Separation of powers? What's that?

[RedImperator]

From the Associated Press, via SFGate.com--the Democratic presidential candidates demonstrate why I'll never vote Democrat.

Democrats pledge support for affirmative action regardless of how Supreme Court rules

NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
Sunday, June 22, 2003

(06-22) 23:30 PDT CHICAGO (AP) --

Democratic presidential hopefuls say they will continue to promote affirmative action regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in a case challenging the constitutionality of programs to help minorities in college admissions.

The court is expected to rule any day whether affirmative action programs at the University of Michigan are constitutional. The case was a main topic of discussion Sunday at a candidate forum sponsored by Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition.

"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day," said Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri.

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich also made a pledge to put affirmative action into federal law as president.

"If this president doesn't want to let us be one nation, then it's time to elect a president who will let us be one nation," Kucinich said.

President Bush opposes the University of Michigan's policies, and several candidates cited his position as a reason he should be voted out of office next year.

"The president has divided us," former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said. "He's divided us by race by using the word 'quotas.' There's no such thing as a quota at the University of Michigan, never has been."

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry said: "We deserve a president of the United States who doesn't call fairness for minorities special preferences and then turn around and give special preferences to Halliburton or to Enron to write the energy policy."

Kerry said he was committed to have minorities in positions of power in his administration, and pointed to diversity in his campaign staff.

Al Sharpton responded that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a black man who may vote against the university's affirmative action program. He said Democrats shouldn't be talking about getting more blacks in high places, but getting the right blacks.

"If we doubt that, just look at Clarence Thomas," he said. "Clarence Thomas is my color, but he's not my kind."

Seven of the nine Democratic candidates attended the forum. Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina and Bob Graham of Florida said they couldn't make it because of scheduling conflicts.

The candidates discussed a broad range of issues of importance to the mostly black audience, including education, the criminal justice system, tax cuts and health care.

They pledged to address disparities in Internet access between the poor and more affluent Americans and to work to overturn the Federal Communication Commission's decision to relax limits on how media companies can merge and grow.

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman said the decision would particularly affect minority-owned media, but predicted it "will be temporary."

"It is wrong; it is un-American," he said.

Emphasis mine.vvYou hear that spinning sound folks? That's George Washington doing you-know-what in his grave.

So we've got one candidate who says, "To hell with the Supreme Court, the last remaining real check on the power of the mob at the Federal level--if they make a ruling I don't like, I'll just issue an executive order telling the Federal government not to enforce it." Please consult the Cherokee Nation for more details on what happened the last time a president did this. For a fun mental exercise, try to imagine if Clinton had had the same attitude when the Communications Decency Act was struck down, Nixon for Roe v. Wade, Johnson for Epperson v. Arkansas (banned the teaching of Biblical Creationism and overturned state laws outlawing the teaching of evolution), or Eisenhower for Brown v. Board of Education.

Then we've got another candidate who says that somehow, giving minority students preferential treatment in the application process (to the tune of 20 free points on a scale where 60 is the minimum to enter) on the basis of their skin color alone isn't divisive, and also seems to have President Bush confused with William Rhenquist and the FIVE OTHER justices that struck down the University of Michigan's system. Mr. Dean, I have a copy of a tthird grade civics textbook somewhere on my shelves. It's a little outdated and two thirds of it is about New Jersey, but it should clear up your confusion.

And finally, we've got Al Sharpton. Some statements don't require any comment.

THIS is why I vote Republican. Jesus Q. Christ, this is the best the Democrats can come up with? I'd love to vote against Dubya, but I couldn't cast a ballot for one of these clowns if they were handing out $100 bills.

[Vympel]

I find the 'quota' system extremely offensive, and I don't even live there. I don't see why anyone should get into higher education based on anything but their own merits. I have the same view about military service (where IIRC there's a female 'quota').

I also find these candidate fucktards flaunting the authority of the highest judicial authority in the nation disgusting.

