Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Mar 29 01:06:19 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Bidens anti-white racism ruled unconstit
Rugian
Member
Tue Jun 01 12:32:08
Yeah, no fucking shit. How did we manage to elect a president who wants to turn white people into second-class citizens?

----

Sixth Circuit Enjoins Use of Race and Sex Preferences for Coronavirus Relief Funding

A divided panel grants a preliminary injunction against privileging relief applications based on the race or sex of the applicant.

JONATHAN H. ADLER | 5.28.2021 9:32 AM

Yesterday, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted a temporary injunction barring the Small Business Administration from prioritizing applications for COVID-19 relief funding based upon the race or sex of the business owner applying for the relief. Judge Amul Thapar wrote for the court, joined by Senior Judge Alan Norris. Judge Bernice Donald dissented.

Judge Thapar's opinion in Vitolo v. Guzman begins with a simple and straightforward description of the case and holding: "This case is about whether the government can allocate limited coronavirus relief funds based on the race and sex of the applicants. We hold that it cannot."

The policy at issue prioritizes applications for relief funding from businesses owned by women and racial minorities. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021–the most recently enacted coronavirus relief bill–authorized $29 billion for restaurant owners suffering economic hardship. The money is allocated to qualifying businesses on a first-come, first-served basis until the funding runs out. The catch, however, is that for the first 21 days of processing applications, the SBA will only consider applicants that are at least 51 percent owned and controlled by women, veterans or the "socially and economically disadvantaged." This latter category is defined to cover those who have been "subjected to racial and ethnic prejudice" or "cultural bias," and the SBA presumes that members of specific racial and ethnic groups satisfy this criterion. According to the plaintiffs in this case, this policy constitutes unconstitutional race and sex discrimination, as those who are not members of the relevant groups risk missing out on relief funding. In its defense, the government acknowledged the use of race and sex to prioritize relief applications, but argued that the limited use of race and sex here was nonetheless constitutional.

After addressing the plaintiff's standing and the government's claim of mootness, the majority turned to the Equal Protection analysis, finding that the government had failed to demonstrate that the use of race and sex served a compelling (or even substantial) governmental interest as well as that the use of race and sex here was not sufficiently tailored to satisfy heightened scrutiny.

Although the government argued the policy was justified to remedy past societal discrimination, the majority noted that the Supreme Court has held that the use of race to remedy past discrimination only when three criteria are met: 1) "the policy must target a specific episode of past discrimination," and not societal discrimination at large; 2) "there must be evidence of intentional discrimination in the past," not merely statistical disparities; and 3) "the government must have had a hand in the past discrimination it now seeks to remedy." The court further concluded that even if a compelling interest had been shown, the policy in question was not narrowly tailored to satisfy that interest.

Writes Judge Thapar:

The stark realities of the Small Business Administration's racial gerrymandering are inescapable. Imagine two childhood friends—one Indian, one Afghan. Both own restaurants, and both have suffered devastating losses during the pandemic. If both apply to the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, the Indian applicant will presumptively receive priority consideration over his Afghan friend. Why? Because of his ethnic heritage. It is indeed "a sordid business" to divide "us up by race." League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 511 (2006) (opinion of Roberts, C.J.). And the government's attempt to do so here violates the Constitution.

Turning to the sex-based preference, the majority also concluded that the government failed to satisfy either prong of the Equal Protection analysis there either.

http://rea...or-coronavirus-relief-funding/
habebe
Member
Tue Jun 01 13:29:52
It's a common Democratic trait to make white males the scapegoat/root of all evil.

The logic seems to go something like this.

If a larger amount of black people are poor, we shoild just give blacks more $.But not poor whites , because fuckem.Its as rqcist as it gets.

Instead of just helping people by need. If someone is poor, help them.

Its a very Sen mindset.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Jun 01 14:32:27
Haha eat a dick libs
Rugian
Member
Tue Jun 01 16:22:36
Thank you Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell for appointing and confirming Judge Thapar.

Worth noting that the dissenting judge is an Obama appointee.

Leftist media is mostly ignoring this. Can't be having their white viewers learn that the person they voted for in November hates their guts.
Rugian
Member
Tue Jun 01 16:29:18
Habebe

A white person growing up in a blue-collar family and living in a town with no jobs, no growth, and a huge meth problem is in an inherently privileged position vis-a-vis even the most prosperous black person.

Why? Because he was born with original sin, because he was born with white skin.
Rugian
Member
Tue Jun 01 16:30:16
Its a sick ideology, and its mainstream.

I truly fear for the future of white kids born 2-3 generations from now.
Habebe
Member
Tue Jun 01 16:46:20
Rugian, You just described every rust belt coal town in PA.

I fondly remember driving through them on my way to Knoebles. Ots so weird they seem 2/3 lost in time and 1/3 Wal-Mart and dollar generalified.
Rugian
Member
Tue Jun 01 17:10:15
Habebe

Yeah, thats something I've noticed about PA as well. Il'll drive through there every once in a while to see family.

As you're going down state roads, you're passing through the centers of all these small towns, places that look like they're stuck in time in the 1950s. At first you're like, "cool, its almost like a trip to the past."

But then you realize that nothing has changed, not because the towns have done a great job with their historic preservation, but because literally no one has seen any reason to build anything new there in almost a century. Since then, the population has dropped in half, and the PPG plant that used to prop the locals up has been shuttered.

The only thing that has been built recently is the Wal-Mart three towns over. And of course everyone goes there, because their prices really are awesome, and the local businesses can't compete. Also maybe a supermarket.

Its sad to see irreversible decline like that.
Rugian
Member
Tue Jun 01 17:19:38
Ford City is one that always sticks out in my mind. Population of 6,100 in 1930, now down to 2,800 today.

http://www...85bad6133af:0x520e10fd31db797c
Habebe
Member
Tue Jun 01 17:42:10
I used to know people from Tamaqwa, which is sort of a big little rust belt town itswld surrounded by others.

They were built around industries that just are not that viable anymore. It os a shame because otherwise they seem like they often have great bones of a town.Big well built houses, close to major highways etc.

You can buy 6 bedroom houses with basement and small yards for less than the price of a new economy car.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jun 02 07:01:52
>>"there must be evidence of intentional discrimination in the past," not merely statistical disparities<<

But, statistical disparities are the gold standard of the social justice movement as evidence of past and present systematic discrimination.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Jun 02 10:41:37
Statistical disparities in crime is the cause of racism. Left doesnt want to admit that.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Jun 02 15:03:27
Women should be barred from the bench

BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge, dissenting. It took nearly 200 years for the
Supreme Court to firmly establish that our Constitution permits the government to use racebased classifications to remediate past discrimination. See Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). It took only seven days for the majority to undermine that longstanding
and enduring principle.
The majority’s conclusion that Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief requires us to
make several assumptions. The majority’s reasoning suggests we live in a world in which
centuries of intentional discrimination and oppression of racial minorities have been eradicated.
The majority’s reasoning suggests we live in a world in which the COVID-19 pandemic did not
exacerbate the disparities enabled by those centuries of discrimination. The majority’s reasoning suggests that we live in a world in which Congress passed the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (“RRF”) not to aid the nation’s economic recovery, but to arbitrarily provide special treatment toracial minorities and women.
The majority’s reasoning leads it to a puzzling, if not predictable, conclusion that thetwenty-one-day priority period in the RRF—a short-term, narrowly tailored, carefully calibrated measure designed to assist businesses most devastated by the pandemic—is unconstitutional.
Because I find that the RRF is a carefully targeted measure necessitated by an unparalleled pandemic, and because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits, I dissent.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share