SCOTUS

[ousdahl]

SCOTUS shoots down affirmative action

(ETA but only on the issue of race)

[ousdahl]

[DCHawk1]

Why do you hate Asian Americans?

[jfish26]

I know this threatens my (made from 100% recycled materials) DIRTY LIB card, but...I'm just not all that exercised by today's decisions?

I'm not mad that a website designer is allowed to choose projects that are consistent with her values. I think there's a huge difference between a business owner choosing the substance of the work it does, and a business owner choosing whether or not to serve a customer on the basis of the customer's sexuality.

I'm also not mad that the Executive Branch can't just give out cash handouts. I think there's a huge problem with student loan debt in America, but that fixing it by executive fiat isn't the right path.

[KUTradition]

my issue with the debt ruling is that the majority opinion, at least what i’ve read of it, doesn’t even really address the merits of the actual suite that was brought - the financial harm aspect to states/lenders

am i missing something?

[zsn]

But the website case was hypothetical. She wasn’t forced to do anything.

Crooks doing crooked things. SCOTUS is basically a Geico ad now.

[ousdahl]

The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court

In filings in the 303 Creative v. Elenis case is a supposed request for a gay wedding website—but the man named in the request says he never filed it.

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/ ... reme-court

[ousdahl]

Why do you hate Asian Americans?

I’m not talking about the guys who built the railroad, Walter, I’m talking about the guy who peed on my rug!


For real tho, I don’t hate Asian Americans.

And I haven’t read up on this ruling yet, but from what I’ve heard, the court basically said college admissions can consider all sorts of demographic information EXCEPT for race, for whatever that’s worth. Or something.

[jfish26]

But the website case was hypothetical. She wasn’t forced to do anything.

Crooks doing crooked things. SCOTUS is basically a Geico ad now.

Yeah, there are good standing arguments against the majority's holding in each of these cases.

I'm just saying, substantively, I'm just not that upset about the principles underlying either of these holdings. It makes logical sense to me that (i) a private business should be free to choose the projects it undertakes, and (ii) the executive branch shouldn't be able to simply give cash handouts.

[KUTradition]

Why do you hate Asian Americans?

I’m not talking about the guys who built the railroad, Walter, I’m talking about the guy who peed on my rug!


For real tho, I don’t hate Asian Americans.

And I haven’t read up on this ruling yet, but from what I’ve heard, the court basically said college admissions can consider all sorts of demographic information EXCEPT for race, for whatever that’s worth. Or something.

i don’t even think it goes that far

from what i’ve heard, it just limits race being an explicit factor…so, no longer will there be a series of boxes where you check the one next to your race. but, if an applicant feels that their race is a notable and worthwhile part of who they are, then they can absolutely include it in their personal statements AND the admissions boards can still absolutely use those statements as part of the screening process

[ousdahl]

But the website case was hypothetical. She wasn’t forced to do anything.

Crooks doing crooked things. SCOTUS is basically a Geico ad now.

Yeah, there are good standing arguments against the majority's holding in each of these cases.

I'm just saying, substantively, I'm just not that upset about the principles underlying either of these holdings. It makes logical sense to me that (i) a private business should be free to choose the projects it undertakes, and (ii) the executive branch shouldn't be able to simply give cash handouts.

(i) it would be a shame if the invisible hand of the free market bitch slapped some religious bigot’s business so hard there were suddenly no projects left to undertake

(ii) I was gonna try for some point about student loans being predatory in the first place. Or some point about how many cash handouts corporations and evil rich people get. But maybe your point was that these sorts of initiatives shouldn’t come from the executive branch

[ousdahl]

There’s also the case of scotus ruling in favor of a postal worker who refused to work on Sundays for religious reasons.

Ok, whatever, but the silly thing is, the dood was a part time “auxiliary” worker whose entire role was to fill in on weekends and holidays.