"To hell with the Supreme Court, the last remaining real check on the power of the mob at the Federal level--if they make a ruling I don't like, I'll just issue an executive order telling the Federal government not to enforce it." Please consult the Cherokee Nation for more details on what happened the last time a president did this.

Curious, what happened?

[HemlockGrey]

Are they trying to screw up? Are they really this stupid? Are they banking on the hope that people who support AA will be stupid to realize the sheer idiocy of trying the overrule the Supreme Court?

[Drooling Iguana]

Your political parties suck.

[Iceberg]

Sooo... candidates for one branch of the government were planning to step on the toes of another one. Plans that have been mooted, anyway.

Yawn.

Wake me up when something interesting happens. The government was DESIGNED so that the three branches would constantly be stepping on each other's toes.

Also, just how many Republicans have promised to use the Presidency overturn or nullify the judicial decision of Roe v. Wade? Or, spectacularly unsuccessfully, to use the judiciary to overthrow those same Affirmative Action laws, in spite of three decades of judicial decisions supporting them?

Wake up and smell the hypocrisy, folks.

[Stravo]

Folks, this is all wind, candidates will say ANYTHING to get press particularly the Democrats who don;t have a hope in hell at teh moment and have a literal gaggle of candidates, each one trying to be known and break out from the pack.

On a sidenote, Anton Scalia asked during the appeal :"The state has failed to show me why it is a compelling state interest to have diversity in higher education." Can anyone here answer that question, because frankly, here I am, higher educated, exposed to minorities (a minority myself) but as I work at a large firm here in NYC the only minorotites I see are working in the mailroom or cleaning our offices. SO the big question is, if teh workplace, particulalrly successful workplaces are not diverse, why should higher educational facilities be so? And if you were white and a minority candidate beats you out and has lesser credentials how would you feel. AA is not cut and dried IMO.

[RedImperator]

Also, just how many Republicans have promised to use the Presidency overturn or nullify the judicial decision of Roe v. Wade? Or, spectacularly unsuccessfully, to use the judiciary to overthrow those same Affirmative Action laws, in spite of three decades of judicial decisions supporting them?

Wake up and smell the hypocrisy, folks.

Um, they promised to support anti-abortion cases when they got to the Federal level, they promised to appoint pro-life justices, and they promised to try to pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade, all of which are perfectly legitimate ways to reverse a Supreme Court ruling you don't like.

Tom Daschelle says, "Why go through all the fuss and bother? If SCOTUS says affirmative action is unconstitutional, I'll just order my Federal agencies to keep enforcing it anyway." The Supreme Court as a check on the other two branches depends on the Executive to enforce its decisions. If the Executive does not, the Court either makes rulings it thinks the current administration will like or it becomes a glorified debate society. That's the idiocy--and the danger--in that statement.

[HemlockGrey]

Curious, what happened?

During the reign(adminstration) of Andrew Jackson, he ordered the Creeks, who had been granted soveriengty or guarenteed independence or something like that, to move out of Georgia to free up new land. The Creeks fought the decision to the Supreme Court, and won. Jackson, however, ignored the Supreme Court's ruling, refused to enforce the decision, and forced the Creeks out of Georgia along the 'Trail of Tears'.

[Stravo]

Curious, what happened?

During the reign(adminstration) of Andrew Jackson, he ordered the Creeks, who had been granted soveriengty or guarenteed independence or something like that, to move out of Georgia to free up new land. The Creeks fought the decision to the Supreme Court, and won. Jackson, however, ignored the Supreme Court's ruling, refused to enforce the decision, and forced the Creeks out of Georgia along the 'Trail of Tears'.

Jackson uttered that infamous phrase "The Supreme Court may rule on something but it is up to the Executive Branch to enforce that decision." essentially neutering the judicial branch. Jackson was definately a unique president in American history as he viewed the Executive Branch as absolutely supreme.

