Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
~ Thomas Jefferson

Monday, July 2, 2012

More on "SCROTUS"

Since my blog tends to lean toward offering information that will hopefully awaken some folks to the fact that our liberty has been stolen, for the most part, permit me to continue with more about the Supreme Court.

On this day in 1986:

The U.S. Supreme Court endorsed numerical hiring goals for minorities, rejecting the Reagan administration view that affirmative action be limited to proven victims of race discrimination

If that is not judicial activism, what is? Can you think of any provision within the Constitution, any Article which gives the government the power to create specific numerical hiring goals for minorities? How could the Court rule such legislation Constitutional? Is it the job, within the limited powers granted by the Constitution, for the Supreme Court to attempt to satisfy the socialist agenda of creating "social justice"? Of enforced "equality"?

Of course, this is no such thing as enforcing equality. It is a matter of enforcing preferential treatment, based on the view that a minority was poorly treated in the past. Indeed it was, but it should be sufficient to enforce equality, without enforcing preference.

As an example, I once applied for a job with the San Diego Sheriff's Department. As I already had earned my Basic P.O.S.T. (Police Officers Standards of Training) certificate, which requires having graduated successfully from a P.O.S.T. certified academy and having completed a minimum of one year of duty as a police officer or deputy Sheriff, it was considered a "lateral" hire. That simply means hiring a qualified, experienced officer as opposed to a new hire, who would require a year and a lot of expense on the part of that department to get to that same point.

I was informed, when I discovered I would not be hired, that the Sheriff's Department was required by law to pass over the first 100+ experienced people on the list in order to reach down to minority applicants - most of whom would have been expensive "new hires".

Now, I have absolutely no problem giving a minority person preference when we are equally qualified. There is enough compassion in my heart to want to provide that to someone who might need the job even more than I did. Not that my life has been a stroll through the roses either, but I know minority individuals often suffer a more difficult life. However, when I am significantly more qualified, I expect that I should be hired in place of someone much less qualified. That only makes sense for the employer. Now, if the department was filling a position for a liaison to the Black community, or Hispanic community, then the qualifications for the job would exclude me. But that was not the case in this example.

A year or so later, I was the top applicant for a job at the California Highway Patrol. Since they were under the gun to hire minorities, they hired the third most qualified applicant, because he was black. He did not survive his one-year probation, being unable to function competently in his position, so CHP contacted me and offered me the position. I worked there for over ten years before quitting to seek full-time employment as a commercial helicopter pilot (unsuccessfully, due to low hours as a PIC).

So, SCROTUS failed. It failed then, and it has failed us once again just a few days ago. In truth, it has been failing us, actually harming us since Madison vs Marbury. And that, my friends, was back in 1803. Considering that we didn't have a Supreme Court just a few years prior to that decision, I think I can safely say that SCROTUS has been screwing us over almost since its inception, in 1790 (when it first met).

{BTW, I will state here than I really am not a bigot or a racist. For those who will dispute that based on my hatred for muslims, please consider this: it is the adherence to Islam, the edicts of the Qur'an and the Hadith, that I hate, along with the culturally embedded abuse and disdain that muslim men practice upon women and children. Take that pseudo-religion and cultural imperative away from the Middle Eastern male, and I have no issue with them. Coptic Christians, for example, who do not genitally mutilate their female children, who do not beat their wives, or stone them to death, or murder their daughters for dressing in Western fashion or dating a boy of another faith, are men with whom I have no issue.

But the followers of Islam - orthodox Islam, such as the Wahhabists practice - are filthy, abusive, murdering and vile. Again, understand that the so-called "moderate" muslims are not muslims at all, since they do not follow the teachings, the Sura, the Qur'an and Hadith as Islam requires them to follow. They are actually apostates, and would be killed as such by any true muslim. So, in reality, I am only bigoted against the fake religion of Islam, not against Arabs or Sudanese or Malaysians or anyone else not connected with Islam. Which certainly absolves me from any claim of racism. If you want to accuse me, accuse me of "religionism" - although Islam is a fake, manufactured "religion" that was simply established to provide the privilege to abuse women and the freedom to rape small children to Mohammed and his followers. It is as much a real religion as the "Church of Scientology".}

No comments:

Post a Comment

Sorry, folks. I was completely ignorant about comment rules. Anyone can post, but I'd prefer a name, even if it is made up. Anonymous posts just seem cheap, if you know what I mean. Also, if you want to argue a point, that's fine. Cheap shots and name calling towards me or another person commenting (ad hominem) is rude and will get you banned. Other than that, I'd love to get some comments.