The End of Reverse Discrimination?
Reverse Discrimination, according to Wickipedia, is defined as the practice of favoring members of a historically disadvantaged group at the expense of members of a historically advantaged group. Since the 1964 Civil Rights Act when the phrase came into usage, it has been practiced in many different ways. Some examples include employment practices and college admissions. A more euphemistic way of saying reverse discrimination would be “affirmative action.” However you say it, it is still discrimination plain and simple.
The United States Supreme Court tackled the issue in the seminal case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 US 265 (1978). In that case, the Court found that race could only be one of numerous factors in determining admission to a university. It stated that the University of California policy was unconstitutional, but that the policy used by Harvard was a valid type of affirmative action. The result was that Mr. Bakke was admitted to medical school and became a respected physician.
Since that time, there have been many more challenges to the doctrine, some of which were successful and some of which failed. In my opinion, yesterday the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision basically eliminated affirmative action or reverse discrimination whatever you want to call it.
In the case of Ricci v. Destefano, the Supreme Court held that an affirmative action policy by the City of New Haven, Connecticut was invalid. The litigation began when the City tossed out the results of a promotion exam because too few minority members passed. Accordingly, the white firemen who did pass the test were not promoted.
The Court ruled that the white firemen who did pass the test should have been promoted. Four justices in dissent felt otherwise. The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who stated that although the court felt sorry for the passing firemen, it wasn’t enough.
Hopefully, this decision puts the final nail in the coffin of reverse discrimination which is anything but fair to either side. By definition, it is discrimination. Anything that puts one group above another is discrimination whether it is to make up for past wrongs or not. What has happened in the past is past. What matters now is the future. And, in the future of the United States, there should not be discrimination of any kind, reverse or otherwise. These policies have lived past their time, if, in fact, they ever actually had a time.
But, this case is interesting on other grounds besides what it may mean to affirmative action. The Supreme Court, by deciding as it did, was overruling a decision in which Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotamayor took part. Does this mean her nomination is in jeopardy? I think not, but it does mean that she should be more carefully examined by the Senate. Remember, this is the woman who stated that her rich cultural background as a Puerto Rican woman would qualify her more to decide certain types of cases than a white man.
Maybe, she is the one who is guilty of discrimination and being racially biased. I do not believe that the Senate should give her a free ride. She should be examined very carefully before being put on the bench.
Is the EPA Hiding Evidence on Global Warming?
A report came out yesterday that the EPA could possibly be covering up evidence that global warming does not exist in order to allow President Obama to get his environmental agenda through Congress. Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma has begun talking about initiating an investigation into this and possibly taking the EPA and anyone else involved to task. Further, he has stated that the controversial legislation which passed the House last week would be dead on arrival in the Senate.
In fact, the stated Legislation had a number of more conservative Democrats vote against it. And, if it weren’t for a handful of Republicans that voted with the President, it would have failed in the House and never even have gone to the Senate.
The alleged EPA report says that Global Warming does not exist and, in fact, there is evidence that global temperatures might actually be lower than those averages of the last Century. If this is true, then why would anyone want to cover it up? The answer is very simple: The Liberals want to pass sweeping environmental legislation that could potentially harm the economy and they do not want any legitimate reason for it to fail.
If there is any evidence whatsoever that Global Warming is a fraud, then the Legislation would not have a chance. In fact, the legislation in question here, if passed, will cause loss of employment and additional taxes. In order for a majority of Congress to succeed on this legislation, the President, Ms. Pelosi and their other cohorts must have no evidence whatsoever against them.
I think that Senator Inhofe should follow through on his investigation wherever it may lead. If this report is true that there is a cover-up, it will not bode well for Mr. Obama’s Administration or the EPA. And, based upon the current state of the multi-trillion dollar health care plan, Mr. Obama can not lose on this environmental legislation. It would mean that two of his major policy goals would have been defeated. Unfortunately for him, they would be going away for the right reasons.
And, as for Global Warming, we all know how much money Al Gore has made off of it, probably more than 100 million dollars. Maybe, he should do his share by staying off of private jets?
The United States Supreme Court tackled the issue in the seminal case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 US 265 (1978). In that case, the Court found that race could only be one of numerous factors in determining admission to a university. It stated that the University of California policy was unconstitutional, but that the policy used by Harvard was a valid type of affirmative action. The result was that Mr. Bakke was admitted to medical school and became a respected physician.
Since that time, there have been many more challenges to the doctrine, some of which were successful and some of which failed. In my opinion, yesterday the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision basically eliminated affirmative action or reverse discrimination whatever you want to call it.
In the case of Ricci v. Destefano, the Supreme Court held that an affirmative action policy by the City of New Haven, Connecticut was invalid. The litigation began when the City tossed out the results of a promotion exam because too few minority members passed. Accordingly, the white firemen who did pass the test were not promoted.
The Court ruled that the white firemen who did pass the test should have been promoted. Four justices in dissent felt otherwise. The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who stated that although the court felt sorry for the passing firemen, it wasn’t enough.
Hopefully, this decision puts the final nail in the coffin of reverse discrimination which is anything but fair to either side. By definition, it is discrimination. Anything that puts one group above another is discrimination whether it is to make up for past wrongs or not. What has happened in the past is past. What matters now is the future. And, in the future of the United States, there should not be discrimination of any kind, reverse or otherwise. These policies have lived past their time, if, in fact, they ever actually had a time.
