All things Racist...USA edition (2 Viewers)

[Farb]

I was looking for a place to put this so we could discuss but didn't really find a place that worked so I created this thread so we can all place articles, experiences, videos and examples of racism in the USA.

This is one that happened this week. The lady even called and filed a complaint on the officer. This officer also chose to wear the body cam (apparently, LA doesn't require this yet). This exchange wasn't necessarily racist IMO until she started with the "mexican racist...you will never be white, like you want" garbage. That is when it turned racist IMO

All the murderer and other insults, I think are just a by product of CRT and ACAB rhetoric that is very common on the radical left and sadly is being brought to mainstream in this country.

Another point that I think is worth mentioning is she is a teacher and the sense of entitlement she feels is mind blowing.

https://news.yahoo.com/black-teacher-berates-latino-la-221235341.html

 

[insidejob]

Title VII of the Civil Rights act doesn't apply to presidential appointments, so it what Biden is doing isn't illegal. Farb is wrong here, in regards to SC appointments.

Answer Man: Do presidents have to abide by anti-discrimination labor laws?

A reader asks if labors laws on not discriminating apply to U.S. presidents.

www.citizen-times.com

Also, whether an employer discriminates "covertly" or explicitly, both are illegal if it can be proven in court.

I don't agree that this seems like reparations. It seems more to me like something that is long overdue. The jurist that will be nominated will be highly qualified. If you think Biden saying he would nominate a black female jurist before hand taints his choice, then so be it. I suppose I felt the same way with Trump announcing before hand that he would only nominate judges from the approved Federalist society. And to my consternation, it's played out exactly like I thought it would (i.e. a disaster). But my hope and expectation is that Biden's eventual nominee will bring a much needed perspective to the SC and be a credit to the court bringing some balance.

I'm with you on it not seeming like reparations. I see it more as trying to make the court's makeup representative of all of the people in this country, which includes Black women. The GOP will still have their super-majority on the bench, so their faux outrage really is just window dressing to rile up the racist base.

 

[MT15]

Farb is right that it is illegal today to fill a federal position based on race.

Federal Law That Requires Racial Equality in the Workplace

Federal Law That Requires Racial Equality in the Workplace. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Title VII prohibits employment disc

work.chron.com

Can't go back 200 years to call it a crime, because it wasn't illegal before 1964. Ever since then, if you did discriminate, you had to do it covertly. Biden shouldn't have declared that the pool of applicants would be limited to black women, which is only about 7% of the population, so 93% of the population is being excluded. He should've just made that a major emphasis of his decision covertly, and if he viewed the candidates as a tie, then choose the black woman. I understand that it has value to provide a diverse point of view, but it taints the choice knowing that it wasn't a full and open competition, and it is unfair to the qualified candidates that are being excluded. It seems like reparations, rather than the dream to which MLK aspired of a color-blind society. I believe in giving people fair opportunities by using affirmative action, and using it as a tiebreaker due to its value, but I don't believe in excluding people outright. Why not choose a Hispanic LGBT woman, and that might limit the pool to 1 or 2 people? I think we can agree that would be ridiculous, but that would be the most oppressed group in history. They have no representation on the Supreme court. What about an Asian man or woman? Asians represent a larger portion of society than black women. What about a Hispanic man? They are a larger portion of society than black women without representation? It's all ridiculous.

I don’t believe that the opening on the Supreme Court falls under this regulation. Are you sure that it does?

If you believe this “taints” the choice, what you are saying is that there are no black women who are suitable to sit on the Supreme Court, IMO. It’s not like there are hard and fast rules - it’s up to him and he has a right to nominate whoever he wants. Do you think all the choices that were made when they would only consider men were tainted? I will bet you didn’t think they were tainted at all.

I also vehemently disagree with your “just do it and don’t say you’re doing it” proposal. That’s what has been done to POC and women for hundreds of years. It wasn’t right then and it’s not right now. I like the transparency of doing it the way he is doing it.

Edit to add: should have read coldseat’s post before replying, but my instinct was that it didn’t apply.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Yeah, that's just scratching the surface with him.

