and were the downfall of Egypt? Would that be racist?

What if Scalia had questioned using the "Craniometry Theory" which states that blacks are less intelligent than whites because their head is shaped more Mongolesque? Would that be racist?

What if Scalia had questioned using the "Goddard/Binet Theory" which claimed minorities were intellectually inferior to whites and had the mental capacity of someone younger than 12 years old? Would that be racist?

Spare me your condescending comment about being intellectually lazy. Hiding behind the defense of "somebody else says this about blacks" while using that racist opinion to push his divisive agenda is not only intellectually lazy, it's morally reprehensible.

 

[WVUBRU]

Second verse, same as the first. You can parade someone else's opinions around all day, but they do not absolve Scalia of his own words. By claiming Scalia was merely using a theory (Mismatch Theory) to question and thus not using his position of authority to push his racially discriminatory beliefs is myopic.

What if Scalia had questioned using Voltaire's "Polygenist Theory" which states that Africans evolved from primates and whites were created from God? Would that be racist?

What if Scalia had questioned using the Rush "Negroidism Theory" which states that blacks are black because they suffer from an incurable skin disease? Would that be racist?

What if Scalia had questioned using the "Pruner Theory" which states that blacks have the brains of apes and were the downfall of Egypt? Would that be racist?

What if Scalia had questioned using the "Craniometry Theory" which states that blacks are less intelligent than whites because their head is shaped more Mongolesque? Would that be racist?

What if Scalia had questioned using the "Goddard/Binet Theory" which claimed minorities were intellectually inferior to whites and had the mental capacity of someone younger than 12 years old? Would that be racist?

Spare me your condescending comment about being intellectually lazy. Hiding behind the defense of "somebody else says this about blacks" while using that racist opinion to push his divisive agenda is not only intellectually lazy, it's morally reprehensible.

This thread is simple. Bad comment from one of the right's heroes and regardless of anything anyone might say concerning it, all you will see in response is deflect and deny with a bunch of spin. It is their only ammo to any topic. I'm just shocked it has gone this long without somehow drawing Obama and Hillary into it.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

It doesn't take a party apologist to recognize reality. Scalia was citing an academic study which is the job of a judge. That study was part of a brief filed in this case. It's absolutely dispicable to use this ridiculous situation to brand him a racist. Intellectually lazy.

From yet another liberal:

Scalia being racist?

by James WarrenPublished Dec. 10, 2015 7:55 amUpdated Dec. 10, 2015 12:20 pm

Good morning.

1. May it please the court…
   The perils of analyzing Supreme Court arguments, especially if you’re not in the chamber and don’t know your stuff, are ample. They were underscored Wednesday with suggestions that Justice Antonin Scalia was being racist in questions he asked in a big affirmative action case. Mother Jones and The Hill jumped to that de facto conclusion. (Mediaite) “Justice Scalia Suggests Blacks Belong at ‘Slower’ Colleges,” declared Mother Jones. The New York Daily News said the same, even tagging Scalia a “Supreme Dope” on this morning’s front page. (Daily News) In fact, Scalia was citing serious academic work on affirmative action, even if his hands weren’t totally clean. Fortunately, there are terrific Supreme Court analysts, such as Lyle Denniston, who actually was there and offered the proper context without letting Scalia totally off the hook for questioning that “became quite clumsy.” (SCOTUSblog)
   
   Scalia alluded to a theory called “mismatch” as he declared, “There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to — to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less — a slower-track school where they do well.” (The Washington Post) The New York Times duly noted that one Scalia remark “drew muted gasps in the courtroom.” (The New York Times) But “far from being racist, that proposition is an acknowledgment of racial inequality — and it’s central to the argument for racial preferences. Those preferences wouldn’t be necessary if applicants from all racial and ethnic groups possessed exactly the same paper credentials.”(The Los Angeles Times) Unfortunately, the digital age brings a few too many reporters sitting at desks and doing facile, Twitter-friendly rewrites of stuff they know little about.

I appreciate that you can find like minded liberal and otherwise to agree with you. What I don't think you get or are choosing to ignore is that doesn't make you or them right either. You have an opinion, as do they, as do I. I personally think you are wrong, and @easy91 listed the exact reasoning of why I came to the same conclusion he did.

I'll leave you with my Scalia impression.

Wouldn't you agree that blacks make great stewards and cooks and ergo there is no reason for them to become fighter pilots? There are studies that show blacks don't have the mental capacity due to their mongoloid like cranial cavity as that of whites and therefor should be happy to serve the nation'so fight against the Nazi in the aforementioned professions.

