California Race Law Unconstitutional On Its face

[Rightguide]

Court Rules That California Race Law Is ‘Unconstitutional on Its Face’​

Case sets a precedent against race-based government and corporate policies

By Kevin Stocklin
May 20, 2023Updated: May 20, 2023

In a landmark decision on May 17, a California district court blocked a state law mandating racial quotas on corporate boards as it violated the U.S. Constitution.

The California law, AB979, required that a minimum number of people from “designated racial, ethnic, and LGBTQ backgrounds” have a seat on corporate boards.

But the court ruling stated (pdf) that the law “is unconstitutional on its face and Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment in its favor as a matter of law.” The plaintiff in the case was the Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment.

“The Court made clear that California’s attempts at racial engineering are per se unlawful,” Michael Bushbacher, a partner at Boyden Gray, which represented the plaintiff, said. “The Constitution prohibits diversity mandates in every circumstance.

“The Court also put private companies on notice by concluding that AB979 violates the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which applies to both state and private discrimination,” Bushbacher said. “Woke corporations that impose diversity mandates on their own are thus just as liable.”

More here: https://www.theepochtimes.com/court...utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport

California Democrats are really too stupid to serve in public office in the United States. In the Third World, they'd be fine but not here where the Constitution is the law of the land.

 

[Sean Renaud]

First, nobody cares about the Constitution except when they are losing an argument. We really should retire that ancient document.

Second diversity is a good thing and we should hope we get some more of that.

 

[Rightguide]

First, nobody cares about the Constitution except when they are losing an argument. We really should retire that ancient document.

Second diversity is a good thing and we should hope we get some more of that.

Fuck off with that shit. It is the law of the land. Democrats are subversive domestic enemies.

 

[BluesDriver66]

A bad law that wouldn't solve anything anyway. Mandating corporations add Betsy DeVos and Clarence Thomas types to their boards is not diversity. It's window dressing and not the good kind.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Fuck off with that shit. It is the law of the land. Democrats are subversive domestic enemies.

Its the law of the land when you're losing an argument. Democrats are subversive? I rarely say this but both parties do this shit. Many times its the right thing to do. The Constitution is simply to rigid and there is no good reason to keep it.

 

[Bray123]

"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude (the pretence of voter fraud) allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution." Donald J Trump.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Court Rules That California Race Law Is ‘Unconstitutional on Its Face’​

Case sets a precedent against race-based government and corporate policies

By Kevin Stocklin
May 20, 2023Updated: May 20, 2023

In a landmark decision on May 17, a California district court blocked a state law mandating racial quotas on corporate boards as it violated the U.S. Constitution.

The California law, AB979, required that a minimum number of people from “designated racial, ethnic, and LGBTQ backgrounds” have a seat on corporate boards.

But the court ruling stated (pdf) that the law “is unconstitutional on its face and Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment in its favor as a matter of law.” The plaintiff in the case was the Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment.

“The Court made clear that California’s attempts at racial engineering are per se unlawful,” Michael Bushbacher, a partner at Boyden Gray, which represented the plaintiff, said. “The Constitution prohibits diversity mandates in every circumstance.

“The Court also put private companies on notice by concluding that AB979 violates the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which applies to both state and private discrimination,” Bushbacher said. “Woke corporations that impose diversity mandates on their own are thus just as liable.”

More here: https://www.theepochtimes.com/court...utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport

Second diversity is a good thing and we should hope we get some more of that.

Some people like diversity. Some people do not like diversity.

I like diversity when it is voluntary or when there is no diversity of merit. I like dining at ethnic restaurants, shopping at ethnic shops, attending ethnic festivals, and so on. Those who do not enjoy that sort of thing should not be pressured to experience it.

Our most successful companies, like Microsoft, hire many people born in other countries, and who speak English as a second language. Nevertheless, they speak it fluently.

Moreover, they are not hired because Microsoft has an outreach program. They are hired because Microsoft hires the best computer professionals and executives in the world, and pays what it needs to to attract them.

This is very different from the hiring quota required by California law AB970.

What are the tangible benefits of hiring people, regardless of qualifications, to fill a quota? Is there any reason to believe that a company that did that would outperform a rival company that did not do it?

 

[JohnEngelman]

"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude (the pretence of voter fraud) allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution." Donald J Trump.

Donald Trump is a good example of what happens when powerful people ignore the Constitution.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

California, like most progressive regions, is obsessed with racial, sexual and gender identity. Racism is deeply entrenched and equal opportunity is shunned. It’s all about equal outcomes (aka “equity”), without regard to merit and achievement. Sometimes the courts need to step in and curb the racist excesses of the state’s leaders.

SCOTUS will be handing down a decision this summer related to racial preferences in college admissions (Harvard) that might really set the racist politicians that rule California into a tizzy.

 

[RandyRebecca]

First, nobody cares about the Constitution except when they are losing an argument. We really should retire that ancient document.

Agreed.

Second diversity is a good thing and we should hope we get some more of that.

