The Supreme Court has already rejected this broad "remedial" rationale, and so it is not being offered to the Supreme Court now, and so posting this item was a waste of time.
What’s especially ironic is that the principal use to which Section 5 is put today is forcing jurisdictions to create and maintain racially segregated and gerrymandered voting districts – which is completely at odds with the original ideals of the Civil Rights Movement.
There are other federal laws available to protect the rights of voters, and they don't raise the problems that Section 5 does.
If you're not willing to follow the law, then you can't claim a right to help make the law for other people, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored, but it should be done carefully and on a case-by-case basis, after someone has shown he has turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day he walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate fact is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in before long. Read more about this issue here: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/p...
Why do race or ethnicity need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract? It's fine to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color or national origin. But that means no preferences because of skin color or what country your ancestors came from either--whether it's labeled a "set-aside," a "quota," or a "goal," since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it costs the taxpayers money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it's almost always illegal—indeed, unconstitutional—to boot (see 42 U.S.C. section 1981 and comments we submitted to the Colorado DOT here: http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/65... ). Those who insist on engaging in such discrimination deserve to be sued, and they will lose.
Reasonable people can differ about the extent to which qualifications other than test scores ought to be weighed and how. But there is no reason to weigh skin color or national origin -- and doing so is not only unfair and divisive, it's illegal. If the city engages in such discrimination, it is indeed asking for a lawsuit.
Why doesn't YSU just focus on recruiting, hiring, and promoting the best qualified individuals? Of course opportunities should be open to all, but trying to increase the numbers of some groups inevitably means that there will be discrimination and preference. Such "affirmative action" in the name of "diversity" means that the best qualified people will NOT be chosen, and this is unfair, divisive, and illegal.
Affirmative Action needed to balance the racial scales
The Supreme Court has already rejected this broad "remedial" rationale, and so it is not being offered to the Supreme Court now, and so posting this item was a waste of time.
April 4, 2013 at 9:12 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Voting Rights Act still needed today
Here's why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is bad policy, outdated, unconstitutional, and ought to be struck down by the Supreme Court: http://www.pacificlegal.org/opeds/Ove... and
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-m...
What’s especially ironic is that the principal use to which Section 5 is put today is forcing jurisdictions to create and maintain racially segregated and gerrymandered voting districts – which is completely at odds with the original ideals of the Civil Rights Movement.
There are other federal laws available to protect the rights of voters, and they don't raise the problems that Section 5 does.
February 25, 2013 at 12:23 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Give felons right to vote
If you're not willing to follow the law, then you can't claim a right to help make the law for other people, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored, but it should be done carefully and on a case-by-case basis, after someone has shown he has turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day he walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate fact is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in before long. Read more about this issue here: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/p...
January 17, 2013 at 4:33 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Cincy NAACP complains on school jobs
Why do race or ethnicity need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract? It's fine to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color or national origin. But that means no preferences because of skin color or what country your ancestors came from either--whether it's labeled a "set-aside," a "quota," or a "goal," since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it costs the taxpayers money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it's almost always illegal—indeed, unconstitutional—to boot (see 42 U.S.C. section 1981 and comments we submitted to the Colorado DOT here: http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/65... ). Those who insist on engaging in such discrimination deserve to be sued, and they will lose.
January 12, 2010 at 3:17 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Changing city law will be easier than complying with federal employment law
Reasonable people can differ about the extent to which qualifications other than test scores ought to be weighed and how. But there is no reason to weigh skin color or national origin -- and doing so is not only unfair and divisive, it's illegal. If the city engages in such discrimination, it is indeed asking for a lawsuit.
January 6, 2010 at 8:09 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Diversity remains a priority at YSU, official says
Why doesn't YSU just focus on recruiting, hiring, and promoting the best qualified individuals? Of course opportunities should be open to all, but trying to increase the numbers of some groups inevitably means that there will be discrimination and preference. Such "affirmative action" in the name of "diversity" means that the best qualified people will NOT be chosen, and this is unfair, divisive, and illegal.
March 24, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. permalink suggest removal