🚨 WSJ: 1866 law promised freed slaves the same rights as whites. Conservative legal activists say it bars many corporate diversity programs

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
329,110
Reputation
-34,085
Daps
635,319
Reppin
The Deep State

Elections matter. Peep game​


:ufdup:

America First Legal Foundation, the group backing the Texas lawsuit against Amazon, has written to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, urging the four current commissioners to bypass the usual complaint process and open investigations into diversity practices at a range of brand-name companies.

Andrea Lucas, who was nominated to the commission by President Trump, :stopitslime: declined to comment on the likelihood that she or other commissioners would open investigations. She said she sees “significant legal and practical risk” in many corporate diversity programs. “Equal opportunity is our charge,” she said of the agency’s mission, “but the law does not demand equal outcomes.” :mjpls:
 

DrBanneker

Space is the Place
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
6,223
Reputation
5,290
Daps
22,397
Reppin
Figthing borg at Wolf 359
So here is a thought to ponder: why use the Civil Rights Act of 1866 instead of the Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits racial discrimination?

Probably because the CRA of 1964 is one of their ultimate targets and it would look goofy using it and then turning on it. The CRA of 1866 obviously has no teeth since it didn't prevent a damn thing once Reconstruction ended.

@BaggerofTea is right, they hate us having a damn thing.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
329,110
Reputation
-34,085
Daps
635,319
Reppin
The Deep State
So here is a thought to ponder: why use the Civil Rights Act of 1866 instead of the Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits racial discrimination?

Probably because the CRA of 1964 is one of their ultimate targets and it would look goofy using it and then turning on it. The CRA of 1866 obviously has no teeth since it didn't prevent a damn thing once Reconstruction ended.

@BaggerofTea is right, they hate us having a damn thing.
They’re coming for birthright citizenship eventually. They gotta go that far back.
 

Buddy

FAIA (Foundational African In America) 😤
Joined
Apr 28, 2014
Messages
21,360
Reputation
7,458
Daps
88,741
No more of that "diversity and people of color" talk family
full
 

TRUEST

Superstar
Joined
May 17, 2012
Messages
15,457
Reputation
3,174
Daps
58,080
Reppin
NULL
Its far more sinister.

the victim veneer is just a way of looking like a sheep when playing wolf.


That want you and I and the rest of the black race stuck in perpetual 3rd class hood.



They dont mind seeing the worst of us, it makes them feel better.


But the best of us shakes them to their core.


Thats why they have attacked oppurtunities for underprivilieged intelligence black people to get into ivy league school.s


They dont want a black intelligencia validated by the most refined educational instutions on the planet.




its going to get worse before it gets better
Nah it’s gotten worse enough. 400 years is more than sufficient. Now it’s blast on sight. And I don’t mean with guns or bombs. That’ll be too easy for them to rally against. But the brewing war is one of the intellectual.
 

DrBanneker

Space is the Place
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
6,223
Reputation
5,290
Daps
22,397
Reppin
Figthing borg at Wolf 359
They’re coming for birthright citizenship eventually. They gotta go that far back.

Absent dictatorship, that would require a constitutional amendment--SCOTUS can't touch it. Either 2/3 of states or 2/3 of both houses of Congress are needed to propose it and then 75% of states (38) gotta ratify it.

Given their Ls with anti-Dobbs referenda in red states that will be a tall order to get through.

It can't be retroactive. Congress can only revoke citizenship of naturalized foreign born persons under narrow circumstances within 5 years of naturalization.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
329,110
Reputation
-34,085
Daps
635,319
Reppin
The Deep State
Absent dictatorship, that would require a constitutional amendment--SCOTUS can't touch it. Either 2/3 of states or 2/3 of both houses of Congress are needed to propose it and then 75% of states (38) gotta ratify it.

Given their Ls with anti-Dobbs referenda in red states that will be a tall order to get through.

It can't be retroactive. Congress can only revoke citizenship of naturalized foreign born persons under narrow circumstances within 5 years of naturalization.

They’re going to do something with undocumented people some how some way.

DeSantis handlers have him talking about it:


If Tim Scott is even commenting on it they’re thinking about it:

 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
329,110
Reputation
-34,085
Daps
635,319
Reppin
The Deep State
Top