SCOTUS

[All-American]

No such thing as "reverse discrimination," it's just "discrimination."

Opinion is here for those who care to read it.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1039_c0n2.pdf

The lower court had rejected the plaintiff's claim after applying a “background circumstances” rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim. All nine justices recognized that rule as contrary to the statute: whether you were discriminated against does not turn on whether you were a majority or minority.

Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch, joining the majority opinion (authored by Justice Brown) in full but also questioning whether the McConnell-Douglas burden-shifting standard should be scuttled, basically inviting litigants to petition for cert to give the Court a chance to address it. If the Court did that, it would have a dramatic effect on how discrimination cases are litigated. But that is beyond the scope of what this case requires.

[All-American]

SCOTUS unanimously sides with a straight woman who was passed over in her job in favor of gay employees. Interesting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...d1763fd55e792f

Again: when Thomas and Sotomayor agree that your case was bad, it was bad. REAL bad.

[USUC]

SCOTUS unanimously sides with a straight woman who was passed over in her job in favor of gay employees. Interesting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...d1763fd55e792f

No such thing as "reverse discrimination," it's just "discrimination."

[Jeff Lebowski]

SCOTUS unanimously sides with a straight woman who was passed over in her job in favor of gay employees. Interesting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...d1763fd55e792f

[BlueK]

The opening lines of the dissent is particularly hilarious:

"Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic “No,” but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned."

Leaving aside the jurisdictional question (why bring it up if you aren't going to address it?), isn't that what the judicial branch is supposed to do? Lol. How dare a federal district judge interpret the law and making decisions with the force of law. How DARE he do it to the US GOVERNMENT (what, exactly, is the federal judiciary again?)!

Proving again that Alito is a FAKE originalist.

[Shaka]

This is fun. A lot of people are making fun of it on Twitter, but I think it's cool. Pretty wild that she was in a drama class with Matt Damon.

Embedded Tweet

That is fun! Her exuberance is great to behold.

[falafel]

Yeah! How dare the court . . . [checks notes] rule against Trump?

Here's the decision, by the way.

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-conten...31-Order-2.pdf

The opening lines of the dissent is particularly hilarious:

"Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic “No,” but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned."

Leaving aside the jurisdictional question (why bring it up if you aren't going to address it?), isn't that what the judicial branch is supposed to do? Lol. How dare a federal district judge interpret the law and making decisions with the force of law. How DARE he do it to the US GOVERNMENT (what, exactly, is the federal judiciary again?)!

[Maximus]

Yeah! How dare the court . . . [checks notes] rule against Trump?

only 4, and not 5, are in the tank for trump.

[frank ryan]

Yeah! How dare the court . . . [checks notes] rule against Trump?

It does look like it is the dissenters who are the ones who constantly side with Trump and are worrisome.

I think it is rational to be suspicious of Thomas and his payments from billionaires, legal or not. Not to mentions his wife's crazy right wing extremism.

[All-American]

Yeah! How dare the court . . . [checks notes] rule against Trump?

Here's the decision, by the way.

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-conten...31-Order-2.pdf

[All-American]

so can the defenders of the SOTUS admit that at least 4 are trump admin members?

you cant even let usaid pay out work already done? lol

Yeah! How dare the court . . . [checks notes] rule against Trump?

[Maximus]

so can the defenders of the SOTUS admit that at least 4 are trump admin members?

you cant even let usaid pay out work already done? lol

[YOhio]

This is fun. A lot of people are making fun of it on Twitter, but I think it's cool. Pretty wild that she was in a drama class with Matt Damon.

Embedded Tweet

[Goatnapper'96]

I think it's becoming increasingly clear that a majority of voters don't care about morality in their leaders, so long as they either hate or go after the right groups.

I finally have a convert! Politics demonstrates a symptom of our deeper issues.

[frank ryan]

Not at all what I said.

Checks and balances are intended to protect one branch of government from being overrun by another. At the end of the day, though, each branch draws its power, however filtered, from the people. The best-designed democracy in the world won't save the electorate from the consequences of their own choices.

Huh?

Part of the strategy reaching all the way up to the SCOTUS is is judicial activism on the part of the Heritage Foundation. Kudos to them, it's been successful.