Jump to content
KonichiwaRN KonichiwaRN (Member) Nurse

As a first generation American..

Politics   (3,809 Views 253 Comments)
311 Visitors; 390 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 11 of As a first generation American... If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

1 hour ago, KonichiwaRN said:

Yes, of course.

It's just that my thought derives from evidence based reality of how things are in this nation.

And I'm looking at it "as a minority." ūüôā

What evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

What evidence?

The absence of the "systemic racism" in place..as the population that believes in such rhetoric cannot prove.

 

If you state it, the burden of proof exists on your shoulders. So far, I've been hearing their side give examples from the colonial days, civil war days, and the days of Jim Crow laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, chare said:

Where exactly in this article does it state that any North Carolina Republican admitted to suppressing any Black vote?  

I didn't type that. It was an article about voter suppression in the new district that was ordered by a district court to re-draw the lines because of gerrymandering in favor of Republicans after the 2016 election. The ninth district is about 20% Black. Most of the "Harvested" ballots were from minority voters.   

Quote

‚ÄúVotes have been stolen by preying on senior and minority voters, and now a cloud of doubt and suspicion hangs over this election result,‚ÄĚ Connolly said.¬† ¬†¬†https://thefederalist.com/2018/12/14/ballot-harvesting-became-new-way-steal-election/ ¬†

Posted February 19, 2019

..On Monday, a political operative working for Republican congressional candidate Mark Harris admitted to election officials that she illegally picked up and falsified absentee ballots as part of a scheme to help Harris steal the 2018 midterm election, CNN reported...

...   In the North Carolina contest, Harris was fighting off the Democratic wave in his district to keep a congressional seat that Republicans held for more than half a century. He had 905-vote lead over Democrat Dan McCready after the ballots were counted in the ninth district race, but the state board of elections declined to certify Harris as the winner because of absentee balloting irregularities.

Election officials and witnesses said that the scheme may have involved more than 1,000 absentee ballots or request forms. Republican operatives were accused of forging signatures, completing ballots and mailing them from post offices near the voter’s home.

Lisa Britt, a felon who had illegally cast her own ballot, admitted on the witness stand on Monday that she illegally collected between 35 and 40 absentee ballots in violation of state law. A consulting firm working for Harris paid her at least $150 per 50 absentee ballots she collected.

https://newsone.com/3846616/north-carolina-republicans-voter-suppression/

Tweets were in the article near the bottom. The first states, "Attorney for Mark Harris, the candidate who benefitted from this scheme, is now cross examining Lisa Britt. The attorney trying to suggest this is no big deal b/c the ballots that Britt took belonged to Republicans. This is FALSE. Black & Native American voters were most impacted.

Also the only photo of a voter, who bravely testified is not of a White person. If you disagree with the title of the 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KonichiwaRN said:

The absence of the "systemic racism" in place..as the population that believes in such rhetoric cannot prove.

 

If you state it, the burden of proof exists on your shoulders. So far, I've been hearing their side give examples from the colonial days, civil war days, and the days of Jim Crow laws.

Your opening paragraph is incoherent, and therefore, makes no sense.

In order to understand why Black Lives Matter movement exists, you must first understand the racial history Of this country.

It is clear, you do not.

It might be easier for you, if you looked back to Japan's issues with minorities.

The country has a long history of excluding foreigners, and discouraging immigration.

I suggest there are similarities between the US and Japan in that regard.

In order to understand the present, we must frequently look to the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, KonichiwaRN said:

The absence of the "systemic racism" in place..as the population that believes in such rhetoric cannot prove.

 

If you state it, the burden of proof exists on your shoulders. So far, I've been hearing their side give examples from the colonial days, civil war days, and the days of Jim Crow laws.

Your posts suggest you are a newborn, with no knowledge of how the past influences the present and future.

You are engaging with people, some whom actively participated in the civil rights struggle.

Some actively participate in the daily struggle of women, in the US, to achieve equal rights.

Holocaust survivors are still alive.

And so on.

To be taken seriously, you must get past the neonate stage.

Edited by Lil Nel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement
21 hours ago, KonichiwaRN said:

So since it was so rampant..

there must be evidence and court cases that backs up the argument?

 

Oh. Is it just allegations? Or is it asking for a driver's license is too much?

 

Quote

United States Supreme Court

COOPER, GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA, ET AL. v. HARRIS ET AL.(2017)

No. 15-1262

Argued: December 5, 2016    Decided: May 22, 2017

...    KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ.,joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion.

ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, J., joined. GORSUCH, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case...

...    The Constitution entrusts States with the job of designing congressional districts. But it also imposes an important constraint: A State may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason. In this case, a three-judge District Court ruled that North Carolina officials violated that bar when they created two districts whose voting-age populations were majority black. Applying a deferential standard of review to the factual findings underlying that decision, we affirm...

...    Uncontested evidence in the record shows that the State's mapmakers, in considering District 1, purposefully established a racial target: African-Americans should make up no less than a majority of the voting-age population. See 159 F. Supp. 3d, at 611-614. Senator Rucho and Representative Lewis were not coy in expressing that goal. They repeatedly told their colleagues that District 1 had to be majority-minority, so as to comply with the VRA. During a Senate debate, for example, Rucho explained that District 1 "must include a sufficient number of African-Americans" to make it "a majority black district." App. 689-690. Similarly, Lewis informed the House and Senate redistricting committees that the district must have "a majority black voting age population." Id., at 610. And that objective was communicated in no uncertain terms to the legislators' consultant. Dr. Hofeller testified multiple times at trial that Rucho and Lewis instructed him "to draw [District 1] with a [BVAP] in excess of 50 percent." 159 F. Supp. 3d, at 613; see, e.g., ibid. ("Once again, my instructions [were] that the district had to be drawn at above 50 percent").

     Hofeller followed those directions to the letter, such that the 50%-plus racial target "had a direct and significant impact" on District 1's configuration. Alabama, 575 U. S., at __ (slip op., at 17). In particular, Hofeller moved the district's borders to encompass the heavily black parts of Durham (and only those parts), thus taking in tens of thousands of additional African-American voters. That change and similar ones, made (in his words) to ensure that the district's racial composition would "add[ ] up correctly," deviated from the districting practices he otherwise would have followed. App. 2802. Hofeller candidly admitted that point: For example, he testified, he sometimes could not respect county or precinct lines as he wished because "the more important thing" was to create a majority-minority district. Id., at 2807; see id., at 2809. The result is a district with stark racial borders: Within the same counties, the portions that fall inside District 1 have black populations two to three times larger than the portions placed in neighboring districts. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19; cf. Alabama, 575 U. S., at ___-___ (slip op., at 17-18) (relying on similar evidence to find racial predominance).

     Faced with this body of evidence--showing an announced racial target that subordinated other districting criteria and produced boundaries amplifying divisions between blacks and whites--the District Court did not clearly err in finding that race predominated in drawing District 1. Indeed, as all three judges recognized, the court could hardly have concluded anything but. See 159 F. Supp. 3d, at 611 (calling District 1 a "textbook example" of race-based districting)....

...   The more substantial question is whether District 1 can survive the strict scrutiny applied to racial gerrymanders. As noted earlier, we have long assumed that complying with the VRA is a compelling interest. See supra, at 2. And we have held that race-based districting is narrowly tailored to that objective if a State had "good reasons" for thinking that the Act demanded such steps. See supra, at 3. North Carolina argues that District 1 passes muster under that standard: The General Assembly (so says the State) had "good reasons to believe it needed to draw [District 1] as a majority-minority district to avoid Section 2 liability" for vote dilution. Brief for Appellants 52. We now turn to that defense.

     This Court identified, in Thornburg v. Gingles, three threshold conditions for proving vote dilution under §2 of the VRA. See 478 U. S., at 50-51. First, a "minority group" must be "sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority" in some reasonably configured legislative district. Id., at 50. Second, the minority group must be "politically cohesive." Id., at 51. And third, a district's white majority must "vote[ ] sufficiently as a bloc" to usually "defeat the minority's preferred candidate." Ibid. Those three showings, we have explained, are needed to establish that "the minority [group] has the potential to elect a representative of its own choice" in a possible district, but that racially polarized voting prevents it from doing so in the district as actually drawn because it is "submerg[ed] in a larger white voting population." Growe v. Emison, 507 U. S. 25, 40 (1993). If a State has good reason to think that all the "Gingles preconditions" are met, then so too it has good reason to believe that §2 requires drawing a majority-minority district. See Bush v. Vera, 517 U. S. 952, 978 (1996) (plurality opinion). But if not, then not.

