jmdrake, there's no reason to escalate. You're not contending against what I wrote. You are only misinterpreting what I wrote.
It's not about ball size. ok?
Italicized is yours:
I tell you what. You post a picture of your law degree and I'll post a picture of mine. YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
This is an ad homenim attack. My degrees are in history, not law. But nobody here is going to post JPG's of their diplomas, at least I hope not. So, the content of the writing is what serves as evidence. Back to THAT.
I already gave you the reference to the Bob Jones univeristy case. That university had a racist policy against interracial dating.
I have no idea why you thought I was unfamiliar with the case. It is off-topic to my points about Hillsdale.
They were not shut down.
I never said they were. Try reading what I write instead of fuming and imagining what I write.
But they were stripped of their tax excempt status. That not only blocked them from receiving federal funds, but it meant that anyone who donated to them would not get a tax write off.
True, but I still have no idea why your imagination felt I was not aware of that.
just because you are recognized by the state doesn't mean you have some duty to follow the equal protection clause. Every business has a state liense. Business are not required to follow the equal protection clause. Where the hell did you even get that idea from? And if your ridiculous argument were even true (and it's not) then your "solution" of repealing the civil rights act wouldn't even work because the Equal Protection Clause is in the constitution, not the Civil Rights Act.
Okay, although my initial citation in this matter was about the Civil Rights Act, the post you are replying to clearly says Fourteenth Amendment, NOT Civil Rights Act. Still, everything is linked because both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are
connected with the Fourteenth Amendment, according to multiple SCOTUS rulings and opinions.
On the heart of your complaint about my post, the only complaint that is relevant. I was talking out the potential cases and vulnerabilities that could be brought to bear by states and other parties against Hillsdale IF they do what Hornberger said they CAN DO. The Bob Jones case from decades ago, and the supposition that Hillsdale College TODAY has the right to ignore SCOTUS and implement its own affirmative-action based on race (Which is what Hornerger claims and is the REASON I am posting in this thread) are not legal equivalents!! They are actual opposites. Prior to this new ruling, which btw Harvard is a private university, SCOTUS did not bind the Fourteenth Amendment's EPC to race-based college admissions. But NOW they ARE tied. Although Bob Jones relented, the reason why no penalties against them were brought to court was that UNTIL NOW the SCOTUS did not rule that applicants Constitutional Rights were Violated. NOW THEY ARE. This opens up all sorts of
NEW obligations by STATES (Like Michigan towards Hillsdale), vis-a-vis the EPC: (All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens(1) of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..) who have the authority to sustain and license even private schools. I also mentioned associations that determine metriculation and degree recognitions, and accreditations that all become vulnerable if Hillsdale wants to challenge the Fourteenth Amendment rights of its applicants (again, this is a new association!) ... one last thing, from my prior post - which you did not address - Bob Jones University vs. United States, Footnote 29 says: "We deal here only with religious schools - not with churches or other purely religious institutions".
So, there is precedent that ONLY PURELY religious institutions have exception granted by the First Amendment, but not their SCHOOLS".
One final clarification. In the post you reply to, I said the Fourteenth Amendment violates the Bill of Rights. What I meant was that the Fourteenth Amdment's and it's subsequently ratified clauses (Reconstruction period), in this case the EPC (which nine states would not ratify, even after the Civil War) are problematic; and most emphatically, I meant that the line of SCOTUS rulings since then (of which this year's are only the latest) interpretations and applications of the Amendment violate the spirit of the Bill of Rights, and this is where I SHARE Hornberger's primary sentiment because if there was not a perceived violation, Hornberger wouldn't have written his article, and we wouldn't be here commenting on it.
(1) Scotus has also ruled on multiple occasions that the EPC applies not merely to citizens, but to "but any person, whoever he may be", of "may happen to be" within the jurisdiction of a state", "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality".
