SCOTUS

[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

Ah. So what you're saying is that the United States today is exactly the same as it was in 1965.

Goodjobgoodpost.

[ousdahl]

lol DC thinks I’m Harvard

[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

Ah. So what you're saying is that the United States today is exactly the same as it was in 1965.

Goodjobgoodpost.

the only thing i said was “guess who”

glad your just here to…uh…help

[ousdahl]

[zsn]

DC to tell you that The Onion is gross in 5…..4……..

[DCHawk1]

Nope. Just you.

Politics has warped you -- grotesquely.

[ousdahl]

Jeez!

If that’s what politics did to zsn, I’m afraid to even ask what politics did to DCHawk.

[zsn]

Jeez!

If that’s what politics did to zsn, I’m afraid to even ask what politics did to DCHawk.

Reduced to defending Clarence Thomas, and assorted crooks. Unfortunately.

[ousdahl]

In another decision that didn’t get quite the same media, apparently scotus took a dump on Navajo water rights.

Or something. Trying to make sense of it.

Par for the course, I guess. Shitting all over the natives is kinda this country’s thing.

[jfish26]

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."

Feels to me like Asian-Americans are being used by the right here. It can be (and very much, in my opinion, IS) true that (1) Asian-Americans had a legit beef in the case in question, and (2) the Court went very very very far beyond resolving the case in question.

Now of course in theory the way it’s supposed to work is that another case will come down the pike, and the overcorrection will be smoothed out. But nobody with Reality Goggles on expects that to be how this will go.

[Sparko]

In the case of affirmative action, it was never a case that schools had too few qualified applicants of all races and creeds. The argument always devolves into a question of "More qualified than you" stuff which guarantees people elbowing their way to the sale table. Look at Cruz and DeSantis. I mean that education wrapped around an idiot was a key to the gravy train and must be restricted to George W. Bush type admissions as a matter of entitlement according to the Supreme Court. Stop legacy admissions anywhere with restricted admissions otherwise. Or stop letting the Ivy League whore around with its circle jerk of entitled pinheads making America into Idiocracy.

[Shirley]

[Shirley]

Standing: In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.

[zsn]

Politics has warped the Court. Grotesquely.

[DCHawk1]

Politics has warped the Court. Grotesquely.

For about fifty years or so...

[jhawks99]

When does Walgreens get to kick out the coloreds?

[jfish26]

Standing: In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.

The more I read about the case and its procedural history, the less I’m concerned about the standing thing. I have a much greater degree of concern over the veracity of the claims themselves.

Still, as a matter of principle, I struggle with the idea that someone in their private, professional life should be required to take on any particular kind of work.

I continue to see a HUGE difference between (1) a restaurant owner not serving a gay couple, and (2) a wedding photographer not working a gay wedding.

[twocoach]

Standing: In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.

The more I read about the case and its procedural history, the less I’m concerned about the standing thing. I have a much greater degree of concern over the veracity of the claims themselves.

Still, as a matter of principle, I struggle with the idea that someone in their private, professional life should be required to take on any particular kind of work.

I continue to see a HUGE difference between (1) a restaurant owner not serving a gay couple, and (2) a wedding photographer not working a gay wedding.

It's not that they should be required to take the work. It's that they should not be allowed to openly post that certain portions of our society are unable to even attempt to access their services.

My wife is allowed to turn down a student to coach because she has concerns about whether they will be able to afford the level of participation that their stated desired level of performance allows an she wants to avoid putting them in that situation. She is just not allowed to openly post something that says "If your parents don't make 100k+ then I am not interested in teaching you."

[jfish26]

Standing: In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.

The more I read about the case and its procedural history, the less I’m concerned about the standing thing. I have a much greater degree of concern over the veracity of the claims themselves.

Still, as a matter of principle, I struggle with the idea that someone in their private, professional life should be required to take on any particular kind of work.

I continue to see a HUGE difference between (1) a restaurant owner not serving a gay couple, and (2) a wedding photographer not working a gay wedding.

It's not that they should be required to take the work. It's that they should not be allowed to openly post that certain portions of our society are unable to even attempt to access their services.

My wife is allowed to turn down a student to coach because she has concerns about whether they will be able to afford the level of participation that their stated desired level of performance allows an she wants to avoid putting them in that situation. She is just not allowed to openly post something that says "If your parents don't make 100k+ then I am not interested in teaching you."

Eh.

I think openly broadcasting that you hate the gays and won't take money from the gays (for the private work you do), then that makes you (in my opinion) a terrible person, but not (again in my opinion) doing something that should be illegal.

[Shirley]

When does Walgreens get to kick out the coloreds?

Hey 99, why do you hate freedum?

As sad as I am to see this, part of me can't wait until the various bigoted businesses begin outing themselves so I'll know where not to spend my money. Just a guess, but I doubt I'll be their only former customer as soon as they do.

Is it too much to hope that the realization of this, yet another fever-dream of "real Americans", i.e., republicans, reaps the same results that their goal of outlawing abortion has wrought for them in the majority of the elections since they reached their long-sought happy ending of further control of women by overturning Roe?