Back in 2012, I was *certain* Obama wasn’t going to be reelected, because 1.) he was an objectively terrible and unpopular president but now 2.) he couldn’t rely on the “I’m not racist” virtue-signaling voting block anymore, given that he had already been elected once before, thus proving America was no longer an evil racist place. America was now post-racial, baby, and we were no longer going to have worry about that racialist crap anymore. I mean, we have a black president now!
Don't feel bad. Michael Barone, the originator of the Almanac of American Politics and who has more historical knowledge of American politics than anyone I've heard of, said on the radio on election day that he expected Mitt Romney to win in 2012 by about four points. Romney ended up losing to Barack Obama by about four points.
I assume the five bad Circuits contain mostly blue states, or at least, plenty of blue cities. Will enough plaintiffs risk social death (and be able to find counsel) to have an impact on future hiring/promotion? Private employers are more likely to shape up, but bureaucrats won't care, they have no skin in the game.
res at iSteve posted about the circuits involved, mostly in the center of the country, so Illinois was the bluest affected. The reverse of what I expected.
I would think that white businesses that lost out to women/minority enterprises in government contract awards due to set-asides probably have most easily provable case. Compare their low bid to the awarded MBE contract price. Slam dunk on damages and causation, compared to employment cases.
It's also the only case in which the entity inflicting the damage is the one that wrote the rule. I'm sympathetic to businesses that discriminated against whites because the government threatened them. Don't blame the shopkeeper. Blame the Black Hand.
Harvard Law School is so prestigious that they can hoover up many of the most capable Black students, who don't need affirmative action.
Every year, I read stories about brilliant Black students (no irony intended) who get offers from 7 or 8 Ivy League universities, while equally brilliant white students have to struggle for a place.
It is a bit like the NFL cornerbacks. White cornerbacks deserve their places.
The real effect of affirmative action is in the second or third group of colleges who have a very small pool of Black candidates to give places to, most of whom have gone to Harvard or Princeton.
But these colleges still have to meet their quotas , sorry, diversity targets.
Yeah, whenever you hear about, “accepted into all 8 ivies!” That’s all you need to know about the kid to know exactly what he/she looks like before you ever see the photos.
I worked for an engineering firm for two years. Black engineers are so rare that they have the engineering world by the nose. Engineering firms that do business with a black-run city desperately needs black engineers.
I’m holding a resume of an applicant who shows no signs of being remotely qualified for the open position in question. But because the resume came through some kind of “protected class” job search service, I was ordered to perfunctorily call him for CYA purposes. It’s maddening that this state of affairs has been the norm for so long, and I’m really hoping this SCOTUS decision actually makes a difference in the real world.
Personal pet peeve- that society took to dropping the 'racial' and just calling it 'discrimination'. So, what, two generations grew up thinking it was wrong to discriminate? It's like how 'pride' will soon mean 'homosexual'.
If we just call it racial discrimination, no need for a different term when it's directed against whites.
A Statute of Limitations sounds even better than a Statue of Limitations, though the latter could be an artistic expression that supports the vibe shift.
'That I, Elie Mystal, needed affirmative action to get into Harvard Law School, as implied by my then never passing the bar exam following my expensive Harvard Law School education?'
Funny thing is that Elie Mystal (partially gets it). All the nice liberals I know would think this ruling is super obvious and it would never occur to them that it could have an unintended effect because they fundamentally believe that anti discrimination laws only ever help blacks get jobs when the circumstances are a)The black is among the best candidates b)the reason the black wouldn't get the job is because of white racism.
If you believe that to your core, why would this bother you at all?
Even Elie Mystal admits that technically this is the correct decision and that sometimes it's frustrating when the correct legal decision will have effects you don't want (you know like the second and fourteenth ammendments)
It is the correct legal decision, but it will ultimately either kill civil rights legislation or fatally suffocate the country in litigation. You can't tie up the appointment and dismissal of everyone in every position to thoughtcrime violation. Sure, some people who are about to get it in the shorts are gonna deserve it, but this offered too much reward under too loose a standard to stop with legitimate claimants when it just applied to some of the country. Why wouldn't it get much worse now that it applies to all?
Most of the country's population has had equal standards for a while. It's made no difference in corporate and govt. discrimination against whites or men.
The case which overturned this was about a heterosexual woman.
