[Zeitgeist]

SK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.

SESSIONS: “In 1997 when you came before the Senate and I was a new senator, I asked you this. In a suit challenging a government racial preference in quota or set-aside, will you follow the Supreme Court decision in Adarand and subject racial preferences to the strictest judicial scrutiny,” close quote. In other words, I asked you would you follow the Supreme Court’s binding decision in Adarand v. Pena.”
In Adarand, the Supreme Court held that all governmental discrimination, including Affirmative Action programs, that discriminated by race of an applicant must face strict scrutiny in the courts. In other words, this is not a light thing to do. When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it, or it’s not acceptable.”

“After Adarand, the government agencies must prove there is a compelling state interest in support of any decision to treat people differently by race. This is what you answered: ‘In my view, the Adarand court correctly determined that the same level of scrutiny — strict scrutiny applies for the purpose of evaluating the constitutionality of all government classifications, whether at the state or federal level, based on race,’ close quote. So that was your answer, and it deals with government being the City of New Haven.”

“You made a commitment to this committee to follow Adarand. In view of this commitment you gave me 12 years ago, why are the words ‘Adarand,” ‘Equal protection’ and ‘Strict scrutiny’ are completely missing from any of your panel’s discussion of this decision?”

She either has a faulty memory or she says what she thinks she needs to say at the time. How very convenient.

[Zeitgeist]

SK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.

SESSIONS: “In 1997 when you came before the Senate and I was a new senator, I asked you this. In a suit challenging a government racial preference in quota or set-aside, will you follow the Supreme Court decision in Adarand and subject racial preferences to the strictest judicial scrutiny,” close quote. In other words, I asked you would you follow the Supreme Court’s binding decision in Adarand v. Pena.”
In Adarand, the Supreme Court held that all governmental discrimination, including Affirmative Action programs, that discriminated by race of an applicant must face strict scrutiny in the courts. In other words, this is not a light thing to do. When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it, or it’s not acceptable.”

“After Adarand, the government agencies must prove there is a compelling state interest in support of any decision to treat people differently by race. This is what you answered: ‘In my view, the Adarand court correctly determined that the same level of scrutiny — strict scrutiny applies for the purpose of evaluating the constitutionality of all government classifications, whether at the state or federal level, based on race,’ close quote. So that was your answer, and it deals with government being the City of New Haven.”

“You made a commitment to this committee to follow Adarand. In view of this commitment you gave me 12 years ago, why are the words ‘Adarand,” ‘Equal protection’ and ‘Strict scrutiny’ are completely missing from any of your panel’s discussion of this decision?”

She either has a faulty memory or she says what she thinks she needs to say at the time. How very convenient.

[Zeitgeist]

SK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.

SESSIONS: “In 1997 when you came before the Senate and I was a new senator, I asked you this. In a suit challenging a government racial preference in quota or set-aside, will you follow the Supreme Court decision in Adarand and subject racial preferences to the strictest judicial scrutiny,” close quote. In other words, I asked you would you follow the Supreme Court’s binding decision in Adarand v. Pena.”
In Adarand, the Supreme Court held that all governmental discrimination, including Affirmative Action programs, that discriminated by race of an applicant must face strict scrutiny in the courts. In other words, this is not a light thing to do. When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it, or it’s not acceptable.”

“After Adarand, the government agencies must prove there is a compelling state interest in support of any decision to treat people differently by race. This is what you answered: ‘In my view, the Adarand court correctly determined that the same level of scrutiny — strict scrutiny applies for the purpose of evaluating the constitutionality of all government classifications, whether at the state or federal level, based on race,’ close quote. So that was your answer, and it deals with government being the City of New Haven.”

“You made a commitment to this committee to follow Adarand. In view of this commitment you gave me 12 years ago, why are the words ‘Adarand,” ‘Equal protection’ and ‘Strict scrutiny’ are completely missing from any of your panel’s discussion of this decision?”

She either has a faulty memory or she says what she thinks she needs to say at the time. How very convenient.

[Zeitgeist]

SK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.