Tho, when he started, working sundays wasn’t a requirement, I guess. Then his boss gave him 3 years of wiggle room until they said he had to after all.

It’ll be an interesting precedent.

ETA was anything addressed about religious holidays? If you take a gig working holidays, that seems inevitable.

Also, I blame Jeff Bezos.

[zsn]

But the website case was hypothetical. She wasn’t forced to do anything.

Crooks doing crooked things. SCOTUS is basically a Geico ad now.

Yeah, there are good standing arguments against the majority's holding in each of these cases.

I'm just saying, substantively, I'm just not that upset about the principles underlying either of these holdings. It makes logical sense to me that (i) a private business should be free to choose the projects it undertakes, and (ii) the executive branch shouldn't be able to simply give cash handouts.

I agree about the student loans argument based on preventing the Executive Branch from acting unilaterally. But this Court has been anything but consistent on this. What’s the recourse when the Legislature won’t do anything useful and only blocks Executive from doing useful things? While ends shouldn’t justify the means, the Crooked Court has been all over the place on this.

The only solution in my mind is a 13-person court with a 13-year term limit. A President gets to appoint one judge each year of his/her term, automatically confirmed unless 2/3 of the Senate votes against the nominee.

[jfish26]

But the website case was hypothetical. She wasn’t forced to do anything.

Crooks doing crooked things. SCOTUS is basically a Geico ad now.

Yeah, there are good standing arguments against the majority's holding in each of these cases.

I'm just saying, substantively, I'm just not that upset about the principles underlying either of these holdings. It makes logical sense to me that (i) a private business should be free to choose the projects it undertakes, and (ii) the executive branch shouldn't be able to simply give cash handouts.

I agree about the student loans argument based on preventing the Executive Branch from acting unilaterally. But this Court has been anything but consistent on this. What’s the recourse when the Legislature won’t do anything useful and only blocks Executive from doing useful things? While ends shouldn’t justify the means, the Crooked Court has been all over the place on this.

The only solution in my mind is a 13-person court with a 13-year term limit. A President gets to appoint one judge each year of his/her term, automatically confirmed unless 2/3 of the Senate votes against the nominee.

Yeah. I was speaking to the substantive principles underlying these decisions. I absolutely agree that an activist court - which this one clearly is - is bad. A compromised court - which this one clearly is - is even worse.

[KUTradition]

“God only knows where I would be today” if not for the legal principles of equal employment opportunity measures such as affirmative action that are “critical to minorities and women in this society.”

“These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years…”

guess who

[MICHHAWK]

jaden smith?

amirite.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

“God only knows where I would be today” if not for the legal principles of equal employment opportunity measures such as affirmative action that are “critical to minorities and women in this society.”

“These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years…”

guess who

Clarence Thomas




Don't give me no hand me down shoes
Don't give me no hand me down love
Don't give me no hand me down world
I got one already

guess who

[zsn]

“God only knows where I would be today” if not for the legal principles of equal employment opportunity measures such as affirmative action that are “critical to minorities and women in this society.”

“These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years…”

guess who

If it indeed was Clarence Thomas, he forgot to add “………..and help me hook a wealthy sugar daddy”

[DCHawk1]

“God only knows where I would be today” if not for the legal principles of equal employment opportunity measures such as affirmative action that are “critical to minorities and women in this society.”

“These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years…”

guess who

If it indeed was Clarence Thomas, he forgot to add “………..and help me hook a wealthy sugar daddy”

Jeebus, you're gross.

[DCHawk1]

Why do you hate Asian Americans?

I’m not talking about the guys who built the railroad, Walter, I’m talking about the guy who peed on my rug!


For real tho, I don’t hate Asian Americans.

And I haven’t read up on this ruling yet, but from what I’ve heard, the court basically said college admissions can consider all sorts of demographic information EXCEPT for race, for whatever that’s worth. Or something.

Mostly what you should read is how Harvard treated Asian-AMERICAN applicants. "Try not to sound so Chinese."