In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Gorsuch, the US Supreme Court held that an employer who fires an employee for being gay or transgender violates Title.VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You can find links and analysis of that opinion and the rest of the Court’s actions today at SCOTUSblog.
The Nevada Supreme Court will hold a public hearing on June 29, 2020, regarding ADKT 0560 on changes to mandatory dismissals under NRCP 41 (5-year rule). [NV Bar]
So we're just throwing in the towel and conceding that we can't get cases to trial within half a decade after filing? I would advocate for a 1-2 year extension for any case filed before or during the COVID emergency, but I don't see the need to throw the rule out altogether. It will lead to further delay.
Guest
Anonymous
June 15, 2020 6:21 pm
I have always felt like it was the lawyer's responsibility to move their cases forward and not the Courts, so I don't care. If the Courts really cared about efficiency then they would grow a pair and grant summary judgment more often.
Guest
Anonymous
June 15, 2020 6:24 pm
Dear Mr. Gamble,
Sorry for your past troubles, but they seem pretty much hand picked instances in an otherwise pretty normal life. Kids and people will be rude an nasty regardless of your ethnicity. At various times and places, others, such as Italians and Puerto Ricans suffered similar situations as you describe because of their national origin.
Discrimination cuts both ways. My wife grew up in Inglewood CA. She is white and attended public schools where the majority of students were Black. She was bullied, frequently suffered vulgar humor because of her ethnicity and was often threatened with violence. One two occasions she was threatened with guns on school grounds. After high school she was denied admission to nursing school because of her ethnicity.
This whole race situation is not a one sided, quick or simple solution. People need to stop talking to each other and work on speaking with each other, even when there are different views. Simple labels and slogans will not work.
She was denied admission to nursing school because she didn't have the grades and test scores to get in on her own merit, not because of her race (which is what you mean, because "white" is not an ethnicity).
As Mr. Gamble clearly states "[i]t is absolutely true that everyone experiences hardships in life, but the psychological weight of being told both explicitly and implicitly, on a daily basis, that your very existence is objectionable can at times feel unbearable."
11:24, I'm disappointed that you decided to post that, but thanks for validating Mr. Gamble's viewpoint and reminding us that this is still an issue for those of reading the blog.
11:24 – I support you and hope you ignore the haters who posted responses to you. They prove the point that if you even vaguely allude to the lack of white privilege or systemic racism against whites, then you should "just don't." One must really be naïve to think that whites are not routinely discriminated against as are all groups by those not in that group. And it is blatant, verbalized, and acknowledged within many groups. My ex-wife was absolutely discriminated against when they first opened the dental school here because she was not of a popular religion in S. Nevada. She later prospered in Medical School proving, at least to me, it was not her grades, etc. If you live to any advanced age you will experience countless examples yourself. But we now live in a time when a man can fight with the police, grab a weapon, clearly point it at the police and when shot – instead of proclaiming the officer a hero, he is fired and will probably be charged. We also live in a time when a simple blog post like yours can initiate a "just don't." So what to do when we can't even comment about this reverse racism – I don't know but the far left seems to have some ideas that are working for them.
Great idea 1:21 promote rioting because someone hinted that, all else being equal, it's a little easier to by white than not in America. You show those lefties who the snowflakes are!
Other than the political stigma that you attach to it, I don't think that it is controversial to acknowledge the preference given to minority groups in higher education admissions. This policy was expressly stated by the law school I attended and remains the policy (albeit modified) at many if not most top 100 schools. You can argue that this preference is good and you can argue that this is bad. There are valid arguments on both sides. In fact both Clarence Thomas and RBG have very strong (and opposite) opinions on this issue.
11:39/12:11/12:45 – I guess my point is this…you are begging for people to listen to your position, but why should they when you simply dismiss the viewpoints of others out of hand. It's people like you (on both sides) that are the problem in the world right now.
1:35, you ask why people dismiss the viewpoints of others out of hand. It's because the viewpoint is so obviously incomplete that it's truly hard to explain why you're so oblivious to reality.
Yes, universities can make a candidate's race one of many factors in admissions (no quotas though). So there can be a small preference toward diversity. But that's usually in a tie-breaker scenario or when it's a close call.
This benefit is in exchange for descending from people who were systematically ripped apart from their families in childhood (you know, denying an entire group of people the benefit of the family unit, the thing that is so often touted by conservatives as the glue that holds society together) and denied education with the threat of death if you learned how to read.