As well, the fact is that the people who were held to a higher standard ARE the people who have been most discriminated against in this country from the '60s on: whites, yellows, heterosexuals, and males. As well our most productive. The fact that said people are now able to sue will mean a lot more suits are forthcoming, but we have no reason to believe they'll stop, or even primarily consist of, the genuinely discriminated against. It'll disproportionately be the white, yellow, male, and/or heterosexual equivalents of Charlie Craig and David Mullins who will be not only running these suits, but actively finding ways to litigate more.
I'm not sure it goes that far. It's a little easier for a white man to sue if, e.g., he doesn't get a job as a code in a department that is entirely Indians. In most other situations it is very difficult to prove individual racial discrimination for an individual job. That's why they came up with theories like 'disparate impact'.
You might say, sure but if you have a hiring policy that says you must try to increase your percentage of black executives, doesn't that make every promotion after that innately discriminating against anyone who isn't black? A white man or asian woman for example.
As I pointed out in another comment, you are expecting the courts to understand set theory :)
Much as it's good that this'll finally apply to the actually-most-discriminated-against groups in the country, we have no reason to believe this'll be limited to legitimate cases of discrimination. There's plenty of unprincipled actors who are white, yellow, male, and/or heterosexual, who would not be above — amongst other possibilities — demanding a gay bakery sell them a heterosexuality-affirming wedding cake, then sue them for their refusal to do so. Stopping such actors will necessarily require neutering or abolishing civil rights statutes.
We have this problem now with the disabilities act. I know a guy who is counsel for a big fast food company. They get sued all the time by professional plaintiffs. Like the hard of hearing lady who sued because the Muzak was too low for her to enjoy (for real).
White people in fancy corporations will adapt and minimize risk quickly. Construction companies could be in for trouble. I know a guy who might be the last white union carpenter in the Bay area. He told me the guy in charge of one job had a poster in his office that said something like 'it takes five white men to do the job of one mexican' ...that would be hard to explain in court.
There was a viral video boasting of Mexican roofing prowess on X a few days ago. Someone pointed out he was nailing (by hand) too close to the bottom of the shingle overlap, so it would likely leak.
In LA that's your only choice. You can pick whether you want your sales call from an Israeli or Irish American, but the quality if the work depends on the Mexicans who do the actual install. The company that did mine boasted of factory training.
Incidentally, here in LA you have do buy a "cool roof". I've found it works as advertised keeping things much cooler as the sun beats down. In the absence of of the law I'm not certain I would have selected that.
Sometimes, I must concede, intrusive socialism works to my advantage.
The New Haven firemen's case got to the Supreme Court in 2009. (Not enough Blacks/ Hispanics passed a promotion test, so rather than promote a bunch of white guys the city scrapped the test.) White guys won, 5-4.
Is seventeen years a long time? It was the last Yankees championship, so yeah, I guess so.
You might be right, Walter. I think it is obscure because it happened at the end of the Orioles meaty years from 1965-1983. The Orioles began to collapse soon after their World Series victory in 1983 despite having Hall of Famers Cal Ripken Jr. and Eddie Murray on the team for over another decade. Joe Altobelli was fired in 1985 in June with the Orioles over .500. In 1988, the Orioles set some sort of record losing their first twenty-one games. Cal Ripken Sr. was fired after the first six losses and Frank Robinson was hired to replace him.
There is another class, not racial, gender, or any other identifiable group that has been discriminated against for decades. Conservatives who were not circumspect enough to keep their positions to themselves.
My tinfoil hat says that opening the way for an even bigger avalanche of institution-destroying lawsuits is not a good thing but actually just the next chapter in the Big Book of Razing Western Societies to the Ground and Salting the Furrows.
"wow, civil rights lawsuits have done a lot of damage. What if we opened up the floodgates so the majority could get in on the action? how much damage is possible?"
The only good thing is that this might just be awful enough to lead to the death of civil rights legislation entirely. But we can't take it for granted that'll happen given how often awful laws stay on the books forever. Look at the Jones Act.
All the discrimination laws effect large corporations and not any small businesses that I know of. Fighting discrimination law suits are just part of doing business for a big corporation just as the credit card companies write off credit card fraud.
Back in 2012, I was *certain* Obama wasn’t going to be reelected, because 1.) he was an objectively terrible and unpopular president but now 2.) he couldn’t rely on the “I’m not racist” virtue-signaling voting block anymore, given that he had already been elected once before, thus proving America was no longer an evil racist place. America was now post-racial, baby, and we were no longer going to have worry about that racialist crap anymore. I mean, we have a black president now!
I was spectacularly wrong on all counts.
You’re not alone. That event marked my realization that the USA was finished.
