Comments on: The Supreme Court’s race impatience Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: usagadfly Wed, 03 Jul 2013 05:27:55 +0000 Frankly, depriving one person of their civil rights, or unequally diminishing those rights, on the basis of race is wrong. It is an act of volition — an act of deliberate will.

The test of this statement is whether a white citizen is entitled to equal treatment by the Government. What about a black citizen? Why does the black man have Government backed rights that the white man does not? The argument is that it is “racist” to not discriminate racially. Poppycock! It is “evil”. And if it is not, then there was never a wrong to correct in the first place.

If there is no equality before the law, then the country is intentionally and willfully racist. And that is certainly the case with the USA. And there is a loud and large lobby in favor of continuing racist laws. As long as they prevail, there will never be freedom in this land.

By: COindependent Tue, 02 Jul 2013 21:34:18 +0000 Benny: I am going to take exception that just because someone has an opinion different than yours that they are a racist or some “phobe”. That’s a cheap shot that only serves to diminish your position. Stay on message and dispute his arguments without resorting to personal attacks.

Lastly, your race, much like that of the author, is immaterial to the conversation, and should not be used as a qualifier.

By: Benny27 Tue, 02 Jul 2013 18:05:37 +0000 No, EconCassandra, you ARE a racist.

Those rights you are having a tantrum over, (like the right to discriminate against black applicants to colleges) were taken away because certain jurisdictions proved to have no discipline when the country wasn’t looking, and like a fat kid with their hand in the cookie jar, thought of every creative excuse to continue their barely concealed hatred of the newly freed slaves. This continues up to today with asinine comments such as yours that explain that really, pointing out that racism is still rampant in the USA, is in fact racism.

No, Racism is racism, and you are a racist. When they look at achievement after college, there is no identifiable difference between affirmative action placements and their white peers, some of whom had much higher grades. It isn’t a matter of picking the “best” candidates, with some losing out. You can’t identify the marginally “best” until after college, because going is the best predictor of future success, not grades used for college placement. Those being ‘bumped’ because of affirmative action are largely marginal students who would not make it anyway. We will not be deprived of the next Steven Hawking because of bumping a c+ student to make way for a black student who never would have had a chance before.

Lifting a ban on racism is not racism, and yes I am white before you ask.

By: EconCassandra Tue, 02 Jul 2013 03:37:17 +0000 I wrote this reply to a person in another Reuters article who told me that my comment above was why we need to continue “Affirmative Action”.

I stand by what I said and I will take on anyone who chooses to differ with me, including Mr. Trout.


You have taken “cheap shots” at me previously. Clearly, it is you who have a race problem. I have said many times, I am not a racist, but a realist. What you want is racist, not realistic.

I was in the military when the Supreme Court ruled that segregated schools were unconstitutional, and I participated in some of the implementation of those orders. However, since then the Supreme Court has literally taken the law into its own hands, deciding that simple desegregation was not enough, but resitution had to be made.

At that point the Supreme Court basically threw out the entire Bill of Rights in favor of the 14th Amendment, which in effect denies ANY other citizen the rights guaranteed under the Constitution — many more than could possibly be mentioned in this venue — which is a usurpation and travesty of justice that is unequalled in this country’s history.

Since then, the Supreme Court has denied most of its citizens the right to equal justice under the law in the pursuit of “compensatory justice”.

And how has this “compensatory justice” been applied? By a blanket order depriving anyone who is not black to be the victim of discrimination by setting “racial quotas”.

And where are these victims? They are long dead. And where are the perpetrators of slavery? They are long dead. Has there been ANY effort whatsoever to link the “crime” with the victims of the crime? No. Instead, everyone who is not black has been summarily judged guilty of a crime they did not commit. Is there any rational compelling reason for the Supreme Court to apply punishment to an entire nation in such a manner? No. In fact, the US Constitution strictly forbids the government from taking such actions against its people.

What the Supreme Court has done is an obscene miscarriage of justice no matter how you look at it.

“Affirmative Action” REQUIRES discrimination against another group, which is wrong under the concept of equal justice for all under our Constitution.