Here's Louisiana's very own embarrassment, John Kennedy, quoted yesterday:

Sen. John Kennedy wants Biden’s Supreme Court nominee to know ‘a law book from a J. Crew catalog’

Kennedy has used this phrase before, but it's drawing backlash --- especially considering that Biden promised to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court.

www.marketwatch.com

It's more of a dig on age but he's a hypocrite because he confirmed plenty of Trump appointees to the appellate bench who were in their thirties and early forties. You can argue the SC is different but Barrett was like 48 at the time of her appointment.

Gary Chambers -- who has zero chance of beating Kennedy -- put out a great ad that needs more views where he points out that Kennedy used to be a Democratic (not entirely uncommon back when Southern Democrats were basically Republicans) but that he also magically developed an accent while already an adult.



Kennedy's pandering is so blatant it's as cringe worthy as his dad/grandad jokes.

 

[Lapaz]

Title VII of the Civil Rights act doesn't apply to presidential appointments, so what Biden is doing isn't illegal. Farb is wrong here, in regards to SC appointments.

Answer Man: Do presidents have to abide by anti-discrimination labor laws?

A reader asks if labors laws on not discriminating apply to U.S. presidents.

www.citizen-times.com

Also, whether an employer discriminates "covertly" or explicitly, both are illegal if it can be proven in court.

I don't agree that this seems like reparations. It seems more to me like something that is long overdue. The jurist that will be nominated will be highly qualified. If you think Biden saying he would nominate a black female jurist before hand taints his choice, then so be it. I suppose I felt the same way with Trump announcing before hand that he would only nominate judges from the approved Federalist society. And to my consternation, it's played out exactly like I thought it would (i.e. a disaster). But my hope and expectation is that Biden's eventual nominee will bring a much needed perspective to the SC and be a credit to the court bringing some balance.

Thanks for the info on the law. I didn’t check it thoroughly. That’s interesting, and Farb and I are both wrong.

With respect to other nominees over the last 50 years, some were tainted. Sandra Day O’Connor was a little tainted by Reagan pronouncing that he would choose a woman, but at least that only excluded 50% of the population. Thomas was tainted since it was obvious he replaced Thurgood Marshall as the only black representative, yet that was acceptable. At least Bush didn’t pronounce that he limited the pool. I think the degree of the butt area depends on the degree of limits in the pool. Biden excluding 93% is far more tainted than any other nominees. That doesn’t mean the nominee won’t be great, but she may not be the best. I don’t study the candidates, but statistically it is much less likely to get the best if you only consider a small part of the population. As I said in my previous example, if the pool was LGBT white women, that would be even more tainted. If it were Hispanic men, it would also be very tainted. Etc. If Biden had just said a woman, like Reagan, and then chose a black woman, it would be less tainted. People may believe she was an affirmative action choice, but that is not known. Biden made it known that his choice is an affirmative action choice. We may suspect that Sotomayor and Thomas were affirmative action choices, but that isn’t known. They appeared to have been in an open completion. It does a disservice to the Justice and she will have a harder time getting the respect she may deserve from the other justices.

 

[superchuck500]

Farb is right that it is illegal today to fill a federal position based on race.

Federal Law That Requires Racial Equality in the Workplace

Federal Law That Requires Racial Equality in the Workplace. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Title VII prohibits employment disc

work.chron.com

Can't go back 200 years to call it a crime, because it wasn't illegal before 1964. Ever since then, if you did discriminate, you had to do it covertly. Biden shouldn't have declared that the pool of applicants would be limited to black women, which is only about 7% of the population, so 93% of the population is being excluded. He should've just made that a major emphasis of his decision covertly, and if he viewed the candidates as a tie, then choose the black woman. I understand that it has value to provide a diverse point of view, but it taints the choice knowing that it wasn't a full and open competition, and it is unfair to the qualified candidates that are being excluded. It seems like reparations, rather than the dream to which MLK aspired of a color-blind society. I believe in giving people fair opportunities by using affirmative action, and using it as a tiebreaker due to its value, but I don't believe in excluding people outright. Why not choose a Hispanic LGBT woman, and that might limit the pool to 1 or 2 people? I think we can agree that would be ridiculous, but that would be the most oppressed group in history. They have no representation on the Supreme court. What about an Asian man or woman? Asians represent a larger portion of society than black women. What about a Hispanic man? They are a larger portion of society than black women without representation? It's all ridiculous.

