More SCOTUS news.

[icanhelp1]

The border wall is a stupid racist idea. If you were ever for it you need to check yourself. Maybe you learned better, maybe you were just playing to the audience. We have very real problems in this nation.

Kavanaugh probably did what he was accused of. It would be unethical yadda yadda not to bring that up.

While 'what is a woman' was bullshit question the rest was fine.

Nominees are for life, they should absolutely be asked what their opinions are on things.

So, you mentioned you did a tour in Iraq, I remember the green zone surrounded by walls and barriers, I guess that was all for not. Did you ever us razor wire and fences to defend your positions or was that too racist for your taste. I was always for a comprehensive approach to border security to include a wall. Walls help keep bad things out.

 

[pecksniff]

So, you mentioned you did a tour in Iraq, I remember the green zone surrounded by walls and barriers, I guess that was all for not. Did you ever us razor wire and fences to defend your positions or was that too racist for your taste. I was always for a comprehensive approach to border security to include a wall. Walls help keep bad things out.

Walls can keep things out of a fortified complex. They cannot keep things out of a country. No barbarian invader ever had any problem getting past the Great Wall of China.

 

[Sean Renaud]

So, you mentioned you did a tour in Iraq, I remember the green zone surrounded by walls and barriers, I guess that was all for not. Did you ever us razor wire and fences to defend your positions or was that too racist for your taste. I was always for a comprehensive approach to border security to include a wall. Walls help keep bad things out.

These are not comparable things in anyway shape or form. It really speaks to your ignorance that you would bring that up.

 

[icanhelp1]

These are not comparable things in anyway shape or form. It really speaks to your ignorance that you would bring that up.

The principal idea for walls is to keep unwanted things out or in the case of a border wall to channel would be trespassers to choke points controlling migration, drug smuggling, terrorist activity and provide for national security. A wall doesn't work by itself, we all know that, but combined with road networks, technology and an increase in staffing I'll bet you it would work just fine, much better than what we have presently. If you ask people on the southern border that have a wall they will agree with my assessment. Trump wanted a wall/ you hate trump, therefore walls don't work = TDS ON STEROIDS = total ignorance.

City ordinances for pools direct pool owners to surround inground pool with a fence, why is that?

 

[Sean Renaud]

The principal idea for walls is to keep unwanted things out or in the case of a border wall to channel would be trespassers to choke points controlling migration, drug smuggling, terrorist activity and provide for national security. A wall doesn't work by itself, we all know that, but combined with road networks, technology and an increase in staffing I'll bet you it would work just fine, much better than what we have presently. If you ask people on the southern border that have a wall they will agree with my assessment. Trump wanted a wall/ you hate trump, therefore walls don't work = TDS ON STEROIDS = total ignorance.

City ordinances for pools direct pool owners to surround inground pool with a fence, why is that?

Walls, fences yadda yadda, they keep things out, or sometimes keep things in, sometimes they are just decorative. I didn't want a wall before Trump, I don't want one after. He wanted one because he's racist and knows he can count on other racists to back him.

People on the Southern Border only seem to care in very, very specific cases. Ones that stop the exact second someone mentions it will require eminent domain. Which tells you what a non problem it is. If I was genuinely scared I would happily give up part of my land.

The reality is that if the wall worked PERFECTLY which it will not because it cannot it would stop less than half of illegal immigrants. What we need to do is loosen up our immigration laws. They are far too tight and cause us problems we don't need.

 

[pecksniff]

City ordinances for pools direct pool owners to surround inground pool with a fence, why is that?

To prevent accidents, not intruders.

 

[icanhelp1]

Walls, fences yadda yadda, they keep things out, or sometimes keep things in, sometimes they are just decorative. I didn't want a wall before Trump, I don't want one after. He wanted one because he's racist and knows he can count on other racists to back him.

People on the Southern Border only seem to care in very, very specific cases. Ones that stop the exact second someone mentions it will require eminent domain. Which tells you what a non problem it is. If I was genuinely scared I would happily give up part of my land.

The reality is that if the wall worked PERFECTLY which it will not because it cannot it would stop less than half of illegal immigrants. What we need to do is loosen up our immigration laws. They are far too tight and cause us problems we don't need.

To prevent accidents, not intruders.

So if I say black you say white, troll somebody else!

 

[pecksniff]

So if I say black you say white, troll somebody else!

No, usually, you say black, I say gray.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Wait, now we're pretending walls around pools are the same thing as walls at the border? Walls that are mostly there to prevent children who can't swim from following their ball into the pool.

