Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> In the News
SCOTUS Nominee Neil Gorsuch
Previous  1  2



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Mar 21 2017, 1:20 pm
sushilover wrote:
I don't have time to give a full answer because I'm running out to my lunch break.
But if the civil rights act had simply stopped the government from enacting these vile laws, that would have been awesome.
Again, note that it was the government forcing businesses to exempt certain races and nationalities. The government has no right to do that obviously!


You don't think that the government has a right to tell businesses that they can't hang up signs that say "no dogs or Jews allowed"

Well, we're going to disagree on that one.









Back to top

sushilover




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Mar 21 2017, 5:07 pm
I have some time to address your post now, so here goes...

SixOfWands wrote:
You sound like the administration saying that feeding kids at school doesn't work because test scores (allegedly) didn't increase.

I don't understand the comparison. People claim that the civil rights act was the cure for racism in America. I disagree: people were hiring blacks even before the civil rights act was passed and would have hired more if the government hadn't been interfering with Jim Crow Laws, etc. Businesses care about money and they will hire the best person for the job, whether male, female, black, white or green. As long as the government stays out of the picture, businesses that discriminate will lose out because they are hiring based on race and not based on merit. They may not go out of business in a week or even a year, but companies will quickly learn that if they turn people away for dumb reasons, they will end up failing.


SixOfWands wrote:
But in any case, the numbers you cite are old. On the 50 year anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, examination showed that while we still have a long way to go, we've come far. Eg:


Your graph does not show that there was an already existing trend of increases hiring of blacks before the Civil Rights Act .
And like I said before, you have to take into account the growing black population. (growing 3 times faster than whites). So the fact that a higher percentage are being hired now, does not mean it was due the Civil Rights Act.


SixOfWands wrote:
The Civil Rights Act didn't tell anyone WHO to hire. It dictated reasons that people couldn't decline to hire, or couldn't fire. You don't have to hire a woman, or an African American, or an Asian. But you can't reject someone BECAUSE of that.



There are, I believe, 11 titles in the Civil Rights act. The ones preventing the government from discriminating or forcing businesses to discriminate were fantastic! The problem lies in Titles 2 and 7 which does force businesses to hire minorities and women. I'm no lawyer, but I do know of businesses making certain hires ONLY because the person was a minority. If they didn't hire enough minorities, they could potentially face lawsuit. The EEOC (which was created under the Civil Rights Act), has definitely brought suits based on the number of minorities in certain positions. There are even lawsuits because a business did not do enough recruitment in black neighborhoods. So yes, the Act did tell businesses who they can hire.

SixOfWands wrote:

The Civil Rights Act prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin. It outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce (it exempted "private clubs.") No more segregated restrooms (can you imagine traveling with your child, and being barred from public restrooms because of the color of your skin) or water fountains. No more moving to the back of the bus. No more segregated hotels.

The Civil Rights Act changes America. For the better.

America was changing for the better way before the Civil Rights Act. We would have changed earlier and faster if the government hadn't interfered with Jim Crow laws. And the answer to government interference is not more government interference.

Edited to fix the quotes


Last edited by sushilover on Tue, Mar 21 2017, 5:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Mar 21 2017, 5:19 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
You don't think that the government has a right to tell businesses that they can't hang up signs that say "no dogs or Jews allowed"

Well, we're going to disagree on that one.



All of that is terrible ! But it's not the government's job to force people to behave morally.

I think it is disgusting when people abandon their parents in nursing homes and never visit.
It is vile when a spouse cheats.
It is terrible when people get drunk in front of their kids.
It is immoral to pass a person dying on the street and ignore them.

Do you think the government must get involved in these cases? Or would that infringe on our basic liberties and rights?
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jun 15 2020, 4:27 pm
Just an update to this thread.

Justice Gorsuch, apparently taking a break from his work ensuring that women remain pregnant and barefoot, wrote the majority opinion that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes job discrimination based on s-xual orientation or gender identification.