Then, when the south lost the war, were told, OK, you can't be enslaved anymore, but we'll write the law explicitly in our favor so you can't even vote and we'll create restrictive covenants against property that prohibit you from owning it. We'll also control 100% of local police departments and school districts to allocate funds as we see fit.
So then the Civil Rights Act was passed abolishing all this nonsense. That was about 55 years ago. Two or three generations. Now people say "everyone has the same opportunity, the law is colorblind." Well, that's partially true. The law now eliminates a lot of the Jim Crow shenanigans. But let's talk about a specific group of people starting from absolutely nothing – no family, no money, no property, no wealth, no education. To enable a truly "colorblind" society would be to deny the inequities placed upon the black community through centuries of slavery and overt uses of the law to keep black people uneducated and poor. To say the admission process must be colorblind is to ensure college remains white and black citizens stay poor. It's the least we could do.
But back to Mr. Gamble's article. Sure, black university candidates can have their race counted as a factor in admissions. That's a current benefit, albeit a marginal one. How in God's green earth are you, with a straight face, arguing that that's the same thing as the shit he explained he experienced?
Guest
Anonymous
June 15, 2020 7:54 pm
Anyone have recommendations for process servers? I am on suck level number 2.
Thank you!
We cannot do service unless it directly a part of a civil case or the preparation of a civil case (such as delivering a notice in the form of a letter of demand). So your need would have to meet that criteria. Feel free to contact us for specifics.
Yes, subject to current Administrative Orders of the relevant court as well as the current Emergency Directives from the Governor's Office.
Guest
Laughlin Constable Jordan Ross
June 15, 2020 8:12 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
Guest
Anonymous
June 15, 2020 8:30 pm
Also, 11:24's wife was not denied nursing school admission due to being white(see 11:39). How could 11:24 possibly know if some admitted black applicant had lower grades and test scores than his wife? That is all confidential info. held by the Admissions Department. There may possibly have been some policy statement that diversity was one of many factors considered by the admissions department, but how could 11:24 possibly know the specific grades and test scores of those admitted over his wife?
Obviously, problem was not that she was white, but that the admissions board, for that college, determined that she did not meet their standard for admissions, in terms of grades, standardized test scores, and other factors.
But if it's easier for her and her husband to blame her lack of admission on black people and/or her not being black, they can do so if that floats their boat.
11:24 does not understand the true horrors of institutional racism and repugnant, dehumanizing discrimination, if 11:24 offers up his white wife as an equal victim of discrimination and racism merely based on 11:24's belief that some less qualified black applicant was admitted over his wife(as that is presumably what 11:24 wants us to conclude as he says his wife was discriminated against and not admitted).
11:24 also does not understand the racism and discrimination suffered by Mr. Gamble and millions of other black people, if he offers his wife as an example of an equal victim merely because his wife(in addition to this bogus nursing school admissions nonsense), earlier on in life, as a child and teenager, may have possibly been harassed by some black students(if that even happened. I have my doubts).
Now, in fairness to 11:24's wife, it's possible that she has relayed these stories, but is not necessarily claiming to be the victim of vile racism. If so, then these conclusions are purely those of 11:24.
In any event, 11:24 should be ashamed. If 11:24 is in fact ashamed, and recognizes that he went way too far with his remarks, then I think we can largely give him a pass and not necessarily label him as a racist(or at least a socially-ignorant buffoon). But if he stands by all his remarks and arguments, then at least in my book he has real issues.
You go 1:30 … shout down any thought or opinion that does not mirror your beliefs. You have to be able to discuss matters without blowing a gasket. The difference is a civilized society as opposed to mob rule.
But as a matter of fact, the daughter of a family I know in Sacramento was just last year excluded from a public post secondary school, and was expressly told that she would have been seated if she had been a minority.
1:30 here. Please be aware, 3;11. that you cannot nullify and largely ignore the challenges a black person may have endured their entire life by juxtaposing it with an isolated situation of some white applicant not being accepted into a program based on a black applicant(with supposedly lower scores and grades) being favored.
I think that 2:12 made a really good point. If the one poster or his spouse were an unfair victim of diversity concerns in some academic setting, that is a separate issue that can be discussed, but it cannot be effectively used as a counter-argument to minimize and largely dismiss Mr. Gamble's life-time struggles as a minority.
And I think that is the point hat is being missed here. It is not that some whites have not been denied admission in favor of minority candidates of lesser credentials(as that has in fact occurred). It is that it is faulty reasoning to align that against a minority person's lifetime of degradation and struggles, and to suggest that the two things are equal or comparable.