Don't feel bad. Michael Barone, the originator of the Almanac of American Politics and who has more historical knowledge of American politics than anyone I've heard of, said on the radio on election day that he expected Mitt Romney to win in 2012 by about four points. Romney ended up losing to Barack Obama by about four points.
By 2012, Romney was the heavy front runner for the Republican nomination and I never had any confidence he would win in the general.
I assume the five bad Circuits contain mostly blue states, or at least, plenty of blue cities. Will enough plaintiffs risk social death (and be able to find counsel) to have an impact on future hiring/promotion? Private employers are more likely to shape up, but bureaucrats won't care, they have no skin in the game.
res at iSteve posted about the circuits involved, mostly in the center of the country, so Illinois was the bluest affected. The reverse of what I expected.
I would think that white businesses that lost out to women/minority enterprises in government contract awards due to set-asides probably have most easily provable case. Compare their low bid to the awarded MBE contract price. Slam dunk on damages and causation, compared to employment cases.
It's also the only case in which the entity inflicting the damage is the one that wrote the rule. I'm sympathetic to businesses that discriminated against whites because the government threatened them. Don't blame the shopkeeper. Blame the Black Hand.
Senior Vice-Presidents of HR are currently sh**ting razor blades all over this great land.
Nah- this is like the full employment act for HR. You know how many comp lit graduates it takes to cut a baby in half?
They already have full employment. Now they’ll have to make decisions that make them drink at night.
They already drink at night. They can start drinking during the day.
Harvard Law School is so prestigious that they can hoover up many of the most capable Black students, who don't need affirmative action.
Every year, I read stories about brilliant Black students (no irony intended) who get offers from 7 or 8 Ivy League universities, while equally brilliant white students have to struggle for a place.
It is a bit like the NFL cornerbacks. White cornerbacks deserve their places.
The real effect of affirmative action is in the second or third group of colleges who have a very small pool of Black candidates to give places to, most of whom have gone to Harvard or Princeton.
But these colleges still have to meet their quotas , sorry, diversity targets.
Yeah, whenever you hear about, “accepted into all 8 ivies!” That’s all you need to know about the kid to know exactly what he/she looks like before you ever see the photos.
I got surprised once (but still not a white kid)
I worked for an engineering firm for two years. Black engineers are so rare that they have the engineering world by the nose. Engineering firms that do business with a black-run city desperately needs black engineers.
Totally fair
I’m holding a resume of an applicant who shows no signs of being remotely qualified for the open position in question. But because the resume came through some kind of “protected class” job search service, I was ordered to perfunctorily call him for CYA purposes. It’s maddening that this state of affairs has been the norm for so long, and I’m really hoping this SCOTUS decision actually makes a difference in the real world.
Maybe we trade "reverse discrimination" (whatever that is supposed to mean) lawsuits for reparations claims.
Personal pet peeve- that society took to dropping the 'racial' and just calling it 'discrimination'. So, what, two generations grew up thinking it was wrong to discriminate? It's like how 'pride' will soon mean 'homosexual'.
If we just call it racial discrimination, no need for a different term when it's directed against whites.
A Statute of Limitations sounds even better than a Statue of Limitations, though the latter could be an artistic expression that supports the vibe shift.
'That I, Elie Mystal, needed affirmative action to get into Harvard Law School, as implied by my then never passing the bar exam following my expensive Harvard Law School education?'
I thought Elie Mystal did pass the bar exam?
He might have but he's never done jack in law practice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Mystal#Career
So he's sort of like JFK Jr. except he was smart enough not to try to fly on a foggy Summer night over the ocean not being instrument-trained to fly.
Funny thing is that Elie Mystal (partially gets it). All the nice liberals I know would think this ruling is super obvious and it would never occur to them that it could have an unintended effect because they fundamentally believe that anti discrimination laws only ever help blacks get jobs when the circumstances are a)The black is among the best candidates b)the reason the black wouldn't get the job is because of white racism.
If you believe that to your core, why would this bother you at all?
Even Elie Mystal admits that technically this is the correct decision and that sometimes it's frustrating when the correct legal decision will have effects you don't want (you know like the second and fourteenth ammendments)
It is the correct legal decision, but it will ultimately either kill civil rights legislation or fatally suffocate the country in litigation. You can't tie up the appointment and dismissal of everyone in every position to thoughtcrime violation. Sure, some people who are about to get it in the shorts are gonna deserve it, but this offered too much reward under too loose a standard to stop with legitimate claimants when it just applied to some of the country. Why wouldn't it get much worse now that it applies to all?