AP News

One can argue legally whether this is legitimate; one can argue morally whether this is a good thing; and one can argue whether it's even necessary. To quote Chadwick Moore, "Now the two people fired in America every year for being gay won't have to start GoFundMe campaigns."

All that said, I'm sure many people will be apologizing for their accusations that Justice Gorsuch would follow an ideological agenda rather than a legal one. Pretty quiet among blue-checked journalists, though. I guess they're busy writing suitable retractions.
Back to top

sequoia




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jun 15 2020, 4:48 pm
Mmmhmmmmm

For the record, I always thought opposition to Gorsuch was idiotic (unlike Kavanaugh).
Back to top

fleetwood




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jun 15 2020, 4:49 pm
Fox wrote:
Just an update to this thread.

Justice Gorsuch, apparently taking a break from his work ensuring that women remain pregnant and barefoot, wrote the majority opinion that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes job discrimination based on s-xual orientation or gender identification.

AP News

One can argue legally whether this is legitimate; one can argue morally whether this is a good thing; and one can argue whether it's even necessary. To quote Chadwick Moore, "Now the two people fired in America every year for being gay won't have to start GoFundMe campaigns."

All that said, I'm sure many people will be apologizing for their accusations that Justice Gorsuch would follow an ideological agenda rather than a legal one. Pretty quiet among blue-checked journalists, though. I guess they're busy writing suitable retractions.


Once in three years? Even a broken clock is correct twice a day....
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jun 15 2020, 4:56 pm
fleetwood wrote:
Once in three years? Even a broken clock is correct twice a day....

Huh? Justice Gorsuch agrees with Justice Kagan 65 percent of the time; he agrees with Justice Thomas 59 percent of the time.

Sixty-five percent agreement with the Court's most liberal legal voice is hardly "once in three years." FiveThirtyEight. This case simply happened to touch on issues that his detractors claimed he would adjudicate on ideological basis.
Back to top

fleetwood




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jun 15 2020, 5:05 pm
Fox wrote:
Huh? Justice Gorsuch agrees with Justice Kagan 65 percent of the time; he agrees with Justice Thomas 59 percent of the time.

Sixty-five percent agreement with the Court's most liberal legal voice is hardly "once in three years." FiveThirtyEight. This case simply happened to touch on issues that his detractors claimed he would adjudicate on ideological basis.


I was kidding,relax😁
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jun 15 2020, 5:15 pm
fleetwood wrote:
I was kidding,relax😁

Now that I read it that way, I'm smiling!
Back to top

monkeymamma




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jun 15 2020, 5:15 pm
fleetwood wrote:
Once in three years? Even a broken clock is correct twice a day....

The supreme court declined to take on some cases including one about sanctuary cities, one about qualified immunity for police, and a religious discrimination case. Are they not taking on cases because of the pandemic? Are they making decisions based on fear of riots? Is it time to have term limits for supreme court judges (and maybe all judges everywhere) as well?

They still have to make their decision on daca, what do you think the outcome of that case will be?
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jun 15 2020, 5:22 pm
monkeymamma wrote:
The supreme court declined to take on some cases including one about sanctuary cities, one about qualified immunity for police, and a religious discrimination case. Are they not taking on cases because of the pandemic? Are they making decisions based on fear of riots? Is it time to have term limits for supreme court judges (and maybe all judges everywhere) as well?

They still have to make their decision on daca, what do you think the outcome of that case will be?

SCOTUS only takes on 100-150 appellate cases a year out of 7,000 that are submitted. So a huge number of cases are turned down by SCOTUS on appeal.

I don't predict what SCOTUS will do. While there are always a few more activist justices, the originalists often provide surprises -- they're focused on the logic of the law, not achieving an outcome in a particular case. This is why Justice Gorsuch said during his confirmation hearings that a judge who always likes the way his rulings come out is not much of a judge.
Back to top
Page 2 of 2 Previous  1  2 Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News