It does not matter that the crime is heinous, which it was. It does not matter what “good intentions” the Supreme Court had in enacting this gross miscarriage of justice.

To arbitrarily deny a citizen of the US his/her rights under the Constitution without due process is WRONG.

To make matters worse, other “minority” groups have seized this opportunity to leverage what was done to the blacks in this country to get a “free ride”, which is ugly and deceitful because it denegrates the blacks who might still have reason for Affirmative Action. The blacks in this country deserve that hearing, but it is being turned into a circus by those who would benefit from their tragic years of slavery.

HOW can you possibly justify actions like that taken by people who have actually NO “common cause” with blacks?

To me, it is disgusting to see how the original good intentions by the Supreme Court to set things right have been so twisted and perverted by those who would use this tragedy of slavery to benefit from it.

By: VultureTX Mon, 01 Jul 2013 14:57:41 +0000 I read the entire article (sadly) and thus conclude the Author is a racist.

/if you keep making decisions where a major component is race, then you are a racist.

By: JRTerrance Mon, 01 Jul 2013 13:49:38 +0000 Actually there were six comments, but mine apparently conflicted with the censorship czar’s opinion, so it was removed. I guess Reuters reserves freedom of speech for themselves and those who agree with them.

By: EconCassandra Sat, 29 Jun 2013 13:24:09 +0000 Continuation of our “civil rights” laws is an obscene extension of the old “Jim Crow” laws there were meant to reverse legitimate grievances of former slaves that had continued after the end of the Civil War in 1865, mainly in the South.

However, simply preventing the continuation of “Jim Crow” laws apparently wasn’t enough for some people, including the US Supreme Court (which in its history has had a track record of being wrong as many times as it has been right).

As they say, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”, which was the original basis for implementing “reverse discrimination”, including “racial quotas” (i.e. “affirmative action”, which is blatant discimination by any other name) that were applied uniformly against those Americans living today who had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery or its result.

It was even applied in those states who had no history of slavery, AND perversely also in those states who contributed (white) troops to aid in suppressing slavery during the Civil War. How many white people died to free black slaves? That is a little fact that is never mentioned.

In any case, “Civil rights” legislation is a “zero sum” game for the American people — whoever they might be anymore, since now there are so many “pseudo-Americans” (for example, “Mexican-Americans”) here that we have lost track of who and what an “American” is supposed to be, or what we stand for as a nation. If you feel the need to be a “pseudo-American”, you don’t belong in my country. It is as simple as that!

This is especially true in the case of the massive numbers of Latinos who are here, legally and illegally, with NO such “moral” claim to special treatment under the law as do blacks. Neither they nor their ancesotors were slaves in this country. What the hell is the obtuse reasoning for granting THEM “special privileges” under the law as to education, employment or any other social services?

There are limits as to how much “civil rights” we can take as a nation and still survive. We have become a “Mecca” for those who wish to take advantage of our stupidly liberal laws that desperately need revision, if for no other reason than to assure the protection of our borders against anyone who wants to be here. In truth, we have NO idea how many “illegal aliens” are here.

The present net effect of this miscreant national angst of slavery is that the “core” beliefs of our white ancestors — the same ones who fought and died to free black slaves 150 years ago in the Civil War — have become a “threatened species” in this country that they supposedly fought to keep free.

What kind of “perverted logic” is driving this nation when illegal aliens receive better treatment under the laws than US citizens?

I would like to remind you of something the incumbent President Lincoln once said.


“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.[1]”


It is incredibly sad to say we have now come “full circle” once again, after all the deaths, pain and suffering to the same exact place as a nation Lincoln described in 1858 — except this time it is white Americans who are the slaves in their own country.

The fact is that white Americans have become a minority in their own nation. We as a race are already suffering from the growing numbers of minorities in what used to be our country. It WILL continue to get much worse until whites have no rights at all — thanks to the voting power of our new “citizens”, most of whom do not like our culture, but like our liberal attitudes and “deep pockets” they use to advance themselves at our expense.

Perhaps this is really the goal of the new “slaveholders”, whose ultimate goal is to exact full revenge for what they perceive they are still “owed” by this nation. The fact they choose to present their case as being “common cause” with Latinos is pathetic beyond belief.