That's where I have trouble not blowing my gasket. Someone tells what it was like to be ostracized and abused and called the "N' word for decades, and you and like posters think that is effectively countered by saying that this white person or his wife, once in their 20's, was initially not accepted for some program due to some minority person(of arguably lesser academic prowess) being selected?
Hey, 1:30, I don't know about the top colleges and universities policies towards white applicants, but my son is half-Korean, who managed to get into an Ivy League college and an Ivy League law school. The schools admit that they discriminate against Asian applicants with racial caps, but claim (and the courts have agreed) that it is legal. I do not find the white nursing school applicant's claim that she was denied admission because of her race to be implausible.
I don't find the idea that a white nursing school applicant wouldn't get a position against a similarly situated person of color to be implausible.
I absolutely do call BS on the poster who said a person "was expressly told that she would have been seated if she had been a minority." NFW that happened. Doesn't pass the smell test.
Yes part of the problem is a white person passed over for a similarly-qualified person of color would never actually know that's why they were passed over. The truth is that most white people who don't get in are Abigail Fisher – people who are far less qualified than the people who did get in. Also these discussions always seem to ignore the boosts at elite schools that go disproportionally to white people like legacy boosts and positions for athletes. I went a fancy school with a lot of very mediocre white people who were fourth gen alums or on crew or the lacrosse team.
1:30 and 3:11 here. 5:02 and 5:14 emphasize something else that I am having serious problems accepting. These administrators would not all be gossiping to rejected applicants, and sharing such combustible information. Makes no damn sense.
Guest
Anonymous
June 15, 2020 9:08 pm
I read 1:30's remarks, and was hoping that those remarks, in conjunction with the other posts which take a dim view of 11:24, would put a stop to any dialogue trying to defend 11:24.
I was hoping and praying that no white person would support 11:24 by viewing any criticism of him as being bleeding heart political and social correctness.
1:21 comes to the full support of 11:24, and the comments of 1:21 do not warrant the dignity of a reply. He can be persuaded of nothing, is open to nothing, and he will continue to see boogey men around every corner
1:35 also generally supports 11:24, but is considerably more nuanced than the sledge hammer approach of 1:21.
This poster, 1;35, emphasizes that if Mr. Gamble and his supporters truly wish to stimulate and encourage a discussion and dialogue, they should welcome and consider all responsible opposing view points. Fair enough.
But when we peel away a little at 1:35's statement, is it truly a responsible opposing viewpoint, when confronted with Mr. Gamble's instances summarizing the lifetime obstacles of a professional black person,
to get into the specific minutae of a particular law school's admissions standards, at an isolated unknown time in the past, in order to suggest a pattern of reverse discrimination as to such law school's admissions?
First of all, that's more of an affirmative action argument more applicable to the past, while, in general, most schools now deal with race in a much more general fashion, such as by indicating that diversity is a factor, among many others.
But whether a clear affirmative action situation or more of an over-emphasis on "diversity",even if that did happen to these posters or their wife's, how does that negate, or in any sense remotely equal, the extreme examples of racial prejudice and overt ignorant racism, encountered by Mr. Gamble from the time he was a young boy to his present adulthood?
To be more blunt and direct(which may be necessary as these posters don't seem to get the point): even if they or their wives were initially denied admission to professional school due to a less qualified minority applicant being admitted over them, how does that mean they even remotely relate to Mr. Gamble's many struggles simply by being born black? They seem to be using these admissions anecdotes to minimize or negate the trauma of Mr. Gamble's life time struggles.
Guest
Anonymous
June 15, 2020 9:12 pm
The comments are too lengthy, and I think that is largely because two things are being compared which should not be.
Even if these people, or their spouses, were initially denied professional school admission due to some supposed over-emphasis on diversity(and some minority student with lower grades or test scores were admitted in their place) that is an issue unto itself, and is in no way some effective counter-argument to lessen the impact of racial discrimination attorney Gamble endured throughout his youth.
Guest
Anonymous
June 15, 2020 9:23 pm
This is all getting too heavy for me, and I feel unqualified to weigh in, so I choose to attempt to lighten the tone of the discussions by invoking some election gossip.
Someone, at 3:26 yesterday, posted that there are some grudge-related filings in the judicial races(at least two in Family Court and apparently at least one at the RJC).
And by grudge-related, it apparently does not mean the challenger simply despises the judge, has a low opinion of them, loses before the judge when they should win, etc.
