Turn on thread page Beta

Why not affirmative action for white christians? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "When Republicans were warned not to give Sonia Sotomayor the drubbing Democrats gave Robert Bork and Sam Alito—lest they be perceived as sexist and racist by women and Hispanics—the threat was credible, for it underscored a new reality in American politics.

    The Supreme Court, far from being the last redoubt of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant in America, reflects the collapse of that WASP establishment, and a rising racial, ethnic and gender consciousness and solidarity.

    Consider. In 45 years, no Democratic president has put a single white Protestant or Catholic man or woman on the court.

    Six nominees have been sent to Congress by Democrats since 1964: Thurgood Marshall, an African-American, four Jewish nominees—Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer—and one wise Latina woman. Not since JFK put All-American Byron "Whizzer" White on in 1962 have Democrats elevated a white Christian.

    What about the Republicans?

    Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford nominated seven to the court. All were white, all were male, all were Protestant: Warren Burger, Clement Haynsworth, Harrold Carswell, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist and John Paul Stevens. No diversity there.

    And from almost every standpoint, Nixon and Ford failed.

    Two of Nixon's nominees, Haynsworth and Carswell, were rejected. Three of the four Nixon appointees who were elevated—Burger, Blackmun and Powell—voted for Roe v. Wade, which Blackmun wrote. Only Rehnquist turned out to be a stellar justice, among the best in a century.

    Nixon had intended to appoint the first woman, Mildred Lillie of California, but was dissuaded by late resistance.

    Ford's lone choice, John Paul Stevens, was approved unanimously, went to the court, turned left and has anchored the liberal wing for 34 years.

    With Reagan, nearly three decades ago, Republican presidents became more ecumenical.

    His first pick, as promised, was a woman, Sandra Day O'Connor. His second was the first Italian-American ever to sit on the high court, Antonin Scalia. His third was Bork, a Protestant. When Bork was rejected, Reagan chose Douglas Ginsburg, a Jewish judge and colleague of Bork's on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. When Ginsburg was pulled because of a marijuana incident in college days, Reagan went with Anthony Kennedy, an Irish Catholic judge from his home state of California.

    Kennedy and O'Connor became swing votes and unreliable as constitutional conservatives. But, on diversity grounds, Reagan can hardly be faulted.

    George H.W. Bush chose David Souter, a white Protestant from New Hampshire, who followed Stevens left, and Clarence Thomas, an African-American from Pin Point, Ga. Thomas was savaged, but his counter-charge of having been subjected to a "high-tech lynching" knocked Democrats back on their heels and drove a wedge between party liberals and feminists and Democratic conservatives.

    In replacing Chief Justice Rehnquist and O'Connor with John Roberts and Alito, George W. Bush succeeded as no other Republican president since World War II. He had not only tilted the court to constitutionalism, but also replaced two white Protestant justices with two white Catholic justices, one of whom is the second Italian-American on the court.

    Where does that leave the court today?

    When Sotomayor is approved by the Senate, the court will, in terms of religious minorities, consist of six Catholics, two Jews and one Protestant. Ethnically, there will be one African-American, one Hispanic American, one Irish-American, two Jewish-Americans, two Italian Americans and two Anglos.

    That is diversity, is it not?

    And who is the least represented minority in America on the U.S. Supreme Court? Not Catholics, who have two-thirds of the seats. Not Jewish-Americans, who though 2 percent of the population, have 22 percent of the seats. Not African-Americans, who at 13 percent of the population have 11 percent of the seats. And not Hispanics, who at 15 percent of the population will have 11 percent of the seats.

    No, the most underrepresented group of Americans—nay, the most unrepresented minority, the largest group of our fellow citizens never to have had one of its own sit on the U.S. Supreme Court in the modern era is—Evangelical Christians.

    They are more numerous than Catholics, who at 24 percent of the population have 67 percent of the seats on the court. And, for Republicans, they are a far more reliable voting bloc than Catholics—not to mention Hispanics, Jews and African-Americans, all of whom voted somewhere between two to one and 20 to one for Obama.

    Bush II tried to close the Evangelical gap with Harriet Miers, but conservatives opposed her as unqualified.

    Republicans should now be searching for highly qualified Evangelical Christian judges and constitutional scholars, women as well as men—and, when falsely accused of being "anti-Hispanic" or "anti-woman," ought to reply: "What do you liberals have against white Christians, man or woman, not to have named one in 45 years?"

    Everybody can play the diversity game."


    - Patrick Buchanan http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/090720...angelicals.htm

    What do you think? Agree/disagree?

