Conservative group behind Aff. Action lawsuit is now suing West Point over using race in admission

[karim]

Of course you and your cronies would say this, but no matter how much you hate the truth, it remains the truth. You Democratic true believers are just as bad as your counterparts in the Republican party. You can see the plank in your enemy's eye, but fail to see the one in yours. Example, all of these multiple times when the Democratic party could have solved the abortion issue, taking it out of the hands of the Supreme Court. Why did they not do that, when they had the chance over and over again? Well, it is a wedge issue they can use. That's right, even when Obama was asked after he was elected about it, though he stated he would codify if he became president in 2007.

"You could have codified Roe v. Wade in 2009, but you didn't because 'abortion rights weren't the priority,'" tweeted Ash Sarkar, contributing editor at progressive outlet Novara Media.



So you can continue to be angry because I point out the BS both sides are, but that does not change the fact that both sides be on some massive BS.

More both sides babble

 

[Uachet]

More both sides babble

More idiotic responses to the truth. One day you may actually grow up, but that day is not today I see.

 

[CreepyMcCreeperson]

Point out where in my statement I said not to vote? Pointing out the shenanigan's of the party that is nominally on myside is not the same as stating not to vote. So take that strawman somewhere else.

One party is clearly worse than the other. It’s just unfortunate that those are the only parties to choose from. I don’t believe a third party would be beneficial, because it would split the Democrat vote. Republicans have a hardcore religious lock on votes, and those voters will not stray no matter the candidate.

 

[Uachet]

One party is clearly worse than the other. It’s just unfortunate that those are the only parties to choose from. I don’t believe a third party would be beneficial, because it would split the Democrat vote. Republicans have a hardcore religious lock on votes, and those voters will not stray no matter the candidate.

Yes, one party is worse than the other for us. That still does not change the fact that Both parties are on some BS when they make promises they have no intention of keeping. I will normally vote to keep the outright fascist out of office, but I will also point out the antics of the Neo_Liberals too.

This time around though, I am voting for Cornel West if he gets on the ballot. Also, the vote is split on both of them by third parties, you forget the Libertarian party. There are also studies that document that third party candidates do not actually draw away from either primary party. So I do not accept the idea that people voting third party only affects Democrats.

 

[CreepyMcCreeperson]

Yes, one party is worse than the other for us. That still does not change the fact that Both parties are on some BS when they make promises they have no intention of keeping. I will normally vote to keep the outright fascist out of office, but I will also point out the antics of the Neo_Liberals too.

This time around though, I am voting for Cornel West if he gets on the ballot. Also, the vote is split on both of them by third parties, you forget the Libertarian party. There are also studies that document that third party candidates do not actually draw away from either primary party. So I do not accept the idea that people voting third party only affects Democrats.

A vote for Cornell is a waste. You know he has no chance of winning. So if you want to vote emotionally, then I understand, but you’re throwing your vote away. Trump has a massive following, and Joe isn’t doing very well, but he’s still not Trump. We don’t have a lot of good options for candidates. White grievance is showing up at the polls this election. I’m voting against that.

 

[Fill Collins]

"Drinky Crow, why do you hate j*ws?"

 

[Uachet]

A vote for Cornell is a waste. You know he has no chance of winning. So if you want to vote emotionally, then I understand, but you’re throwing your vote away. Trump has a massive following, and Joe isn’t doing very well, but he’s still not Trump. We don’t have a lot of good options for candidates. White grievance is showing up at the polls this election. I’m voting against that.

Yet, I am still voting. So now you have moved the goal post. Really, you guys should admit that you want people to only vote for whom you support. Anything outside of that is seen as wrong by you. You use those who state they are not voting as a shield for what you really want. So just admit from the get go that you are operating as an operative for the Democratic party, and you are encouraging people to vote Democratic. All of this extraneous talk about people not voting is just a distraction from what you really desire.

 

[CreepyMcCreeperson]

Yet, I am still voting. So now you have moved the goal post. Really, you guys should admit that you want people to only vote for whom you support. Anything outside of that is seen as wrong by you. You use those who state they are not voting as a shield for what you really want. So just admit from the get go that you are operating as an operative for the Democratic party, and you are encouraging people to vote Democratic. All of this extraneous talk about people not voting is just a distraction from what you really desire.

I’m not an operative. I’m simply stating voting third party has no value.

 

[OperationNumbNutts]

If people vote more progressives in your party line becomes progressive and you will get progressive judges. Your point is still stupid and doesn’t make any sense

It doesn't make since because you are playing checkers while others are playing chess. We can agree to disagree.

 

[T’Challa’s Heir]

It doesn't make since because you are playing checkers while others are playing chess. We can agree to disagree.

You said voting doesn’t matter. If that’s the case, how do we go about getting federal judges that don’t consistently vote against progressive interest?