     Here, electoral history provided no evidence that a §2 plaintiff could demonstrate the third Gingles prerequisite--effective white bloc-voting.4 For most of the twenty years prior to the new plan's adoption, African-Americans had made up less than a majority of District 1's voters; the district's BVAP usually hovered between 46% and 48%. See 159 F. Supp. 3d, at 606; App. 312. Yet throughout those two decades, as the District Court noted, District 1 was "an extraordinarily safe district for African-American preferred candidates." 159 F. Supp. 3d, at 626. In the closest election during that period, African-Americans' candidate of choice received 59% of the total vote; in other years, the share of the vote garnered by those candidates rose to as much as 70%. See supra, at 5. Those victories (indeed, landslides) occurred because the district's white population did not "vote[ ] sufficiently as a bloc" to thwart black voters' preference, Gingles, 478 U. S., at 51; rather, a meaningful number of white voters joined a politically cohesive black community to elect that group's favored candidate. In the lingo of voting law, District 1 functioned, election year in and election year out, as a "crossover" district, in which members of the majority help a "large enough" minority to elect its candidate of choice. Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U. S. 1, 13 (2009) (plurality opinion). When voters act in that way, "t is difficult to see how the majority-bloc-voting requirement could be met"--and hence how §2 liability could be established. Id., at 16. So experience gave the State no reason to think that the VRA required it to ramp up District 1's BVAP.

     The State counters that, in this context, past performance is no guarantee of future results. See Brief for Appellants 57-58; Reply Brief 19-20. Recall here that the State had to redraw its whole congressional map following the 2010 census. See supra, at 5. And in particular, the State had to add nearly 100,000 new people to District 1 to meet the one-person-one-vote standard. See supra, at 6. That meant about 13% of the voters in the new district would never have voted there before. See App. 2690; Reply Brief 20. So, North Carolina contends, the question facing the state mapmakers was not whether the then-existing District 1 violated §2. Rather, the question was whether the future District 1 would do so if drawn without regard to race. And that issue, the State claims, could not be resolved by "focusing myopically on past elections." Id., at 19.

     But that reasoning, taken alone, cannot justify North Carolina's race-based redesign of District 1. True enough, a legislature undertaking a redistricting must assess whether the new districts it contemplates (not the old ones it sheds) conform to the VRA's requirements. And true too, an inescapable influx of additional voters into a district may suggest the possibility that its former track record of compliance can continue only if the legislature intentionally adjusts its racial composition. Still, North Carolina too far downplays the significance of a longtime pattern of white crossover voting in the area that would form the core of the redrawn District 1. See Gingles, 478 U. S., at 57 (noting that longtime voting patterns are highly probative of racial polarization). And even more important, North Carolina can point to no meaningful legislative inquiry into what it now rightly identifies as the key issue: whether a new, enlarged District 1, created without a focus on race but however else the State would choose, could lead to §2 liability. The prospect of a significant population increase in a district only raises--it does not answer--the question whether §2 requires deliberate measures to augment the district's BVAP. (Indeed, such population growth could cut in either direction, depending on who comes into the district.) To have a strong basis in evidence to conclude that §2 demands such race-based steps, the State must carefully evaluate whether a plaintiff could establish the Gingles preconditions--including effective white bloc-voting--in a new district created without those measures. We see nothing in the legislative record that fits that description.5      And that absence is no accident: Rucho and Lewis proceeded under a wholly different theory--arising not from Gingles but from Bartlett v. Strickland--of what §2 demanded in drawing District 1. Strickland involved a geographic area in which African-Americans could not form a majority of a reasonably compact district. See 556 U. S., at 8 (plurality opinion). The African-American community, however, was sizable enough to enable the formation of a crossover district, in which a substantial bloc of black voters, if receiving help from some white ones, could elect the candidates of their choice. See supra, at 14. A plurality of this Court, invoking the first Gingles precondition, held that §2 did not require creating that district: When a minority group is not sufficiently large to make up a majority in a reasonably shaped district, §2 simply does not apply. See 556 U. S., at 18-20. Over and over in the legislative record, Rucho and Lewis cited Strickland as mandating a 50%-plus BVAP in District 1. See App. 355-356, 363-364, 472-474, 609-610, 619, 1044. They apparently reasoned that if, as Strickland held, §2 does not require crossover districts (for groups insufficiently large under Gingles), then §2 also cannot be satisfied by crossover districts (for groups in fact meeting Gingles' size condition). In effect, they concluded, whenever a legislature can draw a majority-minority district, it must do so--even if a crossover district would also allow the minority group to elect its favored candidates....