No, apparently it's something very direct and personal. Someone told me, for example, that someone is running against a judge who the challenger perceives is responsible, in whole or part, for the challenger getting fired from some county position. Another situation apparently involves the judge being currently assigned to litigation involving the challenger as a party, and the challenger is disenchanted with the rulings being issued.
Does anyone know anything about all this?
Guest
Anonymous
June 15, 2020 9:29 pm
2:23–that may all well be true to some extent, and that dynamic, in varying levels, is in operation whenever there are a lot of judicial seats on the ballot.
But the reason the situation is probably not even interesting as idle gossip is two-fold.
First, most of the time the occurrences leading to such motivations may only really be known to the challenger and the incumbent judge, but not to the average attorney.
Secondly, even if the circumstances are somewhat known,seldom does the challenger admit those highly personalized motivations. They usually just say they don't think their opponent is a very good judge.
But if someone knows the stories behind any of this, that might be mildly interesting
Guest
Anonymous
June 15, 2020 11:42 pm
Last minute Larry weighing in – what the world needs know is love, respect, understanding and compassion. If politics supersedes people and empathy for individuals, then what kind of political beliefs do you hold?
Guest
Anonymous
June 15, 2020 11:47 pm
The "legal observers" who were arrested on Saturday night were arrested after the police gave an order to disperse. From the news report cited, "Several arrests were made after the order to disperse, including the legal observers."
So, do we claim that "legal observers" are immune from the police order to disperse?
I know that people who claim to be "journalists" (and everyone clutching a cell phone can legitimately claim to be a journalist) seem to claim that they are exempt from police orders. Where does it end?
I was tear gassed at several demonstrations in my youth, but I am much more "law and order" forty-five years (more or less) later.
Seems that our society has become a law abiding free-for-all, with the self entitled simply picking the laws that they choose to obey, and blatantly disregarding the rest. It's just easier that way, what with the Covid and such.
Serious question for those of you who practice in the area – when is an "order to disperse" lawful, and when is it not?
I would guess that it turns on whether there is violence, looting, etc., it seems obvious it would be lawful. But what about peaceful protests that nevertheless block traffic, or things like that? Peaceful protests that have just "gone on too long?"
Impeding traffic is not lawful and any person or group is subject to arrest for doing it, even the protesters. By those circumstances alone, the march is not peaceful. A permit is required for protests, similar to parades, whenever those events require the streets to be blocked off. With no permit, the protesters should be on the sidewalks, which they were during a recent protest on the strip.
Unfortunately, we see this being violated all the time on TV recently, not because it is suddenly lawful, but because the police have chosen to not enforce it, or were directed by mayors and other officials to allow it to happen. This is not a good precedent for a civilized society that wishes to remain civil.
The declaration of a curfew is what allows police to end an otherwise peaceful protest. It's akin to being a kid and your parents making you come inside when the street lights on. But again, cities are choosing to not enforce the curfew that they put in place, which waters down the enforcement of it considerably.
Tentative policing has us heading down a dangerous rabbit hole, leaving lawlessness an open invitation to flourish unhindered.
One man's "lawlessness" is another man's civil disobedience. Although I don't mean to equate the two movements at all, it's worth noting that MLK and his fellow civil rights leaders didn't have permits to march in Birmingham. The Birmingham police's monstrous treatment of marchers helped turn public opinion against Jim Crow laws. Today, police departments' violent treatment of protestors violating curfews or blocking traffic helped show the public the everyday violence that was the point of the protest. It's an effective tactic.
In my humble opinion, the "law is law" absolutism like 9:15 is arguing for is a cop out. You have to grapple with the moral righteousness of the movement to really figure out if extreme steps like mass civil disobedience are justified or not.
In order to be subject to a dispersal order, they have to be gathered for an unlawful purpose. The observers weren't breaching the peace. They weren't gathered for an unlawful purpose. They don't fall under a dispersal order.
If you aren't doing anything wrong, power-tripping cops don't get to order you to to disperse.
Even if you found the protestors were gathered for an unlawful purpose, the legal observers were not. They had met with LVMPD and had established parameters for their conduct. That silence you are hearing from Metro Brass is due to the fact that your rank-and-file officers went rogue and decided to be tough guys even in light of no criminal conduct.
It's simple, get a permit, or get the heck out of the street. It shouldn't matter what color your tee-shirt is. The right to peaceably assemble does not bring with it the right agitate the police, take over the streets or a neighborhood, burn down buildings, loot, or attack anyone that does not bow down to the rhetoric of the cause. Comparing this recent display of immature ill-tempered mob-minded bullies to MLK and the efforts in his time is a far reaching stretch of the imagination. He knew peace and was a true leader who cared for everyone, not just those that shared his opinion on the current state of affairs. And, because of that, his impact is felt around the world to this day. Do you honestly think that this modern day mobbery, ala Seattle, is going to be looked back upon as a pivotal moment of change? If so, then I hate to think what our tomorrow is going to look like.
