Republican Voter Suppression!

[quasarvs]

What are the signs of this overcorrection?

The signs of this overcorrection are when the federal government takes money, property and the personal freedom of individual choice, unjustly, away from other people.
In other words, an American company should have the right to hire/fire who they want. Otherwise we no longer have free enterprise, but we instead have a socialist government whose only purpose is to control. So in nearly three hundred years America has come the full circle. We started out with a government designed to protect the individuals but more importantly to protect freedom under the law for all. Yet, we end up with a government that is attacking its own principles (free enterprise etc.) under the guise of ‘protecting the individual’. When there is an action there is always a reaction, or a cause and an effect. We may, as individuals, think that the government suing a company for AA violation is not hurting any ‘individuals’, but the truth is that it does affect other people, perhaps in the form of layoffs or a rise in product prices for the general public.

Do blacks and Hispanics have higher employment rates than white people?

How could blacks and Hispanics when their populations are smaller than white people’s? This is one example of the many factors that could cause disproportionality in ratios in the work force.
With your defenses of AA it seems you lay the blame all on racism, which you say causes discrimination. To which I have already conceded that both, can and do still exist, albeit in miniscule minorities. At any rate, why is racism/discrimination the only cause of these disproportions? After all apparently AA only attempts to correct racism/discrimination when in reality it cannot. I think objectively speaking, racism is a much smaller factor and there are other factors which play a significant role in societal race disproportions.
For example the divorce rates among blacks, whites and hispanics, could be and I believe is a factor.
divorce360.com | African-Americans and Marriage

This article indicates that blacks are more likely to divorce than whites and hispanics are more likely to do and in fact have a higher divorce rate. I think there are several reasons for this divorce rate not just poverty as is listed. I think the primary reason is that the man does not rise to the responsibility of leading his family.
Again coming back to my original point, racism is not the only cause for the difficulties that people and races face. Making excuses for problems instead of facing them is only running from responsibility.
Hispanics are in many cases even poorer than black Americans, yet they have lower divorce rates and yet they work hard. This is the kind of thing all Americans can take a lesson from. Where is our pioneer work ethic!?!? Why do we insist on getting something for nothing!?

Do they have higher high school and college graduation rates?

Is it a businesses fault that the applicant doesn’t have a college degree? No. Why should the company still be forced to hire them in order to meet the same proportion of, the perhaps more qualified minorities, that the company down the road from them has?

How are white people being disenfranchised by Affirmative Action, especially when white women have benefitted the most from it?

What about the white male/female business owners? Since when has it been a crime to be a white male or a white rich male?
I would have to say that Affirmative action stacks up all its cards against the white, male business owner. Where are his rights of free choice? Each person’s rights/freedoms under law must be protected or there is no protection at all for anyone.
For example a quote from the movie Seargeant York: “Whereby all men were pledged to defend the rights of each man and each man to defend the rights of all men.” That’s what democracy should be about government by the people for the people. Everyone has a role to play.
There is a general trend towards feminizing everything in today’s society, and that is reflected in our laws. Women from any race get a shot at a benefit in the professional realm, which men don’t get. That’s also racist to men.
It may seem odd but I am a woman and do agree with the above. However, I am choosing to pursue a degree and possibly a career. I may prefer to be a characteriscally more demure woman, but I’m not going to take someone else’s right away to be the totally modern self-made woman either.

The proof is in the history behind laws addressing discrimination. Veterans would not be a protected class if there wasn't a history of discrimination against them.
Do Employers Discriminate Against Veterans?
Are Employers Discriminating Against Hiring Veterans? | Veterans Today
http://jobsforveterans.military.com/849/...stice-act/

Furthermore, regarding the troops,
The Veterans Today article is only one person’s opinion. I didn’t see anywhere where he cited his sources.
The first one apparently had a source but the source only appeared to indicate that the majority of civilians mistakenly think that most troops return with PTSD; however, the study did not support that, that misconception led to discrimination based from a stigma.
The author of this article didn’t offer any support for her statement that veterans have difficulty getting hired because of this stigma. Her source only indicated that misunderstanding of PTSD exists and that it had the possibility of affecting employment opportunities. It did not go on to prove that affect. Her source was actually a survey(poll) in other words a collection of other opinions, which lessens the facts and reliability.
And on the third one, just because the government makes a law on it doesn’t mean there actually is discrimination.
However, I will consent that because of the nature of racism, misconceptions, opinions etc., I’m sure discrimination has happened against troops applying for employment. But that’s not the reason they receive benefits.
The troops are risking all to protect their country, they have earned the “quote” benefits they receive. You can’t earn a favor, therefore they are not being “favored” with their “benefits”. When it comes to employment, I think troops don’t need any special legislation to protect them, because they should stand with every other American with the same qualifications when it comes to getting a job. Something like the G.I. bill is what I consider the troops to have earned for risking everything.
Again let me ask, why do we think we, Americans, should be guaranteed a job? We’re missing the point of our own history and how we got to be successful as a nation to begin with!

At this point a I think a lot of what I’ve said applies to what mrs.b was talking about. If I understood her right, she agrees with AA in theory not in practice. However, I disagree with AA in both because the goal, as she stated was to equalize things, or level the playing field. That leveling only leads to socialism and as ryoder indicated is therefore unconstitutional. The Revolution was fought for individuals to be individual not to be someone else’s standard of the perfect weight, wealth and wisdom