I'm not quoting this to pile on what has already been pointed out that Title VII and related anti-discrimination rules don't apply to presidential appointees, but to flesh out further analysis about why that is and why it's completely okay for a president to state that he will nominate a black woman. First, there is no "pool of applicants" and there is no "competition" for the job. An appointment to fill a Supreme Court vacancy rests solely with the president and has no stated criteria other than it must be confirmed by the Senate on advice and consent.

The president is a political operator - he's the most political operator from the sense that the position is the only one elected by the whole country. The president's choices to fill positions that he's empowered to fill is, itself, a political process. And though we often consider the Court to be the least political of the three branches (and there's some truth and some myth to that), the nomination process itself is very political. If the president believes that it meets his policy interests to put a black woman on the Court, he's entitled to limit his consideration to those people to meet what he believes is his policy interest. And those policy interests are legitimate. If they result in political fallout/blowback, that's the nature of the political beast.

But then you have advice and consent and that's where the qualifications issue comes in. Traditionally, the Senate has been quite deferential to presidential nominations on the Court, though it has become far more partisan. But I think there's also an element of being the arbiter of the person's qualifications to be on the High Court, and not just the political components. The founders gave that role to the Senate (along with their six-year term) to make the chamber one more strongly influenced by reason than base political interests, though that doesn't alway pan out.

The universe of jurists qualified to be on the Court is larger than the universe of people ever nominated to be on the Court - so this idea that there's only one or two that "deserve" it and it should be that person is misplaced IMO. That said, I think the person's resumé should be strong, and my primary objection to ACB was that while she was clearly a strong thinker, she didn't have the resumé based on being a staff professor at Notre Dame law and just two-plus years on the 7th Circuit. But another shift that we are seeing is toward younger appointees, given the lifetime appointment - but this means that the nominees have achieved less in their careers than what an ideal nominee would look like before this shift.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

It does a disservice to the Justice and she will have a harder time getting the respect she may deserve from the other justices.

Not the case. The Justices live in a bubble with this kind of thing. And, again, there is no objective meter for rating judicial nominees.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Is it your suggestion that intentionally undoing racist things is racist? That seems to be a recurring theme for you.

Good article talking about this
========================

Holding court at a political rally in Texas last week, former president Donald Trump implied that he — a wealthy White man who was elected to an office almost exclusively held by White men — was also a victim of racism.


Trump’s claim referenced what he said were three “radical vicious, racist prosecutors” — one in Georgia, one in New York, one in Washington, all of them Black — who are investigating his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection and examining his business organization’s finances.

But his comments made him the latest in a line of conservatives claiming, loudly and frequently, that White men are also victims of racism.
After years of being branded a racist for his inflammatory comments and actions, Trump and some of his allies are attempting to turn that label back on their critics.

In the process, they have wielded their own definition of racism, one that disregards the country’s history of racial exclusion that gives White people a monopoly on power and wealth.

To make America more equitable, they argue, everyone must be treated equally — and, therefore, White men must not in any way be disadvantaged.


This diverging definition of racism — often coupled with imagery, symbolism and quotes from the civil rights and other movements — reflects deep and often partisan divisions about what, if anything, needs to be done to produce a more equitable America…..

Bishop Talbert Swan, president of the Greater Springfield, Mass., chapter of the NAACP, said: “It is gaslighting on steroids for White men who have always been the most privileged segment of society to think that America offering to non-White males the privileges that they have always had from birth is somehow discriminating against them. For that demographic to be out in public, screaming racism and pretending to be victims is one of the most clownish disingenuous acts that I’ve ever seen.”……….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/05/trump-redefine-racism/

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Everyone is a little racist.

Then you have people who blame minorities for a lot of the problems in America.

Above that, you have people who want to get rid of minorities and create a white ethno-state.

It's an analog scale, shades of gray going from white to black.

 

[Lapaz]

Not the case. The Justices live in a bubble with this kind of thing. And, again, there is no objective meter for rating judicial nominees.