 

[ll74]

Wait, now we're pretending walls around pools are the same thing as walls at the border? Walls that are mostly there to prevent children who can't swim from following their ball into the pool.

All the illegals want to get into his pool

 

[Sean Renaud]

No, they shouldn't have been racist pieces of shit. And majority black public schools were underfunded as they are to this very day thanks to attitudes like your own.

 

[Chobham]

I accept the conception of the United States Constitution as a living document, if by that one means that interpretations of the Constitution should shift in response to shifts in public opinion.

What I dislike is when Supreme Court justices make decisions that would have been opposed by the authors of the Constitution and the amendments, and which are also unpopular with many of the voters.

Brown vs Board of Education was only favored by whites with limited experience with Negroes. They should have talked to whites who had attended black majority public schools.

We will agree to disagree then. The entire point of anchoring the law in a immutable Constitution is to prevent transient inflamed passions of the public from becoming enshrined in the law of the land. And quite frankly I find your second paragraph some what at odds with your first.

Brown v. Board is a good example of the opposite side of the coin. That decision did NOT enjoy popular opinion at the time. As a matter of fact that decision would have never been made at that time if the court were to be guided by public opinion. It was the right decision to make regardless of the damn near 40 years of chaos that resulted.

 

[Sean Renaud]

We will agree to disagree then. The entire point of anchoring the law in a immutable Constitution is to prevent transient inflamed passions of the public from becoming enshrined in the law of the land. And quite frankly I find your second paragraph some what at odds with your first.

Brown v. Board is a good example of the opposite side of the coin. That decision did NOT enjoy popular opinion at the time. As a matter of fact that decision would have never been made at that time if the court were to be guided by public opinion. It was the right decision to make regardless of the damn near 40 years of chaos that resulted.

How was it the right decision if we are treating the Constitution as immutable? Show me where the Constitution says you have a RIGHT to an education cus its probably next to abortion and phone access. Both Reagan and Bush jr agreed phones and later cell phones (Though Obama got the credit) are not luxury items.

 

[Chobham]

The court did not say that anyone has a right to an education. It said that if the state is providing public education it cannot discriminate by race, gender, etc.

 

[ll74]

And the states are providing public education, since having uneducated citizens is not a good thing

 

[JohnEngelman]

We will agree to disagree then. The entire point of anchoring the law in a immutable Constitution is to prevent transient inflamed passions of the public from becoming enshrined in the law of the land. And quite frankly I find your second paragraph some what at odds with your first.

Brown v. Board is a good example of the opposite side of the coin. That decision did NOT enjoy popular opinion at the time. As a matter of fact that decision would have never been made at that time if the court were to be guided by public opinion. It was the right decision to make regardless of the damn near 40 years of chaos that resulted.

Brown vs Board of Education was based on the Fourteenth Amendment. This states:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

"The privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" might include the privilege of attending local public schools (although certainly not of being bussed to distant schools). Nevertheless, the same Congress that voted for the Fourteenth Amendment also voted to keep public schools in the District of Columbia segregated.

"Dolls were part of a group of groundbreaking psychological experiments performed by Mamie and Kenneth Clark, a husband-and-wife team of African American psychologists who devoted their life’s work to understanding and helping heal children’s racial biases. During the “doll tests,” as they’re now known, a majority of African American children showed a preference for dolls with white skin instead of Black ones—a consequence, the Clarks argued, of the pernicious effects of segregation."
https://www.history.com/news/brown-...ks' work, and their,cases that became Brown v.

However, black girls who attended integrated schools were more likely to choose white dolls.

It was also argued that integration would help blacks learn more. Objective academic tests indicate that blacks in the twelfth grade tend to perform about two years behind whites in the twelfth grade, whether those blacks attend schools with many whites in them, schools with some whites in them, or whites with no whites in them.

There was no mention of the effect attending black majority public schools would have on the learning of whites. I have talked to whites who attended black majority public schools. They have told me that the schools are dangerous places where little learning occurs. They are particularly dangerous for whites.

Brown vs Board of Education led to white flight, as whites moved to white school districts, or sent their children to white private schools. White liberal parents have done this too.

In his essay, "The Southern Case Against Desegregation," which appeared in Harpers in January 1956, T.R. Waring, who was the editor of the News and Courier in Charleston, S.C. predicted that if white students shared schools with black students the black students would corrupt the morals of the white students. If you consider the rise in white crime and illegitimacy, this seems to have happened.

 

[Chobham]

Brown vs Board of Education was based on the Fourteenth Amendment. This states:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

"The privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" might include the privilege of attending local public schools (although certainly not of being bussed to distant schools). Nevertheless, the same Congress that voted for the Fourteenth Amendment also voted to keep public schools in the District of Columbia segregated.