...    Applying a clear error standard, we uphold the District Court's conclusions that racial considerations predominated in designing both District 1 and District 12. For District 12, that is all we must do, because North Carolina has made no attempt to justify race-based districting there. For District 1, we further uphold the District Court's decision that §2 of the VRA gave North Carolina no good reason to reshuffle voters because of their race. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the District Court. It is so ordered....

...   JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring.

     I join the opinion of the Court because it correctly applies our precedents under the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 52 U. S. C. §10301 et seq. I write briefly to explain the additional grounds on which I would affirm the three-judge District Court and to note my agreement, in particular, with the Court's clear-error analysis.

     As to District 1, I think North Carolina's concession that it created the district as a majority-black district is by itself sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny. See Brief for Appellants 44; see also, e.g., Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 580 U. S. ___, ___-___ (2017) (slip op., at 1-2) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). I also think that North Carolina cannot satisfy strict scrutiny based on its efforts to comply with §2 of the VRA. See ante, at 12. In my view, §2 does not apply to redistricting and therefore cannot justify a racial gerrymander. See Holder v. Hall, 512 U. S. 874, 922-923 (1994) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment).

     As to District 12, I agree with the Court that the District Court did not clearly err when it determined that race was North Carolina's predominant motive in drawing the district. See ante, at 21. This is the same conclusion I reached when we last reviewed District 12. Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U. S. 234, 267 (2001) (Cromartie II) (dissenting opinion). The Court reached the contrary conclusion in Cromartie II only by misapplying our deferential standard for reviewing factual findings. See id., at 259-262. Today's decision does not repeat Cromartie II's error, and indeed it confines that case to its particular facts. It thus represents a welcome course correction to this Court's application of the clear-error standard...

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/15-1262.html 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The judges who declared the state's partisan gerrymander unconstitutional on Monday adopted the roadmap of liberal Supreme Court justices over the sentiment of conservatives in the high court's recent political redistricting battle. The three-judge panel's reliance on an opinion by Justice Elena Kagan -- which Chief Justice John Roberts had tried to undercut in the case last June -- represents a victory for challengers to partisan gerrymanders (CNN, 2018)."

 

It was deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Gerrymandering. Based in NC. An attempt by NC and you guys call that an example of "institutional racism?"

 

"Roberts has made clear that he believes that judges should not take up such cases. He has said that if judges intervened to find that partisan gerrymander had gone too far to infringe on constitutional rights, siding with either Democrats or Republicans, people would view courts as simply favoring one party over another. But Kagan stressed the "evils of gerrymandering," as did Monday's court, which it found violations based on the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and rights of free speech and association. The appeals court said that the Republican-controlled North Carolina assembly relied on data from past elections showing how particular precincts had voted to "to draw a districting plan that would ensure Republican candidates would prevail in the vast majority of the State's congressional districts and would do so in future elections (CNN, 2018)."

 

There you go. Political battles and you are calling that "systemic racism?"

 

So far, the only evidence that I could get, is against Asians (in Harvard).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, KonichiwaRN said:

"The judges who declared the state's partisan gerrymander unconstitutional on Monday adopted the roadmap of liberal Supreme Court justices over the sentiment of conservatives in the high court's recent political redistricting battle. The three-judge panel's reliance on an opinion by Justice Elena Kagan -- which Chief Justice John Roberts had tried to undercut in the case last June -- represents a victory for challengers to partisan gerrymanders (CNN, 2018)."ÔĽŅ

 

It was deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Gerrymandering. Based in NC. An attempt by NC and you guys call that an example of "institutional racism?"

 

"Roberts has made clear that he believes that judges should not take up such cases. He has said that if judges intervened to find that partisan gerrymander had gone too far to infringe on constitutional rights, siding with either Democrats or Republicans, people would view courts as simply favoring one party over another. But Kagan stressed the "evils of gerrymandering," as did Monday's court, which it found violations based on the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and rights of free speech and association. The appeals court said that the Republican-controlled North Carolina assembly relied on data from past elections showing how particular precincts had voted to "to draw a districting plan that would ensure Republican candidates would prevail in the vast majority of the State's congressional districts and would do so in future elections (CNN, 2018)."

There you go. Political battles and you are calling that "systemic racism?"

So far, the only evidence that I could get, is against Asians (in Harvard).