I don’t believe that there aren’t objective measures. Isn’t an evaluation of how often a judge’s decisions are overturned an objective measure? Also, experience is objective. What about scores on the bar exam? Besides those, everyday thousands of people are hired for jobs, and employers develop measures. I suspect the Federalist Society has measures that go beyond just rulings and writings. Other law review organizations probably do as well.

 

[CoolBrees]

The only one you listed @Lapaz that is actually objective is exam scores. Everything else is subjective - I feel you don’t have a firm grasp on the difference. Overturning of decisions? Most definitely subjective. Basically it is the definition of subjective, as another human is reviewing and either agreeing with the judges decision or not. Experience listed on a resume is objective experience for that person - that is then reviewed subjectively by those reviewing it.

And @SaulGoodmanEsq was mostly commenting on the fact that the SC isn’t a high school lunch table. I am sure they don’t haze the new person. Clarence Thomas didn’t get pube jokes told to him and Kavanaugh didn’t have to do keg stands (He just wanted to).

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I don’t believe that there aren’t objective measures. Isn’t an evaluation of how often a judge’s decisions are overturned an objective measure? Also, experience is objective. What about scores on the bar exam? Besides those, everyday thousands of people are hired for jobs, and employers develop measures. I suspect the Federalist Society has measures that go beyond just rulings and writings. Other law review organizations probably do as well.

CoolBrees mostly hit on it, but what I meant to say is just because someone went to Harvard and/or got high grades doesn't necessarily mean they are a better thinker/writer and would make a better jurist. Bar exam scores aren't a thing anyone keeps track of or that employers care about other than whether you passed and got your license.

Most hiring, in terms of entry-level or junior associates, is hyper-focused on grades. IMO, this is a terrible metric. While ostensibly objective, there's a lot of subjective factors that go into grading and your grade in a law school course is based on one three-hour exam you take at the end of the semester. I've known countless attorneys who have gotten high grades in law school but are terrible at critical thinking and legal writing.

Expand that to a stage where you are appointing a Supreme Court Justice and it becomes more magnified. It's almost entirely experience based and while judicial clerkships are one thing that are attached to most nominees, at a certain point it's hard to measure whether someone's ten years as a law school professor is objectively as worthwhile as someone else's ten years work in a non-profit arguing federal appellate cases. Or, for a specific example, Thurgood Marshall who spent his entire pre-bench legal career litigating civil rights cases. (And then there's the strong case to be made that the Court, as a whole, should reflect those multiple disciplines/backgrounds in its composition).

Overturning rates are a tricky thing. Sometimes it can reflect a trial court judge is bad at making decisions in conformity with/interpreting the law. This really only holds true from the trial court to intermediate appellate level. Between the appellate and the Supreme Court level (both federal and state), nearly all review is discretionary so cases either a state or the US Supreme Court take up they are most likely looking to reverse. But that's maybe fifty or so cases a year on the hundreds if not thousands of writ applications they receive.

The Federalist Society is somewhat political. As are their liberal counterparts. Concepts like 'Textualism' and 'Originalism' are often just high minded words for justifying conservative leanings. It's no surprise that Clarence Thomas' wife is an ardent Trumper. And she -- and most likely he -- are that way because they are ultra-conservatives not because of any legal doctrinal theory.

 

[MT15]

I may be wrong, but I thought the Federalist Society has political litmus tests to get their stamp of approval. Is that true? Like if you support Roe, you will not be on their approved list of nominees for the bench. If that’s correct, IMO that takes them out of “somewhat political” territory. Firmly into “totally political”. If that isn’t true, I would like to know so I can adjust my opinion of them.

And can you really call followers of Trump conservative? I do not believe you can. They maybe used to be conservatives, but Trump demands that they abandon their conservative principles and choose blind allegiance to him, IMO.

 

[superchuck500]

I may be wrong, but I thought the Federalist Society has political litmus tests to get their stamp of approval. Is that true? Like if you support Roe, you will not be on their approved list of nominees for the bench. If that’s correct, IMO that takes them out of “somewhat political” territory. Firmly into “totally political”. If that isn’t true, I would like to know so I can adjust my opinion of them.