Thank god for Tusceegee and the Red Tails.

 

[bornaneer]

I'm just shocked it has gone this long without somehow drawing Obama and Hillary into it.

Trolling again? It will be interesting to watch you squirm out of this one.

 

[bornaneer]

Thank god for Tusceegee and the Red Tails.

I highly recommend the book, Red Tails: World War II's Tuskegee Airmen. Very good read......Great respect for those American Heroes and for what they did and what they had to overcome.

 

[Airport]

I appreciate that you can find like minded liberal and otherwise to agree with you. What I don't think you get or are choosing to ignore is that doesn't make you or them right either. You have an opinion, as do they, as do I. I personally think you are wrong, and @easy91 listed the exact reasoning of why I came to the same conclusion he did.

I'll leave you with my Scalia impression.

Wouldn't you agree that blacks make great stewards and cooks and ergo there is no reason for them to become fighter pilots? There are studies that show blacks don't have the mental capacity due to their mongoloid like cranial cavity as that of whites and therefor should be happy to serve the nation'so fight against the Nazi in the aforementioned professions.

Thank god for Tusceegee and the Red Tails.

don't forget the tank battalion that patton put into action in WW2. Distinguished themselves in action. It was a different time and place.
Scalia and all justices ask provocative questions during action before the SC

 

[WVPATX]

I appreciate that you can find like minded liberal and otherwise to agree with you. What I don't think you get or are choosing to ignore is that doesn't make you or them right either. You have an opinion, as do they, as do I. I personally think you are wrong, and @easy91 listed the exact reasoning of why I came to the same conclusion he did.

I'll leave you with my Scalia impression.

Wouldn't you agree that blacks make great stewards and cooks and ergo there is no reason for them to become fighter pilots? There are studies that show blacks don't have the mental capacity due to their mongoloid like cranial cavity as that of whites and therefor should be happy to serve the nation'so fight against the Nazi in the aforementioned professions.

Thank god for Tusceegee and the Red Tails.

As I said, it is intellectually lazy. Libs and now you throw around the racism trope so easily. No one can say anything for fear of being branded a racist. It's political correctness at its worst. Branding Scalia as a racist based on this interaction is absurd and designed to create pressure on the judges to keep affirmative action in place. As was pointed out, Scalia was citing a brief which contained a peer reviewed study by prominent academics and attorneys. Liberals don't like the study results, but that doesn't mean there isn't any validity or that Scalia should not have asked the attorney about it.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

As I said, it is intellectually lazy. Libs and now you throw around the racism trope so easily. No one can say anything for fear of being branded a racist. It's political correctness at its worst. Branding Scalia as a racist based on this interaction is absurd and designed to create pressure on the judges to keep affirmative action in place. As was pointed out, Scalia was citing a brief which contained a peer reviewed study by prominent academics and attorneys. Liberals don't like the study results, but that doesn't mean there isn't any validity or that Scalia should not have asked the attorney about it.

meh, agree to disagree but it's fine. I really don't care enough to continue arguing this with you. Glad you afforded me the courtesy of not lumping me in with the libs.

 

[WVPATX]

meh, agree to disagree but it's fine. I really don't care enough to continue arguing this with you. Glad you afforded me the courtesy of not lumping me in with the libs.

Last post on this topic. But branding Scalia a racist over this does put you in rarefied company.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

http://thehill.com/regulation/court...lack-students-belong-at-less-advanced-schools

Scalia is 78, been on the SC since 1986, appointed by Reagan--still offering judicial opinions today consistent with the message of veiled bigots in 1861 and 1968. These comments butress the argument that institutionalize racism is alive and espoused in 2015. Comments and beliefs like this are viable arguments that humans are not evolving.

You have to really spin to make Scalia a racist here. He's talking about students who've performed...PERFORMED...below the standard set for other students. He asking if it's in the best interest of those who've PERFORMED lower to be put in an environment with students who performed above them. He's asking if that doesn't set them up for failure.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

You have to really spin to make Scalia a racist here. He's talking about students who've performed...PERFORMED...below the standard set for other students. He asking if it's in the best interest of those who've PERFORMED lower to be put in an environment with students who performed above them. He's asking if that doesn't set them up for failure.

It may in most cases, however, I'm not in favor of creating additional obstacles because of a perceived lower quality school. There are many examples where people from **** schools have climbed out of the gutter to make something of themselves. Allow them the opportunity to fail or succeed on their own. Those that have strong moral character will find a way and those that don't will fail. Simple as that.