I'm well aware of the history. And segregation wasn't restricted to race.

The northern states, who were essentially in favor of the ruling, engaged in segregation as well. They just did it covertly by the instrument of school district's. One of the earliest instances of this was in Boston where the 'Blue Bloods' didn't want their children attending the same school with those God Damned 'Mick's' flooding in from Ireland. This method of 'stealth segregation' blew up in their face with the subsequent busing orders that came down after Brown v Board. Hence my reference to 40 years of chaos.

Re. morals and illegitimacy. The explosion of crime and illegitimacy within the black community came about with the passage of the various welfare acts in the 1960's. Until that time crime and illegitimacy within the black community were roughly comparable to that in the white community, higher, but still comparable. What those measures did were to systematically destroy the family unit and the black family in particular. Paying people to do nothing is going to result in them finding other things to fill their time, usually self-destructive. The old adage, "Idle hands are the Devil's workshop" comes to mind.

The general coarsening of society, perfectly obvious here, cannot be blamed on the black community. Or to put it another way, that case cannot be made with any degree of certainty. You can make a casual case, but trying to make a concrete case is a stretch. From the pop culture community to our political class can be blamed with equal casualty, if not more. As a matter of fact it appears to me that the higher these people are held up as foll models, the worse it gets.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Re. morals and illegitimacy. The explosion of crime and illegitimacy within the black community came about with the passage of the various welfare acts in the 1960's. Until that time crime and illegitimacy within the black community were roughly comparable to that in the white community, higher, but still comparable.

In his book Why Race Matters, Michael Levin, a professor in the Biology department at Tufts wrote, “In 1950 the white illegitimacy rate was 1.7%, and the black rate 16%.”

Unfortunately, he did not document his assertion.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Chobham, I am curious. Did you attend a black majority public school? I have never attended a school or a college where the black percentage in the student body was over five percent.

 

[Chobham]

In his book Why Race Matters, Michael Levin, a professor in the Biology department at Tufts wrote, “In 1950 the white illegitimacy rate was 1.7%, and the black rate 16%.”

Unfortunately, he did not document his assert

And that brings into question BOTH numbers, right?

 

[Chobham]

Chobham, I am curious. Did you attend a black majority public school? I have never attended a school or a college where the black percentage in the student body was over five percent.

Yes I did.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Watching these two racist Trumplitards bicker used to be more fun.

 

[JohnEngelman]

And that brings into question BOTH numbers, right?

Atlantic, "Race in America," by Dinesh D'souza, November 26, 1997

Consider the breakdown of the black family. Many people, including some scholars and pundits, routinely allege that this problem was caused by slavery, because marriage was nowhere legal in the slave states. But in fact the illegitimacy rate for blacks between 1900 and 1960 remained roughly constant at around 20 percent. That's less than one third the current rate. Scholars are in agreement that the steep increase in black illegitimacy has occurred during the past generation, so slavery and segregation are not the main sources of the problem, after all.

Similarly, black crime rates were much lower during the first half of this century -- even during the Great Depression, even in the Deep South -- than during the past three decades. Those who automatically assume -- like Loury, Lemann, and their apparent mentor Wilson -- that black cultural pathology is due to historical oppression have offered no explanation for why many of these pathologies were much less serious when the discrimination and hardship facing the African-American community were vastly more intense.

https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/forum/race/dsouza3.htm

There is no comparison here with white illegitimacy rates from 1900 to 1960, but I am confident that they were much lower than 20%.

 

[Chobham]

Made ya look huh D?

I have no doubt that you're right on the 'lower' part but a great deal of white illegitimacy was hidden. Those white babies up for adoption didn't spontaneously appear from no where. My experience was the while out of wedlock black pregnancies were higher, not all that much so. The difference was that the white girls were sent off to 'special schools' and the baby put up for adoption, the black girls had no such option. Transparency vs. hidden in the shadows.

The key here is "The first half of the century." You'll find the line of demarcation somewhere in the mid. 60's.

 

[YDB95]

Brown vs Board of Education was only favored by whites with limited experience with Negroes. They should have talked to whites who had attended black majority public schools.

First of all, I'd bet my bottom dollar you haven't done any research whatsoever into which white Americans supported Brown.
Second, if you know anything at all about what Brown was about, you know there literally was no such thing as "whites who had attended black majority public schools" in 1954.
Third, civil rights should not be contingent upon public opinion, period. Especially not the opinions of those who caused the injustice in the first place.