So we're just throwing in the towel and conceding that we can't get cases to trial within half a decade after filing? I would advocate for a 1-2 year extension for any case filed before or during the COVID emergency, but I don't see the need to throw the rule out altogether. It will lead to further delay.
I have always felt like it was the lawyer's responsibility to move their cases forward and not the Courts, so I don't care. If the Courts really cared about efficiency then they would grow a pair and grant summary judgment more often.
Dear Mr. Gamble,
Sorry for your past troubles, but they seem pretty much hand picked instances in an otherwise pretty normal life. Kids and people will be rude an nasty regardless of your ethnicity. At various times and places, others, such as Italians and Puerto Ricans suffered similar situations as you describe because of their national origin.
Discrimination cuts both ways. My wife grew up in Inglewood CA. She is white and attended public schools where the majority of students were Black. She was bullied, frequently suffered vulgar humor because of her ethnicity and was often threatened with violence. One two occasions she was threatened with guns on school grounds. After high school she was denied admission to nursing school because of her ethnicity.
This whole race situation is not a one sided, quick or simple solution. People need to stop talking to each other and work on speaking with each other, even when there are different views. Simple labels and slogans will not work.
I wish you, and all of us, well.
She was denied admission to nursing school because she didn't have the grades and test scores to get in on her own merit, not because of her race (which is what you mean, because "white" is not an ethnicity).
As Mr. Gamble clearly states "[i]t is absolutely true that everyone experiences hardships in life, but the psychological weight of being told both explicitly and implicitly, on a daily basis, that your very existence is objectionable can at times feel unbearable."
11:24, I'm disappointed that you decided to post that, but thanks for validating Mr. Gamble's viewpoint and reminding us that this is still an issue for those of reading the blog.
Wow. 11:24 that was an incredibly ill-considered comment. Next time, just don't.
11:24 – I support you and hope you ignore the haters who posted responses to you. They prove the point that if you even vaguely allude to the lack of white privilege or systemic racism against whites, then you should "just don't." One must really be naïve to think that whites are not routinely discriminated against as are all groups by those not in that group. And it is blatant, verbalized, and acknowledged within many groups. My ex-wife was absolutely discriminated against when they first opened the dental school here because she was not of a popular religion in S. Nevada. She later prospered in Medical School proving, at least to me, it was not her grades, etc. If you live to any advanced age you will experience countless examples yourself. But we now live in a time when a man can fight with the police, grab a weapon, clearly point it at the police and when shot – instead of proclaiming the officer a hero, he is fired and will probably be charged. We also live in a time when a simple blog post like yours can initiate a "just don't." So what to do when we can't even comment about this reverse racism – I don't know but the far left seems to have some ideas that are working for them.
Great idea 1:21 promote rioting because someone hinted that, all else being equal, it's a little easier to by white than not in America. You show those lefties who the snowflakes are!
Other than the political stigma that you attach to it, I don't think that it is controversial to acknowledge the preference given to minority groups in higher education admissions. This policy was expressly stated by the law school I attended and remains the policy (albeit modified) at many if not most top 100 schools. You can argue that this preference is good and you can argue that this is bad. There are valid arguments on both sides. In fact both Clarence Thomas and RBG have very strong (and opposite) opinions on this issue.
11:39/12:11/12:45 – I guess my point is this…you are begging for people to listen to your position, but why should they when you simply dismiss the viewpoints of others out of hand. It's people like you (on both sides) that are the problem in the world right now.
1:35, you ask why people dismiss the viewpoints of others out of hand. It's because the viewpoint is so obviously incomplete that it's truly hard to explain why you're so oblivious to reality.
Yes, universities can make a candidate's race one of many factors in admissions (no quotas though). So there can be a small preference toward diversity. But that's usually in a tie-breaker scenario or when it's a close call.
This benefit is in exchange for descending from people who were systematically ripped apart from their families in childhood (you know, denying an entire group of people the benefit of the family unit, the thing that is so often touted by conservatives as the glue that holds society together) and denied education with the threat of death if you learned how to read.
