Today brings yet more handiwork from a Texas judge:
U.S. District Court Judge Mark T. Pittman ruled that the Minority Business Development Agency’s presumption that businesses owned by Blacks, Latinos and other minorities are inherently disadvantaged violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. He permanently enjoined the agency’s business centers, which have assisted minority-owned businesses in accessing capital and government contracts, from extending services based on an applicant’s race.
“If courts mean what they say when they ascribe supreme importance to constitutional rights, the federal government may not flagrantly violate such rights with impunity,” Pittman wrote. “The MBDA has done so for years. Time’s up.”
Pittman was so eager to rule in favor of white people that he resolved this case on summary judgment:
While the Agency’s work may help alleviate opportunity gaps faced by minority business enterprises, two wrongs do not make a right. And the MBDA’s racial presumption is a wrong. “Legislation should never be designed to punish anyone.” While the Agency may intend to serve listed groups, not punish unlisted groups, the very design of its presumption punishes those who are not presumptively entitled to MBDA benefits.
This gets to the heart of conservative opposition to any kind of minority benefit: it's designed by liberals to punish white people. Pittman says the federal government has been punishing white people for 55 years via this program, and "time's up."
Pittman, needless to say, was appointed by Donald Trump. He's the district judge who killed Joe Biden's student debt relief, as well as the guy who ruled that Texas couldn't ban teenagers between 18-20 from carrying concealed weapons. As usual, this case will be appealed to the 5th Circuit, which will almost certainly uphold Pittman. Then, presumably, it will go to the Supreme Court, where its fate is probably poor, but perhaps not hopeless.
One Trump presidency was disastrous enough. We really don't need another one.
I won't opine on the ultimate fate of this "judgement" when it reaches SCOTUS, but I will (very loosely) paraphrase H.L. Mencken (maybe; the provenance of the original quote is apparently ambiguous): No one ever went broke overestimating the shamelessness of the six corrupt right wing Republican partisans currently cosplaying as justices of the United States Supreme Court to enshrine MAGA crapola as the law of the land.
BTW, I haven't (and won't, at 70 my life's too short) read the opinion of this Federalist Society bozo, but "Time's up." Really? In a judicial opinion? Judges as Fox News commentators. (Unlike Kevin, whose frequent legal musings I often find to be risible, I am a retired lawyer.)
Racial quotas were constitutional only for the three centuries they benefited white men.
When you're used to unfair privilege, equality looks like tyranny. It's telling that so many mediocre white guys are afraid that with an equal footing, women will choose someone beside them to fuck.
And that, my friends, is the crux of every issue for these creeps.
Oddly enough, it doesn't seem to matter so much if it's another woman instead of them (at least, that's been my experience.) It's (white) women choosing non-white men that grinds their gears, don't ask me why.
In the eyes of some white guys, if a white woman chooses a black man over them, then that publicly places the white guy lower in the social hierarchy than a black man, and that is absolutely intolerable to guys whose only advantage in the world is being born white.
They are going to fight relentlessly against this loss of status.
Um... are you aware that the Minority Business Development Agency is not a dating app?
I don't know the law here, but after the SFFA case about college admissions, I'm not sure the current SCOTUS wouldn't agree with him. I think this kind of reasoning greatly reduces what Congress can do to combat racism, which is terrible, but this seems to be the conservative position now.
Congress and states need to switch to using either geography or wealth as proxies for targeting race or ethnicity. It's less efficient, if your sole goal is to achieve racial equality. But it's also the basis of a ton of government programs that aren't being challenged in court, implying that many/most judges are OK with those types of "discrimination." And most regular people aren't as strongly against the statement "we should help the poor and lower middle class" as they are "we should help Blacks or Latinos."
Similar things have been tried before....namely tax breaks for developments in "low income" areas. Amazingly, rich white men were able to use those in "very wealthy" adjacent areas--not so much in hard hit areas.
However, it will probably have to go to "depressed" areas too. Though I'm sure Republicans would want private "universities" to train people to apply for grants, free money just like those old late night infomercials promised!
I've got a friend who's a monomaniac on the subject of TIFF in Chicago. It's abuses are legion and legend.
How can using racial criteria for supporting businesses be fighting racism?
Because overcoming three centuries of racist quotas favoring white men can’t be achieved by simply saying, “Never mind.”
Surely it can’t be too hard to figure that out. If I overcharged you $100 a day for 300 days, would you be made whole if I simply stopped overcharging you?
