I don't wanna hear anymore crying over our BI-PARTISAN SC!

They recently gave a ruling that makes it harder for Republicans to combat democrat election fraud. CHECK for the left
They recently gave a ruling on the EXTREME LEFTIST RACIST policy they call Affirmative Action which is code word for (grades don't matter, just don't be white), CHECK for the progressive right (sorry, ya'll lost the right to be called "progressive" a looooong time ago)

So folks, we have a MAJORITY republican SC yet they still met in the middle. You know 100% that would not happen if the political affiliations were reversed.

The SC (thanks to Trump) just ended racism in college admissions.

Your thoughts??

 

My thoughts are that the right only bitches about the racial aspect of AA. They support it for women, military veterans and the disabled.

https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/h...contractors,efforts, and other positive steps.

 

Yes, all those add ons were just words. we all know what AA was really about. The ONLY thing that matters is MERIT. I'm glad our SC sees that.

 

You support it for those other groups. I already know.

 

I am on the right politically, and I do not support Affirmative Action for females, military veterans, the disabled or anyone for that matter. I believe solely in merit-based hiring/ academic admissions.

Do you have anything objective that supports your theory above?

 

Is it too late to keep Kalmala out of the VP office?

 

I don't think this works retroactively. Its a nice thought though.

 

I'm trying to assume that both this post and the one you quoted are a joke.

 

I know for sure it's too late to keep Shrub out of Yale. Though he was a bitchin' cheer leader.

Moore v. Harper was the gravest threat to free and fair elections in the United States to arrive at the Court in decades. And, while Tuesday’s 6-3 decision leaves the door slightly ajar should a future Court wish to overturn a close election, it rejects more sweeping theories that could have rendered many American elections meaningless.

It is also the Court’s second decision defending the foundations of US democracy this month — a reassuring and slightly surprising turn after some of its decisions regarding voting rights and elections in the last few years.

Moore involved the awkwardly named “independent state legislature doctrine” (ISLD), a theory that the Supreme Court rejected many times over the course of more than a century. Yet this theory also started to gain steam as former President Donald Trump filled three seats on the Court with staunch conservatives.

The ISLD takes two lines from the Constitution concerning election administration and misleadingly argues that they mean a state’s legislative branch of government has effectively unchecked authority to decide how congressional and presidential elections will be conducted in their state.
https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/2...nt-state-legislature-north-carolina-bush-gore

 

What fraud?

 

I could go on for days with all the examples but not worth it. This is a time for celebration. You were so happy about that ruling you even made a thread about it yes? Enjoy! Make love, not warcraft!

 

Your inability to supply meaningful examples of voter fraud is noted. Along with your profound misunderstanding of the legal rationale for the ruling.

 

Lots of meaningful examples, especially Wisconsin
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...sin-stunning-move-wisconsin-republicans-vote/
There's some very SUSPECT things that have happened.
I'm over the fraud though, it happened, it is what it is and hopefully they learn from all of the "mistakes" and it gets more secure moving forward. Have a blessed day. Thats just one out of soooooooooo many examples, but like I said, who cares? Lets stop worrying about the past and look to the future!

 

So........Repubs are trying to break the rules in order to get rid of Meagan Wolfe. What else you got?
https://madison.com/news/state-regi...cle_970e3c34-1620-11ee-abec-83636d7cf3c9.html

I should note GatewayPundit is reliably full of shyte so why bother?

 

You want me to blindly accept all of your sources but immediately shun mine? That isn't very bi-partisan! Whet else do I got? Nothing because I'm over it. I'm so happy that race hustling is starting to die I don't even care about the big steal anymore! You should be happy too. Its a joyous day for all.

 

Your link concerns only the federal government and federal contractors.
The "racial aspect" of AA is the only one that violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

That's the AA law.

https://www.rochester.edu/policies/policy/affirmative-action/

 

Your link is to University of Rochester policy, not US law.

 

Whoooooooo, well you're certainly in the right minority!!!!!

 

Are you being serious? That policy is plastered on so many companies and areas of society. Why do you think that is? I mean, where does it come from? Stop being obtuse, seriously.

 

the SCOTUS is proof that Republican justices have their own opinions and will break ranks. The two affirmative action cases and the jawneck will never vote on opposite sides.

 

Do you have a link that backs up your assertion that the right supports AA for women?

Or just a few anecdotes that I assume you bickered with in a chat room?

 

It's not because it's law. For example, you mentioned people with disabilities. They are not covered by the CRA of 1964. Their rights and accommodations derive from the Americans with Disabilities Act. Veterans' preference is a matter of US government hiring policy.

 

We're talking about two different laws here.......

 

Doesn't matter. You can't make a point about US law by citing University of Rochester policy.