Then, when the south lost the war, were told, OK, you can't be enslaved anymore, but we'll write the law explicitly in our favor so you can't even vote and we'll create restrictive covenants against property that prohibit you from owning it. We'll also control 100% of local police departments and school districts to allocate funds as we see fit.
So then the Civil Rights Act was passed abolishing all this nonsense. That was about 55 years ago. Two or three generations. Now people say "everyone has the same opportunity, the law is colorblind." Well, that's partially true. The law now eliminates a lot of the Jim Crow shenanigans. But let's talk about a specific group of people starting from absolutely nothing – no family, no money, no property, no wealth, no education. To enable a truly "colorblind" society would be to deny the inequities placed upon the black community through centuries of slavery and overt uses of the law to keep black people uneducated and poor. To say the admission process must be colorblind is to ensure college remains white and black citizens stay poor. It's the least we could do.
But back to Mr. Gamble's article. Sure, black university candidates can have their race counted as a factor in admissions. That's a current benefit, albeit a marginal one. How in God's green earth are you, with a straight face, arguing that that's the same thing as the shit he explained he experienced?
Anyone have recommendations for process servers? I am on suck level number 2.
Thank you!
I've had good experiences with June's Legal.
If you having difficulty our agency provides service throughout Southern Nevada. laughlinconstable.org
Jordan, do you guys do agency service as well, including Nevada SOS?
We cannot do service unless it directly a part of a civil case or the preparation of a civil case (such as delivering a notice in the form of a letter of demand). So your need would have to meet that criteria. Feel free to contact us for specifics.
So the basic summons and complaint or depo subpoena would be up your alley then?
Yes, subject to current Administrative Orders of the relevant court as well as the current Emergency Directives from the Governor's Office.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Also, 11:24's wife was not denied nursing school admission due to being white(see 11:39). How could 11:24 possibly know if some admitted black applicant had lower grades and test scores than his wife? That is all confidential info. held by the Admissions Department. There may possibly have been some policy statement that diversity was one of many factors considered by the admissions department, but how could 11:24 possibly know the specific grades and test scores of those admitted over his wife?
Obviously, problem was not that she was white, but that the admissions board, for that college, determined that she did not meet their standard for admissions, in terms of grades, standardized test scores, and other factors.
But if it's easier for her and her husband to blame her lack of admission on black people and/or her not being black, they can do so if that floats their boat.
11:24 does not understand the true horrors of institutional racism and repugnant, dehumanizing discrimination, if 11:24 offers up his white wife as an equal victim of discrimination and racism merely based on 11:24's belief that some less qualified black applicant was admitted over his wife(as that is presumably what 11:24 wants us to conclude as he says his wife was discriminated against and not admitted).
11:24 also does not understand the racism and discrimination suffered by Mr. Gamble and millions of other black people, if he offers his wife as an example of an equal victim merely because his wife(in addition to this bogus nursing school admissions nonsense), earlier on in life, as a child and teenager, may have possibly been harassed by some black students(if that even happened. I have my doubts).
Now, in fairness to 11:24's wife, it's possible that she has relayed these stories, but is not necessarily claiming to be the victim of vile racism. If so, then these conclusions are purely those of 11:24.
In any event, 11:24 should be ashamed. If 11:24 is in fact ashamed, and recognizes that he went way too far with his remarks, then I think we can largely give him a pass and not necessarily label him as a racist(or at least a socially-ignorant buffoon). But if he stands by all his remarks and arguments, then at least in my book he has real issues.
You go 1:30 … shout down any thought or opinion that does not mirror your beliefs. You have to be able to discuss matters without blowing a gasket. The difference is a civilized society as opposed to mob rule.
But as a matter of fact, the daughter of a family I know in Sacramento was just last year excluded from a public post secondary school, and was expressly told that she would have been seated if she had been a minority.
1:30 here. Please be aware, 3;11. that you cannot nullify and largely ignore the challenges a black person may have endured their entire life by juxtaposing it with an isolated situation of some white applicant not being accepted into a program based on a black applicant(with supposedly lower scores and grades) being favored.
I think that 2:12 made a really good point. If the one poster or his spouse were an unfair victim of diversity concerns in some academic setting, that is a separate issue that can be discussed, but it cannot be effectively used as a counter-argument to minimize and largely dismiss Mr. Gamble's life-time struggles as a minority.
And I think that is the point hat is being missed here. It is not that some whites have not been denied admission in favor of minority candidates of lesser credentials(as that has in fact occurred). It is that it is faulty reasoning to align that against a minority person's lifetime of degradation and struggles, and to suggest that the two things are equal or comparable.
