Politics Joe Biden's Presidency

Jovialis said:
The sooner the Supreme Court overturns Grutter v. Bollinger, the sooner we can achieve that in the USA.
Click to expand...

I agree, but since the 2021-2022 Supreme Court term is over we'll have to wait for a decision next year. I'm sure Alito is straining at the leash to write that decision too. :)

I guess they figured overturning Roe v Wade was enough for this year. Look at how the mobs are going to their homes. All without even having read or at least understood the decision.
 
Angela said:
I agree, but since the 2021-2022 Supreme Court term is over we'll have to wait for a decision until next year. I'm sure Alito is straining at the least to write that decision too.

I guess they figured overturning Roe v Wade was enough for this year. Look at how the mobs are going to their homes. All without even having read or at least understood the decision.
Click to expand...

It is so appalling that groups like ANTIFA are allowed to disrupt civilized society with violent intimidation. All of these people who are doing this need to be put in prison without parole until they are geriatrics. Moreover, all of the progressive DAs that allow these degenerates to walk the streets should be put in prison along side them for treason. They are implicitly (a word the left loves to use) violating the oath they had swore to uphold the law, and protect the public.

Just for some context for our readers abroad what exactly Grutter v. Bollinger entails:

Facts of the case:

In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a white resident of Michigan, applied for admission to the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter applied with a 3.8 undergraduate GPA and an LSAT score of 161. She was denied admission. The Law School admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body." The District Court concluded that the Law School's stated interest in achieving diversity in the student body was not a compelling one and enjoined its use of race in the admissions process. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that Justice Powell's opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), constituted a binding precedent establishing diversity as a compelling governmental interest sufficient under strict scrutiny review to justify the use of racial preferences in admissions. The appellate court also rejected the district court's finding that the Law School's "critical mass" was the functional equivalent of a quota.

Question:

Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-241
Click to expand...

FYI, 3.8 is out of 4.0 so almost perfect. 161 on the LSAT can get you into the top 50 Law schools, 162 can get you into the top 14. Therefore she was absolutely qualified, and absolutely deserving. She had the merit to be admitted. However, the school admits they didn't take her on the basis of her race. I find it to be disgusting that individuals who deserve to succeed are casualties of stupid ideological nonsense. How many great people have been hobbled by this policy?


I think it absolutely violates the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Ultimately, this is what has led us to the Woke society that we live in today.
 
Jovialis said:
MXYYYdv.jpg
Click to expand...

TtcEqcr.jpg


Max Boot, a "conservative"... more like controlled opposition.
 
Max Boot: There never was a war that he had no problem sending someone else's child to go fight and die in for "regime change".

I despise that POS with a passion.
 
Angela said:
So might I suggest you spend your time criticizing your own country rather than criticizing ours while you send your corrupt businessmen here to take advantage of our workers.

Of all the hypocrisy...
Click to expand...

Like I said I don't think "countrywise" in this respect, so the preassumption that I defend "corrupt" (dixit Angela) Dutch businessman because they are Dutch is plain wrong.

To make it clear Dutch businessman can be as "nasty" as US one.

So hypocrisy use the word when it is at stake. Not here.
 
Angela said:
So might I suggest you spend your time criticizing your own country rather than criticizing ours while you send your corrupt businessmen here to take advantage of our workers.

Of all the hypocrisy...
Click to expand...

By the way I see again that you have no singe notion what social democracy is. I see again and again that you regard it as kind of communist or something like. Some kind of radical thought, revolutionary. Or woke. That kind of labels. Imo all simply wrong.

In my case it is a political line I'm attached to basically because it defends 'emancipation', 'social mobility' and a 'fair share'. Nothing more nothing less.

My grandparents (father's side) were plain ordinary labor people, they emancipated through unions and the political party connected with social democracy. Decent people, worked hard, and demanded a fair share in opportunities. Very modest too. Certainly not "I want it all and I want it now". They also had respect for people who were thinking otherwise, so in that sense they had a pure "democratic spirit". I don't want to see that their heritage (that I also underline) is thrown with mud or political slander.

So hypocrisy etc I don't really know what you are talking about. Inform yourself better, thanks!
 
Last edited:
Jovialis said:
Joe Biden has cancer, and Covid-19.

I dislike the man, but I would never wish that upon anyone.

Joe Biden Makes Surprising Cancer Reveal During Speech About Global Warming (msn.com)

Dear god, please don't let Kamala Harris take the reigns.
Click to expand...

My son called me with the news, and he said the exact same thing about Harris. :)

Then I investigated a little and it's all nonsense.

I've had four non-melanoma skin cancers removed, and during my last colonoscopy they found and removed a benign polyp, and I don't go around saying I have cancer.

It's an insult to people like my parents who really had to deal with it.

When you get lung cancer, or a glioblastoma, or multiple myeloma or breast cancer or something you can say you have cancer if you don't mind sharing your private problems. Otherwise, just deal with it. It's just part of getting older to get skin cancers if you're very fair skinned, and colon cancer runs in families. My mother had it and beat it. Just go to your dermatologist every six months for screenings, and get regular colonoscopies and carry on with your life.

What a wuss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 41206 times.

Back
Top