D**0
发帖数: 2048 | 1 ☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
cne0904 (cne0904) 于 (Tue Apr 22 12:19:37 2014, 美东) 提到:
那些被鼓动上街、打电话、发邮件传真结果把华裔民选议员搞掉的人们，是时候仔细想
想那些在背后煽动的人是什么东西了。
这些人要么成事不足败事有余；要么别有用心：句号。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
saturnsaturn (土星) 于 (Tue Apr 22 12:21:08 2014, 美东) 提到:
最高法院站在人民这一边！
结束极左民主党在加州的统治！大家加油！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
cne0904 (cne0904) 于 (Tue Apr 22 12:26:07 2014, 美东) 提到:
明白：1/4的华裔是人民，3/4的华裔不是人民。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
ice2000 (ice) 于 (Tue Apr 22 12:27:10 2014, 美东) 提到:
仔细读文章
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/us/supreme-court-michigan-aff
高院的意思是说，要不要禁止AA我们不管，你们state自己决定。
In earlier cases, including one from June concerning the University of Texas
, the court has said that race-conscious admissions policies can be
constitutionally permissible in states that wish to use them.
就是说如果SCA-5过了，高院也不会推翻它。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
cne0904 (cne0904) 于 (Tue Apr 22 12:43:36 2014, 美东) 提到:
布朗州长已经否决了类似的议案。加州已经作了决定。读一读加州的评论：最失望的是
公立大学校长们（不能招更多的学生=不能要更多的经费）。
Texas
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
ManYouKe (漫游客) 于 (Tue Apr 22 12:45:37 2014, 美东) 提到:
You are wrong. Please delete your post and avoid misleading people.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
biglizheng (wha) 于 (Tue Apr 22 13:04:21 2014, 美东) 提到:
This post is really misleading. Basically the supreme court says it's the
state's decision. In another word, if Hernandez lead a campaign that
eventually put SCA5 into constitution, the supreme court won't overturn it
either.
This means our ground work is really critical now. We have to protect
California constitution ourself in this issue.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
ice2000 (ice) 于 (Tue Apr 22 13:09:50 2014, 美东) 提到:
楼主这个ID 基本就是搅浑水的，不是第一次看到这个ID有意发这些misleading 帖子了
---传说中间的洗地贴
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Hagel (Hagel) 于 (Tue Apr 22 13:26:25 2014, 美东) 提到:
这才是正解。
Texas
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
cne0904 (cne0904) 于 (Tue Apr 22 14:29:02 2014, 美东) 提到:
道不同不足为谋。你们当然不会听如KQED等电台也不会读本地报纸的评论。可以说你们
不屑和你们意见相反的媒体。也可能是你们根本不在加州。
Texas
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
hpzd (史上最能吃发球) 于 (Tue Apr 22 14:32:12 2014, 美东) 提到:
你要是不同意别人对高法判决的解读，说下你的理解。喊口号没用的。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
ccma (艾娃) 于 (Tue Apr 22 14:51:47 2014, 美东) 提到:
你的帖子误导大家。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
ccma (艾娃) 于 (Tue Apr 22 14:53:12 2014, 美东) 提到:
在版主动作之前，希望您重发一贴以正视听。谢谢
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
terminal2000 (terminal2000) 于 (Tue Apr 22 15:14:52 2014, 美东) 提到:
滚你妈逼的
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
majia88888 (马佳佳) 于 (Tue Apr 22 15:59:10 2014, 美东) 提到:
这个语言太粗俗了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
cne0904 (cne0904) 于 (Tue Apr 22 16:02:19 2014, 美东) 提到:
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_25613445/u-s-supreme
注意加州（政府）及最高法院的立场。任何事情都需要放在一定环境下解释。最高法院
也并没有说选民公投就一定合宪。它只是说密西根的做法是否违宪。
In a decision that likely makes California's Proposition 209 bullet proof
against legal attack, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld an identical
Michigan law that bans affirmative action in public programs such as
university admissions.
...
The case had major implications for California, where Proposition 209 since
1996 has forbidden consideration of race and gender in university admissions
, contracting and other public programs throughout the state. Legal
challenges to Proposition 209 have failed, and its critics considered the
Supreme Court case out of Michigan the last, best chance to revive the
prospect of a renewed challenge in the courts.
As a result of Tuesday's decision, the only likely method for Proposition
209 opponents to get rid of the law would be a move to repeal it at the
ballot box. However, that tactic has repeatedly stalled, including a recent
proposal to put the issue before voters again that failed to rally enough
support in the Legislature.
...
California, joined by five other states and the District of Columbia, joined
civil rights groups in asking the Supreme Court to invalidate Michigan's
Proposal 2, enacted in 2006. The University of California also opposed the
law in the high court, noting that Proposition 209 has dramatically reduced
the admissions rates for Latino, black and Native American students,
particularly at highly selective schools such as UC-Berkeley and UCLA.
Other California interests sided against the Michigan law in the Supreme
Court, including a number of high school districts in urban areas such as
Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco, where school officials say Proposition
209 dashes the college hopes of minority students. BART also jumped into the
case, arguing that the state law has hampered hiring of minority
contractors.
Legal experts had predicted that the conservative Supreme Court was likely
to leave laws such as Michigan's and California's intact. Supporters of the
law, such as Ward Connerly, a former UC regent and architect of the Michigan
and California laws, argue that the approach is race-neutral, and does not
target any particular group.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
hpzd (史上最能吃发球) 于 (Tue Apr 22 16:15:09 2014, 美东) 提到:
你到底想说什么？高院的立场这些年都是一样的：
“race-conscious admissions policies can be constitutionally permissible in
states that wish to use them”
prop 209不违宪，加州高院在2010就做出了判决。你从哪里看出来“UM的判决宣判了
SCA5死
刑”？美国多数州都是实行 race-conscious admissions policies，高院从来没用认
为他们违宪。
identical
since
admissions
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
hpzd (史上最能吃发球) 于 (Tue Apr 22 16:17:41 2014, 美东) 提到:
你的逻辑等同于认为：
宪法允许人吃大米 ＝＝ 不吃大米违宪
identical
since
admissions
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
ManYouKe (漫游客) 于 (Tue Apr 22 16:18:44 2014, 美东) 提到:
你说的基本都对，但是联邦高法从来没有参与prop 209。只有加州高法和联邦巡回法院
判定prop209不违宪。
in
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
hpzd (史上最能吃发球) 于 (Tue Apr 22 16:21:40 2014, 美东) 提到:
谢谢，改成加州高院了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
TopHuang (Top+Gun) 于 (Tue Apr 22 19:23:07 2014, 美东) 提到:
他否决是因为当时提案违反加州宪法，不是他不支持
这次SCA5是直接修改加州宪法，不要混淆视听
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
abracadabra (abracadabra) 于 (Tue Apr 22 19:41:21 2014, 美东) 提到:
楼主明显误导，麻痹大家。极左势力亡我之心不死。
Texas
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
saiholmes (saiholmes) 于 (Tue Apr 22 22:26:51 2014, 美东) 提到:
cne0904你可不可以好好读英文呀?
读都读不懂还要装懂 |
|