That's where I have trouble not blowing my gasket. Someone tells what it was like to be ostracized and abused and called the "N' word for decades, and you and like posters think that is effectively countered by saying that this white person or his wife, once in their 20's, was initially not accepted for some program due to some minority person(of arguably lesser academic prowess) being selected?
tat, I think, is the main problem.
Hey, 1:30, I don't know about the top colleges and universities policies towards white applicants, but my son is half-Korean, who managed to get into an Ivy League college and an Ivy League law school. The schools admit that they discriminate against Asian applicants with racial caps, but claim (and the courts have agreed) that it is legal. I do not find the white nursing school applicant's claim that she was denied admission because of her race to be implausible.
I don't find the idea that a white nursing school applicant wouldn't get a position against a similarly situated person of color to be implausible.
I absolutely do call BS on the poster who said a person "was expressly told that she would have been seated if she had been a minority." NFW that happened. Doesn't pass the smell test.
Yes part of the problem is a white person passed over for a similarly-qualified person of color would never actually know that's why they were passed over. The truth is that most white people who don't get in are Abigail Fisher – people who are far less qualified than the people who did get in. Also these discussions always seem to ignore the boosts at elite schools that go disproportionally to white people like legacy boosts and positions for athletes. I went a fancy school with a lot of very mediocre white people who were fourth gen alums or on crew or the lacrosse team.
1:30 and 3:11 here. 5:02 and 5:14 emphasize something else that I am having serious problems accepting. These administrators would not all be gossiping to rejected applicants, and sharing such combustible information. Makes no damn sense.
I read 1:30's remarks, and was hoping that those remarks, in conjunction with the other posts which take a dim view of 11:24, would put a stop to any dialogue trying to defend 11:24.
I was hoping and praying that no white person would support 11:24 by viewing any criticism of him as being bleeding heart political and social correctness.
1:21 comes to the full support of 11:24, and the comments of 1:21 do not warrant the dignity of a reply. He can be persuaded of nothing, is open to nothing, and he will continue to see boogey men around every corner
1:35 also generally supports 11:24, but is considerably more nuanced than the sledge hammer approach of 1:21.
This poster, 1;35, emphasizes that if Mr. Gamble and his supporters truly wish to stimulate and encourage a discussion and dialogue, they should welcome and consider all responsible opposing view points. Fair enough.
But when we peel away a little at 1:35's statement, is it truly a responsible opposing viewpoint, when confronted with Mr. Gamble's instances summarizing the lifetime obstacles of a professional black person,
to get into the specific minutae of a particular law school's admissions standards, at an isolated unknown time in the past, in order to suggest a pattern of reverse discrimination as to such law school's admissions?
First of all, that's more of an affirmative action argument more applicable to the past, while, in general, most schools now deal with race in a much more general fashion, such as by indicating that diversity is a factor, among many others.
But whether a clear affirmative action situation or more of an over-emphasis on "diversity",even if that did happen to these posters or their wife's, how does that negate, or in any sense remotely equal, the extreme examples of racial prejudice and overt ignorant racism, encountered by Mr. Gamble from the time he was a young boy to his present adulthood?
To be more blunt and direct(which may be necessary as these posters don't seem to get the point): even if they or their wives were initially denied admission to professional school due to a less qualified minority applicant being admitted over them, how does that mean they even remotely relate to Mr. Gamble's many struggles simply by being born black? They seem to be using these admissions anecdotes to minimize or negate the trauma of Mr. Gamble's life time struggles.
The comments are too lengthy, and I think that is largely because two things are being compared which should not be.
Even if these people, or their spouses, were initially denied professional school admission due to some supposed over-emphasis on diversity(and some minority student with lower grades or test scores were admitted in their place) that is an issue unto itself, and is in no way some effective counter-argument to lessen the impact of racial discrimination attorney Gamble endured throughout his youth.
This is all getting too heavy for me, and I feel unqualified to weigh in, so I choose to attempt to lighten the tone of the discussions by invoking some election gossip.
Someone, at 3:26 yesterday, posted that there are some grudge-related filings in the judicial races(at least two in Family Court and apparently at least one at the RJC).
And by grudge-related, it apparently does not mean the challenger simply despises the judge, has a low opinion of them, loses before the judge when they should win, etc.
No, apparently it's something very direct and personal. Someone told me, for example, that someone is running against a judge who the challenger perceives is responsible, in whole or part, for the challenger getting fired from some county position. Another situation apparently involves the judge being currently assigned to litigation involving the challenger as a party, and the challenger is disenchanted with the rulings being issued.