[Axis Kast]

While I agree the Michigan's policies were ludicrous (and probably the subject of not a little tweaking to ensure balance of the much-desired "diversity ratios"), Affirmitive Action is in fact a necessary burden on society for the time being. It levels the playing field without question. And yes, considering that this country was built for wealthy, white males and still is primarily for wealthy, white males, it's a necessity.

[RedImperator]

I find the 'quota' system extremely offensive, and I don't even live there. I don't see why anyone should get into higher education based on anything but their own merits. I have the same view about military service (where IIRC there's a female 'quota').

I also find these candidate fucktards flaunting the authority of the highest judicial authority in the nation disgusting.

"To hell with the Supreme Court, the last remaining real check on the power of the mob at the Federal level--if they make a ruling I don't like, I'll just issue an executive order telling the Federal government not to enforce it." Please consult the Cherokee Nation for more details on what happened the last time a president did this.

Curious, what happened?

I might be off on a detail or two, but what happened was this: in 1828, the state of Georgia extended its laws to the Cherokee nation, nullifying their tribal laws and customs in violation of a treaty the Cherokee had signed with the U.S. government. At the same time, President Jackson, who'd been elected on an Indian removal platform, and members of his party in Congress were working on ways to remove the Cherokee from their lands alltogether to make room for white settlers, and send the Cherkee out west somewhere where they wouldn't bother anybody. The Cherokees sued, and in 1831, the Supreme Court ruled in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia that Georgia did not have the right to do this, and furthermore, neither the state nor the Federal government had the right to forcibly remove the Cherokee from their lands. This infuriated Jackson, who uttered the now-famous remark, "[Chief Justice] Marshall has made his decision, now he can enforce it." Shortly thereafter, Jackson found someone in the Cherokee tribe to sign a treaty that turned over the Cherokee lands in Georgia to the government in "exchange" for a new homeland in modern-day Oklahoma.

The treaty was phony--nobody in the tribe with the authority to sign it did, and in fact the tribal elders didn't even know about it until afterwards--but it was enough for Jackson to order the entire Cherokee nation marched at bayonet point 1000 miles to a barren, featureless, worthless stretch grassland out on the Great Plains (it would be half a century before anyone realized if you cut through the top layer of compacted soil and tangled grass roots called sod, you'd find some of the richest farmland on Earth).

[kojikun]

I don't like affirmative action. Granted, it will leave black kids out of uni, but its the governments responsibility to make fucking sure they get good educations, not that they get handicaps into a place that theyre unprepared for. I'm sorry but AA is the governments way of saying "eh. we dont care about black peopels education, lets just get them to shut up. pay for better schools? haha nonsense they do just fine speaking ghetto talk without a clue about the world!".

[Knife]

While I agree the Michigan's policies were ludicrous (and probably the subject of not a little tweaking to ensure balance of the much-desired "diversity ratios"), Affirmitive Action is in fact a necessary burden on society for the time being. It levels the playing field without question. And yes, considering that this country was built for wealthy, white males and still is primarily for wealthy, white males, it's a necessity.

I find that insulting. To bring back a overused phrase; its the economics, stupid. Poor people shoud get the breaks not someone who is black, green, brown, grey or what ever. Saying that all black people need an advantage is ridiculous.

Does Michel Jordan's kids need federal help to get into colledge more than my kids? Under the current system, they do. If your a minority, you get the leg up. That simple and that wrong. The economicly challenged should get the affirmitive action no matter what color you are. And by curious coincidence, alot of black people would benifit from such a policy as well as brown, white, yellow, ect..... but it would not be racist.

[Axis Kast]

don't like affirmative action. Granted, it will leave black kids out of uni, but its the governments responsibility to make fucking sure they get good educations, not that they get handicaps into a place that theyre unprepared for. I'm sorry but AA is the governments way of saying "eh. we dont care about black peopels education, lets just get them to shut up. pay for better schools? haha nonsense they do just fine speaking ghetto talk without a clue about the world!".

