Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They should win. It’s an easy, slam dunk case. According to our federal law, race cannot be a factor in making these decisions. If this is okay, rejection of loans by banks based upon skin color is okay.
It should be but I wouldn't be so sure though. Liberal judges have upheld unconstitutional laws that discriminate against whites before.
You have no understanding of Constitutional law. This is not a slam dunk case in the slightest. Also, the Constitution doesn't prohibit banks from discriminating against borrowers, that's from a separate law entirely.
I agree this is discriminatory. HOWEVER, policies that are discriminatory on the basis of race are not per se Unconstitutional. A policy that is discriminatory on the basis of race is subject to "strict scrutiny review". In layman's terms, this means, "the government needs a really really good reason to enact this policy". There are many elements, but, suffice to say, government spending programs often have raced-based policies that courts find to be Constitutional (the Federal government has plenty of minority set-aside programs that were in place even through the Trump administration). In fact, based upon a lot of the responses in this thread, I'm pretty confident this policy survives.
i'm not seeing a lot of wiggle room here:
Quote:
Federal laws prohibit discrimination based on a person's national origin, race, color, religion, disability, sex, and familial status. Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination make it illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture or language. This means people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country, because they have a name or accent associated with a national origin group, because they participate in certain customs associated with a national origin group, or because they are married to or associate with people of a certain national origin.
You have no understanding of Constitutional law. This is not a slam dunk case in the slightest. Also, the Constitution doesn't prohibit banks from discriminating against borrowers, that's from a separate law entirely.
I agree this is discriminatory. HOWEVER, policies that are discriminatory on the basis of race are not per se Unconstitutional. A policy that is discriminatory on the basis of race is subject to "strict scrutiny review". In layman's terms, this means, "the government needs a really really good reason to enact this policy". There are many elements, but, suffice to say, government spending programs often have raced-based policies that courts find to be Constitutional (the Federal government has plenty of minority set-aside programs that were in place even through the Trump administration). In fact, based upon a lot of the responses in this thread, I'm pretty confident this policy survives.
So what's the "really really good reason" to enact this policy? Anything that a judge makes up to justify this will be as much horse$h!t as the "benefits of diversity" argument to justify racial preferences in universities.
The strict scrutiny basis is the wiggle room the Court fabricated for the purposes to justify discriminating against whites. A conservative judge rightly wouldn't see a compelling reason to discriminate against whites, but an anti-white liberal judges would.
So what's the "really really good reason" to enact this policy? Anything that a judge makes up to justify this will be as much horse$h!t as the "benefits of diversity" argument to justify racial preferences in universities.
I could go on for hours, and, yes, conservative judges and liberal judges often fall on different sides of a case, so with a 6-3 SCOTUS who knows, but you need to be able to prove certain things:
1) the group receiving the benefit was discriminated against in the past by the government (either directly or indirectly, lot of wiggle room there)
2) the policy is "narrowly tailored" (surely wiggle room there) to address the past discrimination
3) race neutral approaches have been tried and were unsuccessful
Look, one person can see a constitutional policy and another might disagree. That's what lawyers do. But to say this policy is Unconstitutional or illegal is just plain incorrect.
I could go on for hours, and, yes, conservative judges and liberal judges often fall on different sides of a case, so with a 6-3 SCOTUS who knows, but you need to be able to prove certain things:
1) the group receiving the benefit was discriminated against in the past by the government (either directly or indirectly, lot of wiggle room there)
2) the policy is "narrowly tailored" (surely wiggle room there) to address the past discrimination
3) race neutral approaches have been tried and were unsuccessful
Look, one person can see a constitutional policy and another might disagree. That's what lawyers do. But to say this policy is Unconstitutional or illegal is just plain incorrect.
No, it is unconstitutional, but left-wing judges will make something up to claim that it isn't. Just as they made up the benefits of diversity in education in racial preference cases.
This is an important precedent to see if the Left's justification of racial spoils is going to get past the Supreme Court. I agree that there was racism in the past against blacks but hard to now go back and try to racially discriminate to adjust perceived past wrongs.
That’s the long and short of it. Federal laws cannot discriminate based on national origin, race, color, religion, disability, sex, and familial status.
What is the left’s answer to that? Pack the court and/or change “White” to “white.”
Quote:
Real opportunities in the lives of more Americans – Black, white, Latino, Asian American, Native American.
6. I use "Black" and "African American" interchangeably throughout this article. I use “Black" because "Blacks, like Asians, Latinos, and other 'minorities,' constitute a specific group and, as such, require denotation as a proper noun." Crenshaw, supra note 3, (citing Catharine MacKinnon, Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda of SIGNS 515, 516 (1982)). By the same token, I do not capitalize "white," which is not a proper noun since whites do not constitute a specific cultural group. For the same reason I don’t capitalize "women of color."
Bam, now white is not a protected class and can be legally discriminated against. At least I believe that’s where they’re going with that. I could certainly be wrong, but not about packing the court though. They know they’ll never pass “proper” discrimination laws with 6 center to center right judges on a 9 judge SC.
No, it is unconstitutional, but left-wing judges will make something up to claim that it isn't. Just as they made up the benefits of diversity in education in racial preference cases.
I mean the conservative SCOTUS keeps upholding affirmative action policies so I'm not sure you're right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
