Show of Hands

It only comes out that way when removed from the context of the discussion. Maybe we shouldn't have ambiguously dishonest journalists.

He was specifically referring to the subset of minorities that would not have made it into Texas without affirmative action -- that we aren't doing them any favors by granting them admission in a place where they would not succeed.

By no means was he extrapolating this to all minorities. And it's extremely sleazy that the media portrayed it that way.

See you're wrong there because if a group of people are systematically brought down and suffer through institutionalized racism, the Federal Government has the responsibility of providing restitution to the oppressed group.

Since the left decided to monopolize control of the term "racism".

He is saying that a person should gain admittance to a school by that persons actions, record and intelligence....not that persons race.

At least that is the way I read it. He doesn't believe that a person should get any points for being a certain race. It doesn't sound racist...just the opposite actually.

It amazes me how many people don't understand what the word "racism" means

Absolutely!

It's obviously out of context. We're not going to have a racist Supreme Court Justice in 2015. Everybody is so quick to call someone racist these days and that makes it impossible to have a discussion about these situations.

That type of anarchy is precisely what the left is hoping for! We must press on thru their noise to stay focused on doing what's right.

I don't think justice Scalia meant that blacks were of lower academic standard. It's the context that counts here.

Are you a race realist?

No, but you dont promote equality with inequality

@palindrome

You're not Doopy.

The thing about realism, is if you need a prefix, it's almost certainly not realism...

Realism is the way to go.

I'm white and I had to go to community college to get up to speed for a university. I'm now a senior and holding down a 3.75 GPA while being a full time supervisor. So, screw dummies that don't live in the real world.

She insinuated it was flawed? Can't have that because it was obviously a document handed down by God. It was perfect when it was first drafted, that's why amendments are not allowed.

I'll state outright that she's flawed, and the only things she's change are what's right about it.

Care to elaborate?

I might be racist for stating that the 2 candidates running on the Democratic ticket is a 70 plus old socialist and an 70 plus year old career criminal. Now that's diversity

She is diametrically opposed to the founding principle of the Constitution. The Constitution exists to limit the power of the state, and she does not, to put it mildly.

How has she abused her power Dooby?

Practically every vote she has cast on the high court.

What does that have to do with anything in a discussion about the justice system? Also, we have a Jew and a woman, not to mention a black guy already in there. Yeah, I'd call that diversity you troglodyte

Can you name one instance in particular doopy?

Yes, once I return home to my phone charger.

I think Clinton is in her upper 60s, but your point is still valid.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Hence the link.

He didn't make generalizations based on race.

Yes, he did. He said basically that blacks need to go to a slower pace university in which they can be more successful. in other words, blacks are too dumb to attend this university. Racist.

No, he said that people who could not gain admission on their merits and would only be admitted on the basis of the color of their skin need to go to a slower paced university where they can be more successful.

In other words, people who are too dumb to attend universities are too dumb to attend universities.

Are you going to argue THAT is racist?

Doopy ... well done, the leftists are silenced!

That is just not true. He said, "There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans 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 slower-track school where they do well." That is a broad stroke generalization.

Bob ... is Affirmative Action set up to help whites get into a place like the U of Texas who don't belong there because they don't do well there?

Bob, you are changing the meaning of the quote by removing it from its context.

Or maybe that the system is skewed against blacks people?

"The system" is skewed against allowing people who can't benefit from university attendance to attend universities. Affirmative action is a different system that denies deserving people places in these universities in favor of people who can't benefit.

Maybe black people are screwed. The solution is not to screw everyone more.

Same.

Never was.

He wasn't talking about students of a particular race, he was talking about students who could not earn their way in and could only gain admission through their race.

"After his initial comment, Mr. Scalia said that “maybe” the university “ought to have fewer” blacks."

My take is, maybe the planet, and this country in particular, ought to have fewer Scalia and those of his ilk.

Your take is colored by unwarranted hostility against the man. Your ideology is prejudiced against him. If you look at the context of the quotes, it's clear that he's simply saying that it's not good for people to grant them admission to colleges they can't compete in, and that racial quotas are not good.