But, this case is interesting on other grounds besides what it may mean to affirmative action. The Supreme Court, by deciding as it did, was overruling a decision in which Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotamayor took part. Does this mean her nomination is in jeopardy? I think not, but it does mean that she should be more carefully examined by the Senate. Remember, this is the woman who stated that her rich cultural background as a Puerto Rican woman would qualify her more to decide certain types of cases than a white man.
Maybe, she is the one who is guilty of discrimination and being racially biased. I do not believe that the Senate should give her a free ride. She should be examined very carefully before being put on the bench.
Is the EPA Hiding Evidence on Global Warming?
A report came out yesterday that the EPA could possibly be covering up evidence that global warming does not exist in order to allow President Obama to get his environmental agenda through Congress. Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma has begun talking about initiating an investigation into this and possibly taking the EPA and anyone else involved to task. Further, he has stated that the controversial legislation which passed the House last week would be dead on arrival in the Senate.
In fact, the stated Legislation had a number of more conservative Democrats vote against it. And, if it weren’t for a handful of Republicans that voted with the President, it would have failed in the House and never even have gone to the Senate.
The alleged EPA report says that Global Warming does not exist and, in fact, there is evidence that global temperatures might actually be lower than those averages of the last Century. If this is true, then why would anyone want to cover it up? The answer is very simple: The Liberals want to pass sweeping environmental legislation that could potentially harm the economy and they do not want any legitimate reason for it to fail.
If there is any evidence whatsoever that Global Warming is a fraud, then the Legislation would not have a chance. In fact, the legislation in question here, if passed, will cause loss of employment and additional taxes. In order for a majority of Congress to succeed on this legislation, the President, Ms. Pelosi and their other cohorts must have no evidence whatsoever against them.
I think that Senator Inhofe should follow through on his investigation wherever it may lead. If this report is true that there is a cover-up, it will not bode well for Mr. Obama’s Administration or the EPA. And, based upon the current state of the multi-trillion dollar health care plan, Mr. Obama can not lose on this environmental legislation. It would mean that two of his major policy goals would have been defeated. Unfortunately for him, they would be going away for the right reasons.
And, as for Global Warming, we all know how much money Al Gore has made off of it, probably more than 100 million dollars. Maybe, he should do his share by staying off of private jets?
Labels: Al Gore, Frank DeMartini, Global Warming, Politically Correct, Reverse Discrimination
posted by Frank T. DeMartini @ 5:42 PM
3 Comments:
Franky D,
So, if 2 liberals and 2 conservatives are applying for the same position, who gets the job?
Is it still the one with the biggest cup size?
Are you saying it's time to remove government from the equation of eliminating discrimination in the USA? Or, are you saying to move this battle out of the legistative system and place the burden of "doing the fair thing" on the individual? Please clarify.
Also, when you write "what's past is past" - that's typical conservative rhetoric amigo - a blanket statement that wipes clean the slate of history in defense of rationalizing an agenda for the present and future. Sure, you frame these words in the context of demanding there should be no discrimination of any kind. But you know there is - and as I believe - there will always be discrimination. So asking to accept the past (ie: civil rights movement? slavery?) makes literal sense, but figuratively, it is a weak foundation to build an argument on. And if Sotomayor thinks she can do certain things better than a white man, she has every right afforded to her in the Constitution to make such a claim! Hell, I think the same way too about Puerto Ricans and white men, goddamnit!
I enjoyed reading the blog, but I can't buy into all your logic. Keep'em coming though! JFE
n
Ah yes global warming. If we spent as much time and money researching ways for us to live with global warming as we have debating it's validity our future would be a little more secure. Global warming IS happening and it's affects could possibly be devistating. Scientific facts provided by The Goddard Institute of Space Studdies, NOAA (National Oceanograpic and Atmospheric Institute)to name a few clearly show this. The world temperature has risen on average 1.4 degrees since 1980. The last 2 decades of the 20th century have been the warmest in 400 years. Average temperatures in Alaska, Western Canada and Eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average. Artic ice is rapidly receeding and glaciers and mountain perma snow is rapidly melting. Montana's Glacier National Park had 150 glaciers in 1910...now they have 27. The list goes on and on. Stronger hurricanes, more violent tornadoes, heavier rainfall, longer drought. The evidence is there and it has been compiled by reputable organisations with no political agenda's. The EPA is a joke. It is a tool that does whatever the party in power tells it to do. It's finding have always been suspect and taken with a grain of salt in the real scientific community. People global warming is here and we've helped it arrive. Thanks to our abuse of fossil fuels we've managed to do in 30 years what takes mother nature centuries. If we stopped all use of fossil fuels today we might not see an easing of their effecgts till early in the 2100's. This will impact seriously on our children and their children. The time for debating the issue is over. Global warming is here and no Democratic or Republican tirade will change the facts. Al Gore is an alarmist. His scenario is only one possible future. But it is a possible one. This is a global threat and the truth be told if we don't start seriously addressing this issue mankinds extiction is also one possible future. To those of you who want to check my facts they were obtained from articles and reports published by The National Geographical Society, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA, NOAA, IPCC and the Artic Climate Impact Assessment. Good hunting.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home