The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative has filed a brief with the Michigan Court of Appeals asking it to order the Board of Canvassers to follow the recommentation of the Secretary of State and certify the petitions submitted by MCRI as sufficient to qualify for the 2006 ballot.
This is not an unreasonable request, inasmuch as 317,757 valid signatures were required; over 500,000 were submitted; and according to a scientifc sample conducted by the Secretary of State an estimated 455,373 of those submitted were valid.
“Based on the results of our petition drive, I think it is very important that Michigan residents get the chance to vote on this issue,” said [MCRI executive director Jennifer] Gratz. “Given the controversy that surrounds this issue, it surprises me that there are groups who would deny letting the voters decide.”
It doesn’t surprise me, and I doubt that it really surprises Jennifer, given her experience with those groups. As MCRI’s press release states,
The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative Committee (MCRI) … is dedicated to giving the people of Michigan the opportunity to end preferential treatment based on race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin by State or local governments. MCRI will make Michigan a place of equal opportunity for all, not a State that uses discrimination as a tool to create “diversity.” Achieving “diversity” and “affirmative action” should never be an excuse to discriminate!
Of course those who support racial preferences, and who have threatened to defend them “by any means necessary,” don’t want people to be allowed, by democratic vote, to end the racial discrimination they support.
Of course, they won’t get out of the way of a democratic move towards justice; in their minds, the majority is illegitimate just for being capable of frustrating the willfulness of a minority. How is a government professoriate to use minorities as cannon fodder for leftist tyranny, if the majority can block them from doing so, and has the effrontery to claim to have rights?
BAMN should be prosecuted under federal RICO statutes. Their chanting of, “No Justice, No Peace” during the Gratz and Grutter arguments obviously scared Justice O’Connor out of her bloomers…
John S. Bolton writes:
>>>Of course, they won’t get out of the way of a democratic move towards justice; in their minds, the majority is illegitimate just for being capable of frustrating the willfulness of a minority.”
The history of America is replete with just that; a white majority frustrating the “willfulness” of minority groups seeking justice. Maybe you need to review the record of white majority treatment of Native Americans, African Americans and other underrepresented minorities before considering today’s attempts at “minority frustration” unique.
–Cobra
The “history of America” is irrelevant and should be ignored.
You could also review the treatment of Catholics by Protestants.
The constant recitation of past grievances is precisely what needs to be jettisoned.
It doesn’t matter.
All that does matter is equality of opportunity and equality before the law. Now.
The history of America is replete with examples of civil righs bills passing by democratic means. It is, in fact, the only way lasting justice can be achieved.
The bill in question is obviously another civil rights bill, guaranteeing equal opportunity for all. There are no obvious arguments against its very clear language, and there are no examples in recent history in which this type of bill has hurt anyone.
BTW, the people who want to pass it have a strong gender mix, so there is at least one minority who favors it. (I know, I know, women are not a minority, but …)
Quota advocates can’t prove that the descendants of those who got less than their expected share in the past would have inherited anything from those ancestors. Low income populations don’t leave inheritances to speak of, in modern society. It is easy to show, though, that an egalitarian society would have guaranteed them no inheritance, if it would have been a socialist one, with real egalitarian tendencies. Aggression is not justice; aggression to enforce equality of results is also not justice.
Dom writes:
>>>The history of America is replete with examples of civil righs bills passing by democratic means. It is, in fact, the only way lasting justice can be achieved.”
Actually, federal civil rights legislation in America is rarely written, and almost never unanimously favored.
–Cobra
I disagree with both statements in the previous post.
The best government is the least government. So, who cares how many civil rights bills are passed? The fewer the better.
Lasting justice may be best achieved by keeping the government out of your home and your business. And, yes, most Americans are probably in favor of this.
“Actually, federal civil rights legislation in America is rarely written, and almost never unanimously favored.”
What does this mean? “rarely written” … Legislation is always written, or do I misunderstand you?
“unanimously favored” … It isn’t supposed to be unanimous.
Dom
“BTW, the people who want to pass it have a strong gender mix, so there is at least one minority who favors it. (I know, I know, women are not a minority, but …)”
Actually, the person who started this effort was Ward Connerly, an african-american. This is also the man who (successfully) fought to end AA in California.
Therefore, at least one minority leader recognizes that preferences are ultimately divisive and harmful to everyone, not just the groups directly discriminated against.
J. writes:
>>>”Actually, the person who started this effort was Ward Connerly, an african-american. This is also the man who (successfully) fought to end AA in California.
Therefore, at least one minority leader recognizes that preferences are ultimately divisive and harmful to everyone, not just the groups directly discriminated against.”
There were also Native Americans who hunted down other tribes for the US Calvary, and African Americans who fought for the Confederacy.
–Cobra