By all accounts the answer to that is "YES".

Is the position you stated meant to be your own? Because that's exactly the same as Scalia's questions & statements.

He is factually wrong... Who ever appointed Scully is retarded. We need educated Sc justices it's scary he is in a position of power

What evidence do you have that he is retarded? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

A question cannot be factually wrong. Only a statement qualifies and it must also be observable and verifiable. Thus stating something is factually right or wrong places the burden of proof on you, not on the questioner. Further, the president who appointed the Justice is not retarded, nor are congressional representatives who confirmed that apointment. You are free to disagree with me, but your comments reflect an opinion and a judgement, not facts.

LOL His claim is proven false. It's racist quite obviously but that's my opinion the facts remain what he said is incorrect he's a SCJ not a clan leader he has no right to lie about reality

Everyone regardless of race will do better in a lower track school for Pete's sake. Stupid question.

Wrong.

How is it wrong?

No, no and NO

Yes yes and yes

No, no and NO

Compelling arguments from both sides in this particular thread!

This is the best SOH has to offer 😂

You have to match the response with the comment. Why waste intellect and substance where it will do no good.

So... No no and no

Present your view for debate, you are more qualified then a Supreme Court Justice Zia?, let us hear what Scallia does not about true Juris Prudence.......

Scalia thinks there needs to be separate colleges? No no and no

@Sentinel I have no idea what you're talking about. I never claimed that I was more qualified than a sitting in United States Supreme Court associate justice, nor did I insinuate that Mr. Scalia doesn't understand jurisprudence. I'm saying the remarks made by Mr Scalia are racist.

@Zia, Then "acting" as Justice, you are presiding over this issue before the Court, one attorney has presented this position and argument, how do you approach and discuss this, remember "trier of fact"........

@Sentinel I discuss it without being racist towards blacks, or any other group.

I am a product of affirmative action in hiring because I am female. I was given one of my first teaching jobs as a college professor because the college was pushed to hire more women. I was equally qualified with the males I competed against for the job, but the all male faculty and all male hiring committee were hesitant. They were not mature a woman could teach on the college level. That smacks of the kind of sexism women faced when working to get the vote. They compromised by hiring me but paying me less than they offered entering male instructors. Their response when I asked why? As a woman I did not have to support a family, I was told, and didn't need as high a salary! (Please locate a crock big enough to put that pile of shit in!)
Despite the sexism I faced throughout my academic career, I was thankful for that opportunity. Today I sit on hiring committees and welcome faculty of all ethnicities, genders, and physical abilities because affirmative action gave me a chance.

They were not sure. . . (Not mature). Oops

Of course some people will benefit. But some would say I benefit from "white privilege." It doesn't make it right

It's not about "being right" it's about being fair.

Mind you, UT only examines 1/5 of its entrants based on things like extracurriculars or socioeconomic circumstances

If you're presenting before the Supreme Court, you better have a rock solid case

Source? Or did you just bend over and pull those "stats" straight out of your ass like most left-minded people?

www.salon.com/2015/12/09/abigail_fisher_deserves_an_f_for_her_race_baiting_supreme_court_case_aimed_at_boosting_subpar_white_students/

youtu.be/jyGUdy8Jt20

diatribe, I think you pulled THAT statement out of your ass..."most left-minded people." Way to demonstrate the exact thing you were chastising someone else for.

Still disagree.

Still disagree, vehemently.

Still agree. It doesn't matter who you are, if you can only gain admission to a college upon your identity rather than your accomplishments, you don't belong in that college.

Yes, we wood have. If this came from Thomas, we'd be just as upset. In fact, Thomas has made statements in the part that have been similarly condemned.

lier

If you are going to insult me at least use spellcheck before doing so.

But once again, the Confederate flag leads me to not be surprised.

cite, from what I have been told, annabeth is a troll account set up by another regular SOH user. The idiocy is purposeful.

Unfortunately, the account too closely mirrors what the conservatives actually believe. 😞