First of all, the government is indeed carrying out that responsibility via Affirmative Action. While Michigan is the poster-child for failure (probably on the back of tweaking to achieve the desired “diversity ratio”), the theory behind the program itself is quite sound – especially once you begin to look at the statistics.

Affirmative Action is hardly “shutting them up,” Kojikun. It’s acknowledging the particular inability of virtually all minority groups – not just blacks – to play on an equal field with most whites (the majority group). Part of the reason we need Affirmative Action is because (A) there’s very little way – without the half-silly “credit program” – to help rearrange the classrooms of struggling public secondary schools, especially right now; (B) self-fulfilling prophecies remain; there’s only so much you can do to succeed in a society with few spokespeople in your favor and entire institutions dedicated to the suppression of your particular identity group; (C) assimilation is becoming more difficult; we have more problems than ever – despite diversity – in bringing people together and enforcing educational norms.

find that insulting. To bring back a overused phrase; its the economics, stupid. Poor people shoud get the breaks not someone who is black, green, brown, grey or what ever. Saying that all black people need an advantage is ridiculous.

Does Michel Jordan's kids need federal help to get into colledge more than my kids? Under the current system, they do. If your a minority, you get the leg up. That simple and that wrong. The economicly challenged should get the affirmitive action no matter what color you are. And by curious coincidence, alot of black people would benifit from such a policy as well as brown, white, yellow, ect..... but it would not be racist.

But the economics are linked to race. The average black student has less money than the average white student. And despite claims of Michigan’s failings, more money will always mean a higher chance of admission. Remember that colleges and universities are by and large businesses; part of the quota argument is over getting a good review in Newsweek each year; it’s also about raising tuition costs and generating funds. Schools like those that can pay their own way – or as much of it as possible – for all four years.

“Poor people” are increasingly getting the breaks, but that’s not to say that favoring minority students is entirely ridiculous. Remember that there are statistically fewer minority successes – or chances for success – in this country. When the deck is stacked against you, how terrible is a mediocre performance? If you start approaching the issue only from a financial point of view, you’ll still end up with lopsided statistics favoring whites. They get other benefits aside from economics.

[HemlockGrey]

Dammit! Cherokee, right. Why did I put Creeks? Grr.

"The Supreme Court may rule on something but it is up to the Executive Branch to enforce that decision."

Wasn't it "He has made his decision, now let him enforce it!", 'he' being the Chief Justice at the time?

[HemlockGrey]

...right, right, I should have read the whole post, ignore the little man behind the curtain, damn the lack of the edit button, so forth and so on...

[Peregrin Toker]

The economicly challenged should get the affirmitive action no matter what color you are. And by curious coincidence, alot of black people would benifit from such a policy as well as brown, white, yellow, ect..... but it would not be racist.

I'm all for fighting injustice - but giving a student high grades just because he comes from a working-class home just sounds like an idea which could have originated in the mind of Vladimir Lenin. In other words, it smells like pure communism. (something I'm NOT very keen on!)

[Durandal]

While I agree the Michigan's policies were ludicrous (and probably the subject of not a little tweaking to ensure balance of the much-desired "diversity ratios"), Affirmitive Action is in fact a necessary burden on society for the time being. It levels the playing field without question. And yes, considering that this country was built for wealthy, white males and still is primarily for wealthy, white males, it's a necessity.

Holy fuck I agree with you.

[Drooling Iguana]

I retract my earlier statement. It's your entire governmental structure that sucks. Crappy political parties are just a symptom of it.

[RedImperator]

I retract my earlier statement. It's your entire governmental structure that sucks. Crappy political parties are just a symptom of it.

Our governmental structure works just fine when it's not deliberately undermined by assholes for their own short term political gain.