    Do you think that affirmative action should include other groups underrepresented (in the important university positions for example) such as white christians or conservatives?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Oh dear, do you know much about Pat Buchanan? He's a bigoted fool. He can't stand the fact how successful Sonia Sotomayor is because of her background, even though she is perfectly qualified, yet he continues to lie about her because the man has a chip on his shoulder (For weeks now). As for 'affirmative action', I am totally against it for anyone. Besides, regarding America, do you seriously agree that white Christians and conservatives are underrepresented? If so, then you are living in a fantasy land.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    And who is the least represented minority in America on the U.S. Supreme Court?
    Presumably the answer to that question is atheists/agnostics, who make up 15% of the population but don't have a single representative on the Supreme Court (and haven't, I believe, ever had one). I therefore look forward to those Republicans who agree with Buchanan searching for atheists to nominate to the Supreme Court.

    Personally, I don't care about their ethnicity or religion. What matters is the quality of their legal judgements, not their background.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Do you think that affirmative action should include other groups underrepresented (in the important university positions for example) such as white christians or conservatives?
    I don't think political opinions should be subject to any "positive discrimination" regulations.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Don: here's a book for you. It'll feed your sense of injustice.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tenured-Radi...9638354&sr=8-3
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely not.

    I would be quite happy for my legal system, my parliament, my lords, my councillors, my EMPS and my education staff to be composed ENTIRELY of white males, if it just so happened that each individual was better for the job than his other applicants, regardless of their age, ethnicity, religion, or gender.

    Representation of any particular group of people in any establishment should be nowhere near the agenda.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe because you already rule the ******* country.

    Also, the post above me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think all race-based affirmative action is terrible. I don't want anyone being chosen for "diversity" for any job, ever.

    The best people deserve the best jobs to simply put it.

    I can go on for hours on this topic as I've debated this at high levels, but I think I won't need to as most people can agree that race should have no value in anything we do.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harris)
    I think all race-based affirmative action is terrible. I don't want anyone being chosen for "diversity" for any job, ever.

    The best people deserve the best jobs to simply put it.

    I can go on for hours on this topic as I've debated this at high levels, but I think I won't need to as most people can agree that race should have no value in anything we do.
    Yes. Did you know even NFL teams get fined if they do not interview minority candidates for head coach positions :rofl:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because white Christians run the country, and because employers should be allowed to discriminate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neo Con)
    Yes. Did you know even NFL teams get fined if they do not interview minority candidates for head coach positions :rofl:
    I heard that before I think. Ever wonder why blacks receive tons of affirmative action benefits yet Jews and Asians do not receive them?

    You cannot accomodate all, so I rather they advantage no one.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harris)
    I heard that before I think. Ever wonder why blacks receive tons of affirmative action benefits yet Jews and Asians do not receive them?

    You cannot accomodate all, so I rather they advantage no one.
    Affirmative action is basically a helping hand for lazy people. Jews and Asians are highly successful and have a low crime rate as they are generally more law abiding citizens who value hard work. They don't need govt help to aid them in getting a job, they get it on merit.

    The same cannot be said for Blacks and Hispanics.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neo Con)
    Affirmative action is basically a helping hand for lazy people. Jews and Asians are highly successful and have a low crime rate as they are generally more law abiding citizens who value hard work. They don't need govt help to aid them in getting a job, they get it on merit.

    The same cannot be said for Blacks and Hispanics.
    Politically incorrect yet true.

    Also how about gender based? Women are way better off than men right now when you compare societal issues yet they have bogus quotas in place.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Not affirmative action for white Christians, no affirmative action for anyone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    Presumably the answer to that question is atheists/agnostics, who make up 15% of the population but don't have a single representative on the Supreme Court (and haven't, I believe, ever had one). I therefore look forward to those Republicans who agree with Buchanan searching for atheists to nominate to the Supreme Court.

    Personally, I don't care about their ethnicity or religion. What matters is the quality of their legal judgements, not their background.
    They also have one whole Representative, of a good 400-odd.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by LawBore)
    They also have one whole Representative, of a good 400-odd.
    There's never been one on the Supreme Court, afaik.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    There's never been one on the Supreme Court, afaik.
    No, there hasn't. No Senators either iirc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Could some please explain to me what the difference is between discriminating against whites and discriminating against non-whites?

    Afterall that is basically affirmative action, discrimination against a group of people because of their skin colour.

    Two wrongs don't make a right.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harris)
    Politically incorrect yet true.

    Also how about gender based? Women are way better off than men right now when you compare societal issues yet they have bogus quotas in place.

    The gap between men and women is no longer how it was many decades ago, so again, gender based is not a great idea either.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neo Con)
    The gap between men and women is no longer how it was many decades ago, so again, gender based is not a great idea either.
    The only gap is that women are now ahead
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,005

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.