Civil Rights Are Going To Change...

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
Our Supreme Court is going to hear a case that could change Civil Right laws for decades...

Link:https://content.next.westlaw.com/Do...ontextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981) A federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, and ethnicity when making and enforcing contracts. ... It does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of any other protected class.

Article: https://deadline.com/2019/09/comcas...n-battle-byron-allen-urban-league-1202747067/

“Comcast – the second largest broadcasting and cable television company in the world – is poised to take an unprecedented step,” the NAACP added. “Because of a dispute with a Black businessman, the company has urged the Supreme Court to roll back the crucial protections of one of the nation’s oldest civil rights laws, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.”

Snip...

Here is the NAACP statement:

In several weeks, the Supreme Court will hear one of the most important civil rights cases to come before it this term. Comcast – the second largest broadcasting and cable television company in the world – is poised to take an unprecedented step. Because of a dispute with a Black businessman, the company has urged the Supreme Court to roll back the crucial protections of one of the nation’s oldest civil rights laws, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

For more than a century, Section 1981 has been used as an important tool to combat race discrimination, particularly for employment discrimination claimants. Throughout the NAACP’s history, standard-bearers of justice like Thurgood Marshall have harnessed the power of Section 1981 to fight various forms of discrimination. Yet now, in a situation that has become all too familiar during this era, an upcoming Supreme Court decision has the potential to reject these lessons of history by rolling back the clock on basic civil rights.

Although the NAACP takes no position on the underlying dispute, we have decided to take the lead on this issue. We urge Comcast to cease its attack on Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866; a bedrock civil rights statute that has been in place for more than 150 years.


Snip... https://naacp.org/comcast/

Comcast, the largest U.S. cable provider, is urging the Supreme Court to roll back vital protections in one of the country’s longest-standing civil rights laws—Section 1981. With the support of the Trump administration, Comcast is attempting to turn back the clock on civil rights, making it harder for Black businesses and contractors to challenge racial discrimination under a law that has been around since 1866.

Black workers and businesses are already burdened by the intentional discrimination in their day to day lives; weakening one of the primary vehicles for challenging that discrimination is simply unconscionable

 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
Here is Trump's directed attacks on Civil and Human rights from his office...


Snip... 2017

On February 21, the Department of Homeland Security issued a memo updating immigration enforcement guidance, massively expanding the number of people subject to detention and deportation. The guidance drastically increased the use of expedited removal and essentially eliminated the priorities for deportation.

Snip... 2017

On August 29, the administration halted an EEOC rule that required large companies to disclose what they pay employees by sex, race, and ethnicity – a rule that was intended to remedy the unequal pay that remains rampant in the American workplace.

Snip...
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
Our Supreme Court is going to hear a case that could change Civil Right laws for decades...

Link:https://content.next.westlaw.com/Do...ontextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981) A federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, and ethnicity when making and enforcing contracts. ... It does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of any other protected class.

Article: https://deadline.com/2019/09/comcas...n-battle-byron-allen-urban-league-1202747067/

“Comcast – the second largest broadcasting and cable television company in the world – is poised to take an unprecedented step,” the NAACP added. “Because of a dispute with a Black businessman, the company has urged the Supreme Court to roll back the crucial protections of one of the nation’s oldest civil rights laws, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.”

Snip...

Here is the NAACP statement:

In several weeks, the Supreme Court will hear one of the most important civil rights cases to come before it this term. Comcast – the second largest broadcasting and cable television company in the world – is poised to take an unprecedented step. Because of a dispute with a Black businessman, the company has urged the Supreme Court to roll back the crucial protections of one of the nation’s oldest civil rights laws, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

For more than a century, Section 1981 has been used as an important tool to combat race discrimination, particularly for employment discrimination claimants. Throughout the NAACP’s history, standard-bearers of justice like Thurgood Marshall have harnessed the power of Section 1981 to fight various forms of discrimination. Yet now, in a situation that has become all too familiar during this era, an upcoming Supreme Court decision has the potential to reject these lessons of history by rolling back the clock on basic civil rights.