Please if unable to post a link post the title of the article, opinion, or report so we can look it up. Anyway the quote from CNN is someones opinion. A person who read Justice Kagan and Justice Thomas' opinions that I posted would know there was no statement about "Evils of Gerrymandering".

This was a case by the¬†Supreme Court of the United States¬†in which the Court ruled 5‚Äď3 that the¬†North Carolina General Assembly illegally and heavily used¬†race¬†in re-drawing two Congressional districts.

Kagan, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayo issued the majority opinion.

Quote

Justices Reject 2 Gerrymandered North Carolina Districts, Citing Racial Bias

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/us/politics/supreme-court-north-carolina-congressional-districts.html 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, herring_RN said:

Please if unable to post a link post the title of the article, opinion, or report so we can look it up. Anyway the quote from CNN is someones opinion. A person who read Justice Kagan and Justice Thomas' opinions that I posted would know there was no statement about "Evils of Gerrymandering".

This was a case by the¬†Supreme Court of the United States¬†in which the Court ruled 5‚Äď3 that the¬†North Carolina General Assembly illegally and heavily used¬†race¬†in re-drawing two Congressional districts.

Kagan, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayo issued the majority opinion.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/politics/north-carolina-gerrymandering-kagan-balance-of-power-house/index.html

 

There you go.

 

And it's about "Gerrymandering."

Since when did both parties play that game? And you call that "racism?"

 

Seems nothing more than a marketing ploy, in the political world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people growing up in the United States are more likely to experience institutional racism if they are Black, Hispanic, or are often with family and/or friends who are.

Quote

Stanford researchers develop new statistical test that shows racial profiling in police traffic stops

By analyzing data from 4.5 million traffic stops in 100 North Carolina cities, Stanford researchers have found that police in that state are more likely to search black and Hispanic motorists, using a lower threshold of suspicion, than when they stop white or Asian drivers.

The empirical study found that while blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be searched, those more numerous searches are less likely to uncover illegal drugs or weapons than searches of vehicles with white or Asian drivers...

The Stanford team ‚Äď graduate students Camelia Simoiu and Sam Corbett-Davies, and assistant professor of management science and engineering¬†Sharad Goel¬†‚Äď developed a third, entirely new measurement called a threshold test.

The researchers show that this new measure  offers a statistically rigorous way to quantify how suspicious officers were to initiate a search. For example, did officers conduct searches when there was a 15 percent probability of finding weapons or drugs, or was a 5 percent inkling enough? They correlated these threshold assessments to the race or ethnicity of the subjects across the entire dataset of 4.5 million motor vehicle stops.

‚ÄúOur threshold test suggests that officers apply a double standard when deciding whom to search, with black and Hispanic drivers searched on the basis of less evidence than whites and Asians,‚ÄĚ said Simoiu, adding, ‚ÄúWe consistently observe this pattern of behavior across the largest 100 police departments in the state.‚ÄĚ...

... Stanford researchers went further than prior studies to get a more accurate view of the presence or absence of unfounded discrimination.

They did this by developing a complex statistical tool they call a threshold test. It analyzed four variables for each of the 4.5 million stops:

  • Race of the driver
  • Department of the officer making the stop
  • Whether the stop resulted in a search ‚Äď and, if a search occurred,
  • Whether it turned up drugs, guns or other contraband...

https://news.stanford.edu/2016/06/28/stanford-researchers-develop-new-statistical-test-shows-racial-profiling-police-traffic-stops/ 

Quote

THE PROBLEM OF INFRA-MARGINALITY IN OUTCOME TESTS FOR DISCRIMINATION BY CAMELIA SIMOIU, SAM CORBETT-DAVIES AND SHARAD GOEL Stanford University

https://5harad.com/papers/threshold-test.pdf 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KonichiwaRN said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/politics/north-carolina-gerrymandering-kagan-balance-of-power-house/index.html

There you go.

And it's about "Gerrymandering."

Since when did both parties play that game? And you call that "racism?"

Seems nothing more than a marketing ploy, in the political world.

Thank you very much for the link.

It is not regarding the Supreme Court decision I posted. It is an opinion about a lower court decision the author states was influenced by something written or said by Justice Kagan.

I had posted regarding¬†a case by the¬†Supreme Court of the United States¬†in which the Court ruled 5‚Äď3 that the¬†North Carolina General Assembly illegally ¬†heavily relied on¬†race¬†in re-drawing two Congressional districts.

Kagan, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayo issued the majority opinion. You can read it here:   https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1262_db8e.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
√ó