And can you really call followers of Trump conservative? I do not believe you can. They maybe used to be conservatives, but Trump demands that they abandon their conservative principles and choose blind allegiance to him, IMO.

I think it very much is a political organization from the standpoint that it has a political viewpoint and seeks to share American law and politics to it. I think the FS would argue that it doesn't primarily engage in formal political activities (elections and candidates for election) so it isn't a political organization but that's a pretty narrow definition IMO.

 

[H B Lowrey]

I don’t believe that the opening on the Supreme Court falls under this regulation. Are you sure that it does?

If you believe this “taints” the choice, what you are saying is that there are no black women who are suitable to sit on the Supreme Court, IMO. It’s not like there are hard and fast rules - it’s up to him and he has a right to nominate whoever he wants. Do you think all the choices that were made when they would only consider men were tainted? I will bet you didn’t think they were tainted at all.

I also vehemently disagree with your “just do it and don’t say you’re doing it” proposal. That’s what has been done to POC and women for hundreds of years. It wasn’t right then and it’s not right now. I like the transparency of doing it the way he is doing it.

Edit to add: should have read coldseat’s post before replying, but my instinct was that it didn’t apply.

The folk who were going to soil themselves over a black female on the court were going to do so no matter how it happened or was announced, they're merely looking for cover.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I think it very much is a political organization from the standpoint that it has a political viewpoint and seeks to share American law and politics to it. I think the FS would argue that it doesn't primarily engage in formal political activities (elections and candidates for election) so it isn't a political organization but that's a pretty narrow definition IMO.

It's definitely border-line. It tends to have more academics than blatantly partisan hacks. Of course recent times have pushed it a bit closer to hackery. It's not as bad as Judicial Watch or similar groups.

 

[coldseat]

We can see from members on this board how hard this gaslighting on steroids has taken hold with Republicans.

Bishop Talbert Swan, president of the Greater Springfield, Mass., chapter of the NAACP, said, “It is gaslighting on steroids for White men who have always been the most privileged segment of society to think that America offering to non-White males the privileges that they have always had from birth is somehow discriminating against them. For that demographic to be out in public, screaming racism and pretending to be victims is one of the most clownish disingenuous acts that I’ve ever seen.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/05/trump-redefine-racism/

 

[Optimus Prime]

I find it amazing that when some people are inconvenienced in the slightest way the hate just spills out

And when this guy is outed I'm sure the defense of "I'm not a racist" will be forthcoming
=======================================================

........In a phone call with the Daily Dot, Turfe said that his carwash was closed down because of the snowstorm, and he hired a company to plow the lot. The company's protocols required that the lot be completely empty in order to be plowed, so he coned it off.

The man apparently snuck through the cones to try to use the vacuum, which was turned off for the day. "I approached the vehicle and I'm like, 'Excuse me sir, it's closed down and snowing. I've got a company coming to plow the lot and I need you to move this vehicle,'" Turfe said.

According to Turfe, the man started cursing at him and refused to move his car. Then he started calling Turfe racial slurs.

"He got out of his car to get close to me and I didn't know if he had a weapon so that's when I pulled out my phone," Turfe said..........

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[H B Lowrey]

I find it amazing that when some people are inconvenienced in the slightest way the hate just spills out

And when this guy is outed I'm sure the defense of "I'm not a racist" will be forthcoming
=======================================================

........In a phone call with the Daily Dot, Turfe said that his carwash was closed down because of the snowstorm, and he hired a company to plow the lot. The company's protocols required that the lot be completely empty in order to be plowed, so he coned it off.

The man apparently snuck through the cones to try to use the vacuum, which was turned off for the day. "I approached the vehicle and I'm like, 'Excuse me sir, it's closed down and snowing. I've got a company coming to plow the lot and I need you to move this vehicle,'" Turfe said.

According to Turfe, the man started cursing at him and refused to move his car. Then he started calling Turfe racial slurs.

"He got out of his car to get close to me and I didn't know if he had a weapon so that's when I pulled out my phone," Turfe said..........

MSN

www.msn.com

What a whiney little birch descendant of illegals.