Although the NAACP takes no position on the underlying dispute, we have decided to take the lead on this issue. We urge Comcast to cease its attack on Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866; a bedrock civil rights statute that has been in place for more than 150 years.


Snip... https://naacp.org/comcast/

Comcast, the largest U.S. cable provider, is urging the Supreme Court to roll back vital protections in one of the country’s longest-standing civil rights laws—Section 1981. With the support of the Trump administration, Comcast is attempting to turn back the clock on civil rights, making it harder for Black businesses and contractors to challenge racial discrimination under a law that has been around since 1866.

Black workers and businesses are already burdened by the intentional discrimination in their day to day lives; weakening one of the primary vehicles for challenging that discrimination is simply unconscionable
Not sure what the above case is about after reading the links. If Comcast doesn't want to buy content from a minority owned studio how is that racial discrimination! As long has Comcast claims said content is not profitable since not enough people will watch hence insufficient add revenue. Am I missing something?
Kirk's Raiders
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
Not sure what the above case is about after reading the links
Here is a link: explains the case a little better... may have to refresh to get pass the ad black...


  • Comcast looked poised for victory during arguments over a $20 billion racial discrimination case brought by former comedian Byron Allen.
  • The win may not be final. The justices suggested they may erase the company’s defeat before a lower court, but give Allen another shot to bring his case.
  • The question before the Supreme Court was not whether Allen had been discriminated against. Instead, it concerned the reach of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which guarantees black and white citizens the equal right to make and enforce contracts.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Allen,
rejecting the decision of a federal district judge who dismissed the complaint. Conservative and liberal justices alike expressed deep skepticism of the 9th Circuit’s reasoning on Wednesday.

Arguments were highly technical. They concerned at which stage in the legal process which standard should apply. Erwin Chemerinsky, Allen’s attorney, conceded that Allen should have to meet the stricter standard to ultimately win his case. But he said that the lower bar should apply when a case is first brought.

The NAACP wrote in a brief in the matter that “Comcast’s arguments would, in many cases, impose an impossible pleading burden on victims of discrimination.
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
Here is a link: explains the case a little better... may have to refresh to get pass the ad black...


  • Comcast looked poised for victory during arguments over a $20 billion racial discrimination case brought by former comedian Byron Allen.
  • The win may not be final. The justices suggested they may erase the company’s defeat before a lower court, but give Allen another shot to bring his case.
  • The question before the Supreme Court was not whether Allen had been discriminated against. Instead, it concerned the reach of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which guarantees black and white citizens the equal right to make and enforce contracts.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Allen, rejecting the decision of a federal district judge who dismissed the complaint. Conservative and liberal justices alike expressed deep skepticism of the 9th Circuit’s reasoning on Wednesday.

Arguments were highly technical. They concerned at which stage in the legal process which standard should apply. Erwin Chemerinsky, Allen’s attorney, conceded that Allen should have to meet the stricter standard to ultimately win his case. But he said that the lower bar should apply when a case is first brought.

The NAACP wrote in a brief in the matter that “Comcast’s arguments would, in many cases, impose an impossible pleading burden on victims of discrimination.
Still not seeing racial discrimination. Isn't there a black owned cable TV networkI remember BET ? Didn't BET merge with another network?
If Comcast had a much lower percentage of black workers then it's share of the US population which is approximately 13% then there might be something to racial discrimination.
Kirk's Raiders
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
Still not seeing racial discrimination. Isn't there a black owned cable TV networkI remember BET ? Didn't BET merge with another network?
If Comcast had a much lower percentage of black workers then it's share of the US population which is approximately 13% then there might be something to racial discrimination.
Kirk's Raiders
A single black-owned channel. By your own logic 13% of Comcast's channels should be black-owned. Now that would be proof of the absence of racial discrimination.
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
A single black-owned channel. By your own logic 13% of Comcast's channels should be black-owned. Now that would be proof of the absence of racial discrimination.
That has nothing to do with my post. If Comcast doesn't think a particular program is commercially viable then that is their choice not to show it. Comcast is a buisness not a Charity.
There is a black owned channel that the producer can turn to if the owners of that channel fel it's commercially viable.
Not aware if the aggrieved producer took the case to court it would be an interesting Supreme Court Case.
Kirk's Raiders
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
That has nothing to do with my post. If Comcast doesn't think a particular program is commercially viable then that is their choice not to show it. Comcast is a buisness not a Charity.
There is a black owned channel that the producer can turn to if the owners of that channel fel it's commercially viable.
Not aware if the aggrieved producer took the case to court it would be an interesting Supreme Court Case.
Kirk's Raiders
Business licenses are not a God-granted right, are they?
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
Business licenses are not a God-granted right, are they?
That's a great question for the Supreme Court. If Trump gets reelected no way Trump doesn't get at least a six to three conservative majority. RBG needs to live at least until (assuming Biden is elected) until January 2021 and the democrats must have at least fifty senators.
Kirk's Raiders
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
That's a great question for the Supreme Court. If Trump gets reelected no way Trump doesn't get at least a six to three conservative majority. RBG needs to live at least until (assuming Biden is elected) until January 2021 and the democrats must have at least fifty senators.
Kirk's Raiders
I suppose if the green aliens show up all bets are off unless Trump is one.
And they blaster into stone.