Most of the country's population has had equal standards for a while. It's made no difference in corporate and govt. discrimination against whites or men.
The case which overturned this was about a heterosexual woman.
As well, the fact is that the people who were held to a higher standard ARE the people who have been most discriminated against in this country from the '60s on: whites, yellows, heterosexuals, and males. As well our most productive. The fact that said people are now able to sue will mean a lot more suits are forthcoming, but we have no reason to believe they'll stop, or even primarily consist of, the genuinely discriminated against. It'll disproportionately be the white, yellow, male, and/or heterosexual equivalents of Charlie Craig and David Mullins who will be not only running these suits, but actively finding ways to litigate more.
I'm not sure it goes that far. It's a little easier for a white man to sue if, e.g., he doesn't get a job as a code in a department that is entirely Indians. In most other situations it is very difficult to prove individual racial discrimination for an individual job. That's why they came up with theories like 'disparate impact'.
You might say, sure but if you have a hiring policy that says you must try to increase your percentage of black executives, doesn't that make every promotion after that innately discriminating against anyone who isn't black? A white man or asian woman for example.
As I pointed out in another comment, you are expecting the courts to understand set theory :)
Much as it's good that this'll finally apply to the actually-most-discriminated-against groups in the country, we have no reason to believe this'll be limited to legitimate cases of discrimination. There's plenty of unprincipled actors who are white, yellow, male, and/or heterosexual, who would not be above — amongst other possibilities — demanding a gay bakery sell them a heterosexuality-affirming wedding cake, then sue them for their refusal to do so. Stopping such actors will necessarily require neutering or abolishing civil rights statutes.
We have this problem now with the disabilities act. I know a guy who is counsel for a big fast food company. They get sued all the time by professional plaintiffs. Like the hard of hearing lady who sued because the Muzak was too low for her to enjoy (for real).
White people in fancy corporations will adapt and minimize risk quickly. Construction companies could be in for trouble. I know a guy who might be the last white union carpenter in the Bay area. He told me the guy in charge of one job had a poster in his office that said something like 'it takes five white men to do the job of one mexican' ...that would be hard to explain in court.
There was a viral video boasting of Mexican roofing prowess on X a few days ago. Someone pointed out he was nailing (by hand) too close to the bottom of the shingle overlap, so it would likely leak.
In LA that's your only choice. You can pick whether you want your sales call from an Israeli or Irish American, but the quality if the work depends on the Mexicans who do the actual install. The company that did mine boasted of factory training.
Incidentally, here in LA you have do buy a "cool roof". I've found it works as advertised keeping things much cooler as the sun beats down. In the absence of of the law I'm not certain I would have selected that.
Sometimes, I must concede, intrusive socialism works to my advantage.
The New Haven firemen's case got to the Supreme Court in 2009. (Not enough Blacks/ Hispanics passed a promotion test, so rather than promote a bunch of white guys the city scrapped the test.) White guys won, 5-4.
Is seventeen years a long time? It was the last Yankees championship, so yeah, I guess so.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7407218&page=1
It's been over forty for the Orioles.
Plus it's probably the most obscure WS win since WW II. Joe Altobelli? Who he?
You might be right, Walter. I think it is obscure because it happened at the end of the Orioles meaty years from 1965-1983. The Orioles began to collapse soon after their World Series victory in 1983 despite having Hall of Famers Cal Ripken Jr. and Eddie Murray on the team for over another decade. Joe Altobelli was fired in 1985 in June with the Orioles over .500. In 1988, the Orioles set some sort of record losing their first twenty-one games. Cal Ripken Sr. was fired after the first six losses and Frank Robinson was hired to replace him.
There is another class, not racial, gender, or any other identifiable group that has been discriminated against for decades. Conservatives who were not circumspect enough to keep their positions to themselves.
Wow, the 1964 Civil Rights Act finally passed.
My tinfoil hat says that opening the way for an even bigger avalanche of institution-destroying lawsuits is not a good thing but actually just the next chapter in the Big Book of Razing Western Societies to the Ground and Salting the Furrows.
"wow, civil rights lawsuits have done a lot of damage. What if we opened up the floodgates so the majority could get in on the action? how much damage is possible?"
The only good thing is that this might just be awful enough to lead to the death of civil rights legislation entirely. But we can't take it for granted that'll happen given how often awful laws stay on the books forever. Look at the Jones Act.
All the discrimination laws effect large corporations and not any small businesses that I know of. Fighting discrimination law suits are just part of doing business for a big corporation just as the credit card companies write off credit card fraud.