Real life does not and cannot work that way. My father came to America as a penniless refugee from the Communists on Eastern Europe. Where is my pay back for what he lost?
You go on from the present.
In addition, these policies are obviously not aimed at rectifying historic wrongs. Many of them also apply to young women who do not experience significant discrimination today and who face no impact from historical discrimination, LGBT, and recent black and Hispanic immigrants. Meanwhile they do not apply to other groups who obviously experienced historical discrimination such as Jews and Chinese Americans.
All that summary judgement means is that the facts are not in dispute. There's no eagerness there, and it seems pretty plain that no, the facts of the case are not in dispute. Just the law.
There is in fact, major dispute - overwhelming perhaps - on the point that minority businesses face discrimination.
All minority businesses?
Does Obama's television production company face discrimmination? What about Oprah Winfrey's production company?
And do no white owned businesses face discrimination? How do you know?
Seems reasonable that if you have a program that supports businesses that have been hurt by discrimination that any (and only) businesses that can demonstrate such discrimination should be helped.
So it was improper for this bozo to dismiss the case on summary judgment.
No. The current law is purely racially based. That is clearly a violation of the Constitution.
Congress can create new programs with nonracial criteria.
So, prejudice against certain minority groups exists and is bad -- but the government can't do a cotton-pickin' thing (heh), because it's "unconstitutional" to help any minority group. Tough luck, brown folks!! Your own laws against prejudicial treatment have bitten you in the arse!
That's clearly ridiculous, but has a certain dumb "logic" that Faux Noose will undoubtedly flog for weeks, and paint as those filthy hippies getting their comeuppance. Libz need to have a coherent, compelling answer, not to exceed 20 words. Less, if possible. And you need to use real words, not some nonsensical "anticapitolized collectivo-action millieu" stuff.
This is exactly what conservatives are saying, day in, day out. Year in, year out.
I would also argue, and have done so to the point of boredom, that liberals fail to listen to what conservatives actually say at our peril.
This is one of Trump's core groups. They believe that, to take one example, racism is over as soon as everyone can ride the same bus. I think they might, just might, agree that racist covenants in real property deeds are unenforceable, but given how into private property rights they are I am not sure.
But to them, the "remedy" for the Dred Scott decision is that slavery is now illegal. That's it for them.
Any other remedy? Nope. Affirmative action? Nope. Helping minority owned businesses? Not by the gov.
We tend to not take what they say at face value, as if they are trying to make a rhetorical point rather than a literal one.
A lot of Conservatives I have talked with and heard think society's only obligation is one of equality of opportunity and use MLK's "content of his character" idea as their rule of thumb. Much of the Left prefers Equity.
These two views are incompatible, and so its a pure power struggle to see whose vision prevails. Gotta say, though, the Texas Judge, the 5th Circuit, and the DC combo is a real power play for the Conservatives...
Conservatives definitely say this, but its not at all clear that they think or believe it.
The 'equality of opportunity' veneer typically falls off pretty quickly when presented with examples of unequal opportunity.
"Black-owned businesses are free to discriminate against white people every bit as white-owned businesses should be free to discriminate against black people."
Gleefully pretending not to understand is just one more way of 'owning the libs', IOW.
I suspect that as with any bunch, there is a variety of opinions and levels of sincerity. And I would be lieing if I said that I knew enough of them at deep enough of a level to make a reasonable call on what was prevalent...
“We’ll tax white people 100% for 300 years. Then when we stop, it will be fair.”
Conservatives believe they're shielded from harm because they're the ones causing the harm.
Before that, appointed by Abbott.
And chairman of his local Federalist Society chapter.
Which you probably guessed.
He killed nothing, he just said racism in applying federal benefits isn't allowed. Minorities are just so used to hand-outs, benefits, and quotas that equality is scary to them.
Ahh, yes, lying about racism.
Please clearly identify what you claim is a lie.
It’s white men who benefited from racist quotas for three centuries and are used to hand-outs.
Why? Because 350 years of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation and exclusion of minorities from businesses, health care, property ownership, higher education, congressional representation, voting and less support of predominantly minority public schools, WAS NOT ENOUGH.
It’s a little like a 350 year foot race with one group forced to carry a 50 lb weight around their neck. And after 350 years the other group, now far ahead in all economic measure's finally agrees to remove some but not all of the 50lb handicap and call it good. They want the race to continue without any correction of the disparities. That’s America in the 21st century.