Does anyone know anything about all this?
2:23–that may all well be true to some extent, and that dynamic, in varying levels, is in operation whenever there are a lot of judicial seats on the ballot.
But the reason the situation is probably not even interesting as idle gossip is two-fold.
First, most of the time the occurrences leading to such motivations may only really be known to the challenger and the incumbent judge, but not to the average attorney.
Secondly, even if the circumstances are somewhat known,seldom does the challenger admit those highly personalized motivations. They usually just say they don't think their opponent is a very good judge.
But if someone knows the stories behind any of this, that might be mildly interesting
Last minute Larry weighing in – what the world needs know is love, respect, understanding and compassion. If politics supersedes people and empathy for individuals, then what kind of political beliefs do you hold?
The "legal observers" who were arrested on Saturday night were arrested after the police gave an order to disperse. From the news report cited, "Several arrests were made after the order to disperse, including the legal observers."
So, do we claim that "legal observers" are immune from the police order to disperse?
I know that people who claim to be "journalists" (and everyone clutching a cell phone can legitimately claim to be a journalist) seem to claim that they are exempt from police orders. Where does it end?
I was tear gassed at several demonstrations in my youth, but I am much more "law and order" forty-five years (more or less) later.
Seems that our society has become a law abiding free-for-all, with the self entitled simply picking the laws that they choose to obey, and blatantly disregarding the rest. It's just easier that way, what with the Covid and such.
Serious question for those of you who practice in the area – when is an "order to disperse" lawful, and when is it not?
I would guess that it turns on whether there is violence, looting, etc., it seems obvious it would be lawful. But what about peaceful protests that nevertheless block traffic, or things like that? Peaceful protests that have just "gone on too long?"
Impeding traffic is not lawful and any person or group is subject to arrest for doing it, even the protesters. By those circumstances alone, the march is not peaceful. A permit is required for protests, similar to parades, whenever those events require the streets to be blocked off. With no permit, the protesters should be on the sidewalks, which they were during a recent protest on the strip.
Unfortunately, we see this being violated all the time on TV recently, not because it is suddenly lawful, but because the police have chosen to not enforce it, or were directed by mayors and other officials to allow it to happen. This is not a good precedent for a civilized society that wishes to remain civil.
The declaration of a curfew is what allows police to end an otherwise peaceful protest. It's akin to being a kid and your parents making you come inside when the street lights on. But again, cities are choosing to not enforce the curfew that they put in place, which waters down the enforcement of it considerably.
Tentative policing has us heading down a dangerous rabbit hole, leaving lawlessness an open invitation to flourish unhindered.
One man's "lawlessness" is another man's civil disobedience. Although I don't mean to equate the two movements at all, it's worth noting that MLK and his fellow civil rights leaders didn't have permits to march in Birmingham. The Birmingham police's monstrous treatment of marchers helped turn public opinion against Jim Crow laws. Today, police departments' violent treatment of protestors violating curfews or blocking traffic helped show the public the everyday violence that was the point of the protest. It's an effective tactic.
In my humble opinion, the "law is law" absolutism like 9:15 is arguing for is a cop out. You have to grapple with the moral righteousness of the movement to really figure out if extreme steps like mass civil disobedience are justified or not.
In order to be subject to a dispersal order, they have to be gathered for an unlawful purpose. The observers weren't breaching the peace. They weren't gathered for an unlawful purpose. They don't fall under a dispersal order.
If you aren't doing anything wrong, power-tripping cops don't get to order you to to disperse.
Even if you found the protestors were gathered for an unlawful purpose, the legal observers were not. They had met with LVMPD and had established parameters for their conduct. That silence you are hearing from Metro Brass is due to the fact that your rank-and-file officers went rogue and decided to be tough guys even in light of no criminal conduct.
It's simple, get a permit, or get the heck out of the street. It shouldn't matter what color your tee-shirt is. The right to peaceably assemble does not bring with it the right agitate the police, take over the streets or a neighborhood, burn down buildings, loot, or attack anyone that does not bow down to the rhetoric of the cause. Comparing this recent display of immature ill-tempered mob-minded bullies to MLK and the efforts in his time is a far reaching stretch of the imagination. He knew peace and was a true leader who cared for everyone, not just those that shared his opinion on the current state of affairs. And, because of that, his impact is felt around the world to this day. Do you honestly think that this modern day mobbery, ala Seattle, is going to be looked back upon as a pivotal moment of change? If so, then I hate to think what our tomorrow is going to look like.