These two groups have NOTHING in “common” except a desire to drain our economy for their benefit alone. This is simply a case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. The fact that their “common cause” will not last beyond the perceived “enemy” of the whites in this country will mattter little to those whites who are trapped in this country in the future.

How much longer are we to allow this massive scam by these people, this obscene diminution of OUR civil rights as white Americans in the name of “justice” to continue before we no longer have the ability to do anything about it?

Who will free US from slavery, as our ancestors did for the black slaves?

By: UrbanPolitico Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:30:44 +0000 The quote from Scalia was most revealing. On Tuesday when it came to race and the Voting Rights Act, Scalia (and especially Thomas) told us that it was well within the Court’s power to strike down a democratically adopted Act of Congress. But then on Wednesday when it came to DOMA they did a complete 180 saying that the Court has no power to strike down a democratically adopted Act of Congress.

So which one is it?

The Court’s conservative majority in Fisher and Shelby seem to think that we live in a post-racial society where nobody sees color and everybody starts on an equal playing field. If only such were the case.

If we want to talk facts, the Federal, State and local governments in the United States legally sanctioned slavery from the beginning of the Nation in 1789 until the adoption of the 13th Amendment in 1865 (I could go back much further than 1789 but since that is when the Constitution was adopted we’ll start the clock there for the sake of convenience). This is the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT we’re talking about here, folks. Not some random group of private citizens. The Government. As in, the body that makes and enforces the laws for the entire country. After the 13th Amendment was passed, slavery was over but then the state and local governments continued to legally sanction Jim Crow segregation from 1865 until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When you do the math, that’s 175 continuous years of government-backed racial discrimination against Blacks and other minorities in this country which legally classified Black people as property, legally prevented them from owning land, legally prevented them from receiving an education, and legally prevented them availing themselves of the political process. 175 years.

So when I hear racially impatient comments like the one above which ask “Is forty years not enough? If not, will 50 years be enough?” I have to ask how you can reasonably expect 40 or 50 years of government action to eradicate 175 years of government action?

Mathematically speaking, that would require the government’s impact towards Blacks and other minorities over the last 40 years to be 4 times as powerful as the impact that it had against Blacks during Jim Crow and Slavery. I won’t even pretend that Affirmative Action is perfect, but can we honestly say that over the past 40 years it has been 4 times as powerful as Slavery and Jim Crow were? Be honest.

Just because you might be tired of hearing about racial disparities in America doesn’t mean that you are entitled to put an expiration date on the discussion.

By: COindependent Fri, 28 Jun 2013 19:33:30 +0000 I always thought that in order for a system to be perfected, it had to be (color)blind. The author still promotes the idea that after record participation by minorities (in some areas exceeding the participation of whites, and 100% of the votes in a single precinct going to the President)in the last two national elections we are still “not there”. Is forty years not enough? If not, will 50 years be enough? If it is not time-sensitive, then what is it?

If the objective is to secure 100% parity across 300 million citizens and millions of square miles, that is statistically unachievable even if isolated to whites. You could not achieve parity between Chicago and Los Angeles regardless of the legislation you implemented. This ideology implies two factors that are blatantly false: (a) that members of a protected class (and particularly blacks, are less capable than others in registering to vote and (b) once registered, they are incapable of exercising that right (especially when one considers more states are using mail-in ballots). I think if you made that assertion to most blacks they would be insulted.

You will never, ever achieve parity should even one group secure a privilege not available to someone else. (Reference: the Univ of California discrimination against Asians). Privilege, in the name of fairness and equal access, perceived or otherwise, which the civil rights groups continue to demand, will only serve to further Balkanize our country.

If one looks hard enough you will always find shortcomings, because “fairness” is an extremely person issue. What is fair to one, is never fair to another. Even if you multiply that by the 13% of the population that is black, it still does not mean the unfairness is intended, nor systemic. One could make the same argument regarding people living at or below the poverty line. Do we create special legislation for them too? The statistics might support that agenda, but based on race, it too would not be colorblind.