Disagree. "Diversity" is racist and sexist, where liberals pretend to be "progressive" while actually being nothing of the kind. Why don't they obsess over class and income inequality?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Some people like diversity. Some people do not like diversity.

I like diversity when it is voluntary or when there is no diversity of merit. I like dining at ethnic restaurants, shopping at ethnic shops, attending ethnic festivals, and so on. Those who do not enjoy that sort of thing should not be pressured to experience it.

Our most successful companies, like Microsoft, hire many people born in other countries, and who speak English as a second language. Nevertheless, they speak it fluently.

Moreover, they are not hired because Microsoft has an outreach program. They are hired because Microsoft hires the best computer professionals and executives in the world, and pays what it needs to to attract them.

This is very different from the hiring quota required by California law AB970.


What are the tangible benefits of hiring people, regardless of qualifications, to fill a quota? Is there any reason to believe that a company that did that would outperform a rival company that did not do it?

They hire them for the same reason doctors get hired. I've never been in side Microsoft, are you sure these guys are fluent in English? My doctor isn't really fluent. He doesn't need to be mind you but still. We hire them because they get education from a country that gives a damn AND they have much lower expectations for pay.

That having been said there are few if any places where diversity isn't a good thing. IT sucks a bit to force it but sometimes that is a bit of a requirement to getting any diversity.

 

[RandyRebecca]

Fuck off with that shit. It is the law of the land. Democrats are subversive domestic enemies.

Something written centuries ago. LOL.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Disagree. "Diversity" is racist and sexist, where liberals pretend to be "progressive" while actually being nothing of the kind. Why don't they obsess over class and income inequality?

You're of course free to be wrong but that's exactly what you are. There is no pretending to be progressive. Now you can make a very, very strong case that American liberals aren't very progressive. Thanks to people like the Clintons even Obama and Biden aren't much better are basically conservatives. We don't have enough progressives in this country and worse than that. Dems also have no spines and really don't seem to understand the media like at all.

 

[RandyRebecca]

You're of course free to be wrong but that's exactly what you are. There is no pretending to be progressive. Now you can make a very, very strong case that American liberals aren't very progressive. Thanks to people like the Clintons even Obama and Biden aren't much better are basically conservatives. We don't have enough progressives in this country and worse than that. Dems also have no spines and really don't seem to understand the media like at all.

Deliberately obsessing over race and gender, and discriminating in reverse, is not progressive in any way. It is a tactic to divide the working and middle classes by whipping up culture wars, i.e. conservatives with old fashioned racism and sexism, and liberals with discrimination in reverse, sparking racial and gender division. Why do people fall for it? The super rich capitalists are the problem, not black people, not white people, not men, not women.

 

[RandyRebecca]

Thanks to people like the Clintons even Obama and Biden aren't much better are basically conservatives.

If we go back further to Democratic presidents, we have Jimmy Carter who brought evangelicals into mainstream election contests in 1976, only to lose them big to Ronald Reagan in 1980. And before that, Lyndon B. Johnson ruining his Great Society popularity with his imperialist nonsense in Vietnam.

Barack Obama was supposed to be a big change to everything that went on before, yet he was nothing of the kind. The end of his presidency saw the US electorate elect Donald Trump as replacement. Very damning.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If we go back further to Democratic presidents, we have Jimmy Carter who brought evangelicals into mainstream election contests in 1976, only to lose them big to Ronald Reagan in 1980. And before that, Lyndon B. Johnson ruining his Great Society popularity with his imperialist nonsense in Vietnam.

Barack Obama was supposed to be a big change to everything that went on before, yet he was nothing of the kind. The end of his presidency saw the US electorate elect Donald Trump as replacement. Very damning.

A black man was president and did a good job, a woman was about to be president. That's what got us there. Ignoring that is the country we live in is a problem. There is no such thing a reverse discrimination however not all discrimination is bad.

 

[RandyRebecca]

A black man was president and did a good job

How did he? "One America" was basically an empty slogan to keep the status quo intact, and "Yes, we can" didn't happen. More warmongering went on, and the "Pivot to Asia", while ordinary Americans suffered in the aftermath of the 2008 crash.

a woman was about to be president.

That woman being Hillary Clinton, one of the chief warmongers in the country and the world. She of "We came, we saw, he died" about Colonel Gaddafi in Libya, a country which has since been reduced to a lawless failed state of tribal chiefs, people smugglers across the Mediterranean and two rival governments.

Donald Trump in 2016 regularly attacked her on her warmongering and for being with those who were "wasting billions and billions of dollars". What was Clinton's response to these sort of attacks? It's all Russia, of course. She was doing these tactics before Trump was doing them about "China virus" and "stolen election".

That's what got us there. Ignoring that is the country we live in is a problem. There is no such thing a reverse discrimination however not all discrimination is bad.

Uh? Deliberately picking women instead of men, or deliberately picking black people instead of white people, in order to pose as being "progressive" in some way, is discrimination in reverse, and plays into the hands of the old school racists and sexists who see it as open attacks on white working class Americans and male Americans, sparking culture wars.