SESSIONS: “In 1997 when you came before the Senate and I was a new senator, I asked you this. In a suit challenging a government racial preference in quota or set-aside, will you follow the Supreme Court decision in Adarand and subject racial preferences to the strictest judicial scrutiny,” close quote. In other words, I asked you would you follow the Supreme Court’s binding decision in Adarand v. Pena.”
In Adarand, the Supreme Court held that all governmental discrimination, including Affirmative Action programs, that discriminated by race of an applicant must face strict scrutiny in the courts. In other words, this is not a light thing to do. When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it, or it’s not acceptable.”

“After Adarand, the government agencies must prove there is a compelling state interest in support of any decision to treat people differently by race. This is what you answered: ‘In my view, the Adarand court correctly determined that the same level of scrutiny — strict scrutiny applies for the purpose of evaluating the constitutionality of all government classifications, whether at the state or federal level, based on race,’ close quote. So that was your answer, and it deals with government being the City of New Haven.”

“You made a commitment to this committee to follow Adarand. In view of this commitment you gave me 12 years ago, why are the words ‘Adarand,” ‘Equal protection’ and ‘Strict scrutiny’ are completely missing from any of your panel’s discussion of this decision?”

She either has a faulty memory or she says what she thinks she needs to say at the time. How very convenient.

[Zeitgeist]

SK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.

SESSIONS: “In 1997 when you came before the Senate and I was a new senator, I asked you this. In a suit challenging a government racial preference in quota or set-aside, will you follow the Supreme Court decision in Adarand and subject racial preferences to the strictest judicial scrutiny,” close quote. In other words, I asked you would you follow the Supreme Court’s binding decision in Adarand v. Pena.”
In Adarand, the Supreme Court held that all governmental discrimination, including Affirmative Action programs, that discriminated by race of an applicant must face strict scrutiny in the courts. In other words, this is not a light thing to do. When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it, or it’s not acceptable.”

“After Adarand, the government agencies must prove there is a compelling state interest in support of any decision to treat people differently by race. This is what you answered: ‘In my view, the Adarand court correctly determined that the same level of scrutiny — strict scrutiny applies for the purpose of evaluating the constitutionality of all government classifications, whether at the state or federal level, based on race,’ close quote. So that was your answer, and it deals with government being the City of New Haven.”

“You made a commitment to this committee to follow Adarand. In view of this commitment you gave me 12 years ago, why are the words ‘Adarand,” ‘Equal protection’ and ‘Strict scrutiny’ are completely missing from any of your panel’s discussion of this decision?”

She either has a faulty memory or she says what she thinks she needs to say at the time. How very convenient.

[Zeitgeist]

I think a presumption is the same as an assumption and you just made an ass out of yourself. You have a very low opinion of women I might add. I suppose some of your best friends are women…

[Zeitgeist]

I think a presumption is the same as an assumption and you just made an ass out of yourself. You have a very low opinion of women I might add. I suppose some of your best friends are women…

[Zeitgeist]

I think a presumption is the same as an assumption and you just made an ass out of yourself. You have a very low opinion of women I might add. I suppose some of your best friends are women…

[Zeitgeist]

I think a presumption is the same as an assumption and you just made an ass out of yourself. You have a very low opinion of women I might add. I suppose some of your best friends are women…

[Zeitgeist]

I think a presumption is the same as an assumption and you just made an ass out of yourself. You have a very low opinion of women I might add. I suppose some of your best friends are women…

[Zeitgeist]

Interesting discussion about Zillow and Cyberhomes:
http://piggington.com/zillow_vs_cyberhomes_wth_happened_to_zillow

[Zeitgeist]

Interesting discussion about Zillow and Cyberhomes:
http://piggington.com/zillow_vs_cyberhomes_wth_happened_to_zillow

[Zeitgeist]

Interesting discussion about Zillow and Cyberhomes:
http://piggington.com/zillow_vs_cyberhomes_wth_happened_to_zillow

[Zeitgeist]

Interesting discussion about Zillow and Cyberhomes:
http://piggington.com/zillow_vs_cyberhomes_wth_happened_to_zillow

[Zeitgeist]

Interesting discussion about Zillow and Cyberhomes:
http://piggington.com/zillow_vs_cyberhomes_wth_happened_to_zillow

[Author]

Posts