Originally posted by Surtur
DOJ Sides With Asian-Americans Against Harvard In Landmark Affirmative Action LawsuitLol
Honestly, Harvard and other institutions are in a tight spot.
The Firefigter 11 reverse discrimination lawsuit comes to mind, where the fire department threw out all results of a promotional exam, because of "disparate impact" standards. So the 11 who passed, sued. This included minorities.
They won, the decision was overturned.
Then they were sued, again. For disparate impact.
There's no winning with this thing.
Originally posted by cdtm
Honestly, Harvard and other institutions are in a tight spot.The Firefigter 11 reverse discrimination lawsuit comes to mind, where the fire department threw out all results of a promotional exam, because of "disparate impact" standards. So the 11 who passed, sued. This included minorities.
They won, the decision was overturned.
Then they were sued, again. For disparate impact.
There's no winning with this thing.
Just looked it up:
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/business/White-Firefighters-to-Share-6M-Settlement.html
Of COURSE it's f*cking Chicago. Democrats destroying this city.
"The city had “race normed” the results of the exam out of concern it discriminated against black firefighters, but a jury found the test was fair. The city appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled on behalf of the white firefighters."
What stupid bullshit. "race normed" ? If you need to change the test so blacks can pass they do not deserve to be firefighters. period.
The case I'm talking about is from Connecticut;
Originally posted by Robtard
"many of whom are incredibly anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ rights and anti-voting rights" -snipYes, clearly something to be happy over, cos that's exactly what our courts need...
Anti-LGBTQ... depends on what that means because it's a decently broad label that could encompass many things. If it means they want to reverse the decision on gay marriage, I definitely disagree with that. If it means they wouldn't force the baker to bake the cake I agree with that. If it means that by their religious convictions they think gay sex or gay marriage is immoral, then I disagree with that but I don't particularly care as far as the office goes unless they actively want to enforce that legally (you can get people who disagree with gay sex and gay marriage on a moral level who are fairly libertarian about it on a political level). I could care less about the bathroom issue honestly since I don't have a solid opinion on it.
As for the last one I would need to know what this "anti-voting rights" label constitutes, and to what the Judicial branch even has any authority over this aspect of our political system.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm happy about having more pro-life judges personally.Anti-LGBTQ... depends on what that means because it's a decently broad label that could encompass many things. If it means they want to reverse the decision on gay marriage, I definitely disagree with that. If it means they wouldn't force the baker to bake the cake I agree with that. If it means that by their religious convictions they think gay sex or gay marriage is immoral, then I disagree with that but I don't particularly care as far as the office goes unless they actively want to enforce that legally (you can get people who disagree with gay sex and gay marriage on a moral level who are fairly libertarian about it on a political level). I could care less about the bathroom issue honestly since I don't have a solid opinion on it.
As for the last one I would need to know what this "anti-voting rights" label constitutes, and to what the Judicial branch even has any authority over this aspect of our political system.
Also what needs to be pointed out is that the article was citing Huffington Post as an example of leftists being upset over this. It doesn't mean the critiques HuffPo makes about these judges are accurate.
For example, I wonder if "anti voting rights" just means these guys support voter ID requirements. They might be labeled Anti-LBGT if they think people with dicks should pee in the mens bathroom.
I don't think abortion rights are in any danger.
Too much support, too much pressure. From women, but also from men (For a variety of reasons, from male feminists, to people that don't want tax money to pay for unwanted children, to guys who want that option if their sex life threatens to put them on the hook for child support...)