The backlash has already arrived. In Michigan, California, and Washington, majorities have voted to abolish all racial, ethnic, and gender preferences. […] Opposition to race, ethnic, and gender preferences was behind the thirty-one GOP Senate votes against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. ON the only two previous court nominations by Democratic presidents in forty years, the Senate voted 87-9 for Stephen Breyer and 96-3 for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. To conservatives, the Sotomayor nomination was an Obama declaration that affirmative action is forever.
Judge Sotomayor was herself a lifetime beneficiary, who once called herself an “affirmative action baby.” If she gone through the “traditional numbers route” of Princeton and Yale Law, she said, “it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted… [M]y test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates.”
Sonia Sotomayor, said the New York Times, “has championed the importance of considering race and ethnicity in admission, hiring and even judicial selection at almost every stage of her career.” As a student at Princeton, she files a completing with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare demanding that the school be ordered to hire Hispanic teachers. At Yale, she co-chaired a coalition that demanded more Latino professors and administrators and “shared the alarm of others in the group when the Supreme Court prohibited the use of quotas in university admissions in the 1978 decision Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.” Alan Bakke was an applicant to the University of California Medical School at Davis who was rejected, although his test scores were higher than almost all the minority applicants admitted. Bakke was white.
[…] In a 2001 speech, Sotomayor rejected the notion advanced by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor that, in deciding cases, a wise old man and wise old woman would reach the same conclusion: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of the experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Tiene gracia que leyera el extracto anterior en Suicide of a Superpower de Pat Buchanan hace cosa de una hora y que cincuenta minutos después me conectara a Internet para descubrir, muy casualmente, pues no suelo visitar Hot Air, la siguiente noticia:
In a stunning 6-2 decision, Justice Steven Breyer joined the conservative jurists in ruling that while the Constitution allows states to use affirmative action for admissions, it does not require states to do so.
[…] The big news here is the split, with Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissenting.
[…] Sotomayor read her dissent aloud in the court, usually a sign of significant displeasure with the result. At 58 pages, her dissent went longer than the opinion and the concurrences combined.
Donde un kilo de cocaína te convierte… ¡en héroe civil!
Less respectful of these “religious toys” was Friedrich Nietzsche: “I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that has ever existed.” His admirer Adolf Hitler agreed, “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity.” As Eugene G. Windchy relates, in The End of Darwinism:
«[Hitler] thought it would have been better for the world if the Muslims had won the eight century battle of Tours, which stopped the Arab advance into France. Had the Christians lost, [Hitler] reasoned, the Germanic peoples would have acquired a more earlike creed and, because of their natural, superiority, would have become the leaders of an Islamic empire.»
In Inside the Third Reich, the memoir of his years as Hitler’s architect, Albert Speer wrote that Hitler would often say:
«You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?»