[Axis Kast]

I'm all for fighting injustice - but giving a student high grades just because he comes from a working-class home just sounds like an idea which could have originated in the mind of Vladimir Lenin. In other words, it smells like pure communism. (something I'm NOT very keen on!)

Students are not given better grades based on race. They are simply given superior consideration in an admissions setting. What that really boils down to legally is the precedence over a similarly-scoring, similarly-achieving member of the majority group.

And you'd do well to remember that financial aid still has a great deal to do with it. Affirmative Action won't help you when the school decides a white student with the larger checkbook can come strictly on the basis because the black kid needs a scholarship to enroll at all.

And yes. Pigs are flying. Outside my window. Now. Durandall.

[Axis Kast]

Here it is, very simply.

If you are white in the United States of America, you live Affirmative Action.

[kojikun]

Kast, do you not understand that the kids without the grades to get in to a university obviously CANT HACK IT? What about that don't you get? They don't KNOW the shit, they don't get IN. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Putting someone who, say, failed algebra into a univesity class on calculus is setting him up to FAIL. You can't learn the shit if you couldn't learn the OTHER required knowledge.

Now, if you want to say theyre being educated on all things including what they didn't learn in public school, then all thats happening is the responsibility for teaching things is being shifted from highschool to college or university. That just makes it pointless, because you could have those teachers TEACH AT THE HIGHSCHOOLS.

Affirmative Action gives people a better chance at getting into a school even if they DONT KNOW WHAT THEY NEED TO. Thats wrong, PERIOD.

[Axis Kast]

Kast, do you not understand that the kids without the grades to get in to a university obviously CANT HACK IT? What about that don't you get? They don't KNOW the shit, they don't get IN. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Putting someone who, say, failed algebra into a univesity class on calculus is setting him up to FAIL. You can't learn the shit if you couldn't learn the OTHER required knowledge.

Now, if you want to say theyre being educated on all things including what they didn't learn in public school, then all thats happening is the responsibility for teaching things is being shifted from highschool to college or university. That just makes it pointless, because you could have those teachers TEACH AT THE HIGHSCHOOLS.

Affirmative Action does not mean (in most cases) plucking any minority student out of his seat in a high school classroom and offering him admission to a university based on the color of his or her skin alone. Oh, no. If that’s your perception – which it seems to be -, I can safely say you shouldn’t take this discussion any further on account of unfamiliarity with the subject matter. What Affirmative Action does mean is this: of two equal or nearly equal applicants both up for standard admission, the minority student would be accommodated on the basis that his or her social and economic hurdles were most likely the greatest to overcome. But again, that’s not necessarily putting the majority (i.e. white) student “down,” since financial concerns weigh more heavily anyway – and the white student is likely to be able to pay more of the money out of his own pocket in the first place.

Affirmative Action gives people a better chance at getting into a school even if they DONT KNOW WHAT THEY NEED TO. Thats wrong, PERIOD.

Incorrect. A minority student cannot “break in” to Harvard erratically simply based on the color of his skin. That’s not Affirmative Action. That’s idiocy. And I challenge you to find pertinent examples beyond jealous hearsay between students. Affirmative Action means that two qualified applicants are weighed – if it comes down to that – by who was likely to have faced more socio-economic problems during their lifetime. And the answer is: minorities.

Without Affirmative Action, you give credence to stereotypes and simply encourage and invest in a singular, uniform society from which minorities are regularly locked out. It’s incorrect to say that “Affirmative Action breeds dissent and the object of the exercise is to reduce dissent.” Because once you take away Affirmative Action, the underprivileged don’t have anything. If you want to take the example of a card game, it’s not that the deck is stacked against you. It’s that the guy next to you got to take an extra draw because of his poor starting hand while you were forced to pass because what you got was average or better.

[kojikun]

ah, if its equal or nearly equal testing scores, then its not as bad. but the difference is probably from simple error or pressure rather then improper education, in which case there would be no justification.

they should still push for better schooling however. thats probably one of the biggest problems.