 

[get these nets]

US federal judge rules West Point can use race as factor when considering applicants
January 4, 2024

A federal judge issued an opinion Wednesday allowing the United States Military Academy at West Point to continue using race as an admissions factor. This ruling comes after the Supreme Court changed the landscape of race-based affirmative action with its 2023 decision that effectively ended the practice at colleges and universities across the US.

The lawsuit, filed in September by Students for Fair Admission (SFFA), sued West Point, the US Army’s military academy, alleging that West Point’s use of race as a factor when considering a candidate for admission violated the Fifth Amendment. US District Judge Philip M. Halpern denied SFFA’s motion for a preliminary injunction. If granted, it would have allowed the judge to temporarily stop West Point from using race as a factor in its admission decisions until the court issued a final judgment.

Specifically, SFFA contended that West Point has “benchmarks” for the percentage of racial minority applicants to admit, which violates the Fifth Amendment’s federal guarantee of equal protection to all. SFFA claims West Point unconstitutionally considers race during three parts of its admissions process: when offering letters of assurance, when extending nominations, and when extending offers to additional appointees. West Point contends its commitment to affirmative action is essential because it “fosters cohesion and lethality; aids in recruitment of top talent; increases retention; and bolsters the Army’s legitimacy in the eyes of the nation and the world.”

When analyzing whether to grant SFFA’s motion for preliminary injunction, Halpern looked at whether SFFA had standing, whether SFFA had a likelihood of success on the merits of their complaint, whether SFFA plaintiffs will likely experience irreparable harm and weighed the public interest against SFFA’s complaint. The court found that SFFA does have standing because some of its members are ready to pursue the admissions process at West Point. Next, it found that the court could not adequately weigh whether West Point’s current admissions practices violate the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection because it has not properly analyzed the full factual record yet. This was the deciding factor in denying SFFA’s motion for preliminary injunction. The court went on to explain that the plaintiffs are not likely to experience irreparable injury because some of SFFA’s members who are ready to apply to West Point are far from the maximum age of 23 for matriculating at West Point. Also, the public interest weighed in favor of West Point because, without the present facts, the court could not justify having West Point change its entire admissions process during the middle of its admissions cycle.

 

[Samori Toure]

US federal judge rules West Point can use race as factor when considering applicants
January 4, 2024

A federal judge issued an opinion Wednesday allowing the United States Military Academy at West Point to continue using race as an admissions factor. This ruling comes after the Supreme Court changed the landscape of race-based affirmative action with its 2023 decision that effectively ended the practice at colleges and universities across the US.

The lawsuit, filed in September by Students for Fair Admission (SFFA), sued West Point, the US Army’s military academy, alleging that West Point’s use of race as a factor when considering a candidate for admission violated the Fifth Amendment. US District Judge Philip M. Halpern denied SFFA’s motion for a preliminary injunction. If granted, it would have allowed the judge to temporarily stop West Point from using race as a factor in its admission decisions until the court issued a final judgment.

Specifically, SFFA contended that West Point has “benchmarks” for the percentage of racial minority applicants to admit, which violates the Fifth Amendment’s federal guarantee of equal protection to all. SFFA claims West Point unconstitutionally considers race during three parts of its admissions process: when offering letters of assurance, when extending nominations, and when extending offers to additional appointees. West Point contends its commitment to affirmative action is essential because it “fosters cohesion and lethality; aids in recruitment of top talent; increases retention; and bolsters the Army’s legitimacy in the eyes of the nation and the world.”

When analyzing whether to grant SFFA’s motion for preliminary injunction, Halpern looked at whether SFFA had standing, whether SFFA had a likelihood of success on the merits of their complaint, whether SFFA plaintiffs will likely experience irreparable harm and weighed the public interest against SFFA’s complaint. The court found that SFFA does have standing because some of its members are ready to pursue the admissions process at West Point. Next, it found that the court could not adequately weigh whether West Point’s current admissions practices violate the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection because it has not properly analyzed the full factual record yet. This was the deciding factor in denying SFFA’s motion for preliminary injunction. The court went on to explain that the plaintiffs are not likely to experience irreparable injury because some of SFFA’s members who are ready to apply to West Point are far from the maximum age of 23 for matriculating at West Point. Also, the public interest weighed in favor of West Point because, without the present facts, the court could not justify having West Point change its entire admissions process during the middle of its admissions cycle.

You already knew that they were not going to let White Supremacists or the Courts impact military readiness.

 

[KillerPups]

Why don't Asians just build their own schools??

Ivy league not tryna be 50% Asian. Never gonna happen they already complaining that their numbers aren't going up. U can't legislate these things but they'll learn. They think we're the ones keeping them out but the truth is they aren't completely wanted.

 

[Nkrumah Was Right]

If white supremacists want to remove black people and Hispanics from the US Army officer corp, let them do it

 

[RamsayBolton]

If white supremacists want to remove black people and Hispanics from the US Army officer corp, let them do it

How you type this on January 7th

A would-be dictator would need the backing of the army to hold their power