And while these culture wars are going on, and the news is repeating it all from CNN to Fox, the super rich are getting what they want, getting more and more profit while ordinary Americans struggle to make financial ends meet.

 

[Sean Renaud]

How did he? "One America" was basically an empty slogan to keep the status quo intact, and "Yes, we can" didn't happen. More warmongering went on, and the "Pivot to Asia", while ordinary Americans suffered in the aftermath of the 2008 crash.

Don't give a shit about slogans. We did get Obamacare though, we did bring down the deficit.

That woman being Hillary Clinton, one of the chief warmongers in the country and the world. She of "We came, we saw, he died" about Colonel Gaddafi in Libya, a country which has since been reduced to a lawless failed state of tribal chiefs, people smugglers across the Mediterranean and two rival governments.

There really isn't a lot of reason to think Hillary is a chief warmonger, especially not on the scale you're talking. Yes I get it, you loved Gaddafi. Killing him was a bad move, turns out countries are better off with evil dictators than with power vaccuums. You'd think we'd have learned that by now. Not like we hadn't done it twice in the last twenty years FFS.

Donald Trump in 2016 regularly attacked her on her warmongering and for being with those who were "wasting billions and billions of dollars". What was Clinton's response to these sort of attacks? It's all Russia, of course. She was doing these tactics before Trump was doing them about "China virus" and "stolen election".

Trump is a lying piece of shit. That whole wasting money is just something that resonated with many Americans, they are mostly stupid. It is however something they resonate with.

Uh? Deliberately picking women instead of men, or deliberately picking black people instead of white people, in order to pose as being "progressive" in some way, is discrimination in reverse, and plays into the hands of the old school racists and sexists who see it as open attacks on white working class Americans and male Americans, sparking culture wars.

There is no such thing as discimination in reverse, just discrimination. It doesn't matter if it plays into the hands of old school racists and sexists because they will make the claim regardless. The culture wars are real. For many, many of the positions, there is no such thing as the best person for the job.

Diversity however is vital in many places and if you have to force it a bit fuck it. This isn't just race and gender. Its religion and socioeconomic status. I remember when Romney was running for president and he said something along the lines of "IF you have a good idea ask your parents for a loan." That man is so out of touch with the average American that he could say that with a straight face.

That's not posing as progressive, its being progressive just not nearly enough.

And while these culture wars are going on, and the news is repeating it all from CNN to Fox, the super rich are getting what they want, getting more and more profit while ordinary Americans struggle to make financial ends meet.

These are separate issues. The fact that people have a difficult time keeping track of more than one thing is a problem. Do you even watch CNN, Fox or MSNBC?

 

[JohnEngelman]

That having been said there are few if any places where diversity isn't a good thing. IT sucks a bit to force it but sometimes that is a bit of a requirement to getting any diversity.

Why is diversity so beneficial that it is acceptable to force it?

 

[Rightguide]

Its the law of the land when you're losing an argument. Democrats are subversive? I rarely say this but both parties do this shit. Many times its the right thing to do. The Constitution is simply to rigid and there is no good reason to keep it.

It's is the law of the land, no matter the issue or circumstance. You're simply too dumb to be a citizen of the USA, I doubt you could pass the standard citizenship test. You need to take your leftwing ignorance and move to Venezuela, you'd fit right in.

 

[ll74]

It's is the law of the land, no matter the issue or circumstance. You're simply too dumb to be a citizen of the USA, I doubt you could pass the standard citizenship test. You need to take your leftwing ignorance and move to Venezuela, you'd fit right in.

That's your main problem...you say that you believe in the Constitution and in the next breath tell someone that they don't qualify to be a citizen. The stupidity is on your side.

 

[Rightguide]

That's your main problem...you say that you believe in the Constitution and in the next breath tell someone that they don't qualify to be a citizen. The stupidity is on your side.

The man is ignorant of the Constitution, American law, and history. He has no appreciation for his citizenship and but for his birth, probably couldn't pass the standard citizenship test we give to foreigners. People like him are destroying California with totalitarian unconstitutional law as a result of their ignorance and un-American political goals.

 

[ll74]

The man is ignorant of the Constitution, American law, and history. He has no appreciation for his citizenship and but for his birth, probably couldn't pass the standard citizenship test we give to foreigners.

And yet he still has every right as a citizen as you do and you don't get to decide that he doesn't.

You fucking hypocrite

 

[Rightguide]

And yet he still has every right as a citizen as you do and you don't get to decide that he doesn't.

You fucking hypocrite

Oh, I'm painfully aware of that, you fucking idiot, but it doesn't mean I don't have a right to call it out though, does it? Which brings me to this, you're just as fucked up as he is. You don't know how to address a given subject either. All you know how to do is throw about your abuse and that's why it's all you get in return. But hey, I'm game. Bring it on.

 

[schism666]

Democrats are subversive domestic enemies.

democrats aren't the ones denying fair elections, banning books, and killing women.

you are not a serious poster.