Historically speaking, the Taney court was emasculated because of Dred Scot and did not recover for decades. SCOTUS are not gods.
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
I suppose if the green aliens show up all bets are off unless Trump is one.
And they blaster into stone.

Historically speaking, the Taney court was emasculated because of Dred Scot and did not recover for decades. SCOTUS are not gods.
Scotus are God's that's how we got Bush Jr and all the fun of the war on terror.
Not sure what you mean by Green Aliens . The chance of Trump winning reelection is certainly much higher then finding Green Aliens.
Kirk's Raiders
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
Scotus are God's that's how we got Bush Jr and all the fun of the war on terror.
Not sure what you mean by Green Aliens . The chance of Trump winning reelection is certainly much higher then finding Green Aliens.
Kirk's Raiders
According to the History Channel we have already found green alien so Green Aliens 100%. Looking at the polls, Trump's election chances are much less.
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
According to the History Channel we have already found green alien so Green Aliens 100%. Looking at the polls, Trump's election chances are much less.
Jimmy Carter was substantially ahead of Ronald Reagan in the summer of 1980 we all know how that turned out.
Trump has the help of at least two nations in getting reelected Israel and Russia. Historically speaking what Putin wants Putin gets.
Hopefully Trump will loose but he is a master of dirty tricks and has very powerful allies so time will tell. Also Trump will get his stooge appointed to head the US Postal Office so I would not celebrate a Biden victory just yet.
Kirk's Raiders
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
Jimmy Carter was substantially ahead of Ronald Reagan in the summer of 1980 we all know how that turned out.
Trump has the help of at least two nations in getting reelected Israel and Russia. Historically speaking what Putin wants Putin gets.
Hopefully Trump will loose but he is a master of dirty tricks and has very powerful allies so time will tell. Also Trump will get his stooge appointed to head the US Postal Office so I would not celebrate a Biden victory just yet.
Kirk's Raiders
Reagan got the Green alien vote by promising amnesty.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
Jimmy Carter was substantially ahead of Ronald Reagan in the summer of 1980 we all know how that turned out.
Trump has the help of at least two nations in getting reelected Israel and Russia. Historically speaking what Putin wants Putin gets.
Hopefully Trump will loose but he is a master of dirty tricks and has very powerful allies so time will tell. Also Trump will get his stooge appointed to head the US Postal Office so I would not celebrate a Biden victory just yet.
Kirk's Raiders
Do you think it odd that when I look at the polls, your assertion is fallacious?
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
Do you think it odd that when I look at the polls, your assertion is fallacious?
Not hardly . I mentioned the fact that Jimmy Carter was substantially ahead of Ronald Reagan in the summer of 1980 only to loose in a landslide. Reagan didn't have the help of powerful foreign governments or the type of media we have now.
I never said it's one hundred percent certain that Trump will win reelection but with the help of Republican voter suppression and an incompetent post office if Trump's stooge is appointed he has a very good chance of being reelected.
Both Obama and Pelosi stated that Trump would not be elected in 2016 and yet here we are.
Kirk's Raiders
 
Top