SCOTUS

[Bo Diddley]

Even though it's a SCOTUS precedent dating back to 1978. I'm not arguing the merits. It's just a little troubling to me how easily this group tends to throw those away.

Context matters and times have changed. Perhaps if the Legislative Branch did a better job we'd see less changes from the SCOTUS.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I imagine that you could word that question in a way that would get more favorable results, especially from the Democrats. I doubt the Republican numbers would move all that much no matter how you worded it.

Darn New York Times skewing things for the conservatives.

[BlueK]

Context matters and times have changed. Perhaps if the Legislative Branch did a better job we'd see less changes from the SCOTUS.

I don't know that I trust them so much either in respecting what the legislative branch passes. Although to their credit they did uphold some of the voting rights act yesterday. But that comes a few years after gutting much of it to the point that yesterday's ruling was a surprise.

[Clark Addison]

Darn New York Times skewing things for the conservatives.

I am not saying that it is written unfairly, but it is missing context. If you added context, I am pretty sure that the Dem numbers would change.

For example, if you said something like this:

Some people feel that inequalities among races disadvantage certain minority populations, and that these disadvantages should be considered as part of the college admission process. Do you agree or disagree with this view.

My bet is that the Republican number would stay about the same, but the Democratic support would move from 40% to 60% or so. People agree with "No Race Based Decisions!" in theory, but not always in practice, given other factors.

I'm not trying to defend AA here. I am just saying that I don't buy that Democratic support of AA is as low as this survey shows.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am not saying that it is written unfairly, but it is missing context. If you added context, I am pretty sure that the Dem numbers would change.

For example, if you said something like this:



My bet is that the Republican number would stay about the same, but the Democratic support would move from 40% to 60% or so. People agree with "No Race Based Decisions!" in theory, but not always in practice, given other factors.

I'm not trying to defend AA here. I am just saying that I don't buy that Democratic support of AA is as low as this survey shows.

OK, here is some hard data to support your theory:

https://apnorc.org/projects/most-opp...ty-admissions/

But these results seem a little fishy as the same poll shows 68% believe that race and ethnicity should be factored at "Not at all/not too important".

Most adults, regardless of political identification, race, or ethnicity believe the Supreme Court should not prohibit the consideration of race and ethnicity in the admissions process. However, few think race and ethnicity should play a major role in college and university admission decisions.

At the same time, if you look at how many highly qualified asian applicants are turned away on account of race, it is tough to swallow. Not sure there are any easy solutions here.

[BlueK]

Also it was the basis of John Eastman's pseudo legal justification of his fake elector ploy.

Some commentary on the decision, including from Chief Justice Roberts:

"The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority, which also included the Trump-nominated Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett."

In other words, the Court ruled that interpreting this clause in the Constitution...

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

...to mean that there was meant to be zero state checks and balances on a state legislature's actions regarding elections, is complete garbage. The thought it would even be possible to believe that the Founders believed legislatures should be allowed to throw out election results if they felt like it, just to maintain their own power after losing at the ballot box, as the independent state legislature theory would legally justify, should frankly be insulting and disgusting to anyone who supports the Constitution.

Thomas and Alito are not respectable or serious originalists like Scalia was. They are clowns.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/27/polit...ers/index.html

[BlueK]

Some commentary on the decision, including from Chief Justice Roberts:

"The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority, which also included the Trump-nominated Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett."

In other words, the Court ruled that interpreting this clause in the Constitution...

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

...to mean that there was meant to be zero state checks and balances on a state legislature's actions regarding elections, is complete garbage. The thought it would even be possible to believe that the Founders believed legislatures should be allowed to throw out election results if they felt like it, just to maintain their own power after losing at the ballot box, as the independent state legislature theory would argue in favor of, should frankly be insulting and disgusting to anyone who supports the Constitution.

Thomas and Alito are not respectable or serious originalists like Scalia was. They are clowns.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/27/polit...ers/index.html

Wow, on CNN tonight retired conservative judge Michael Luttig just told Anderson Cooper that this decision today was the most significant one for our democracy since our nation's founding. Holy crap.

[All-American]

I'm not trying to defend AA here. I am just saying that I don't buy that Democratic support of AA is as low as this survey shows.

So I wander in here wondering why today’s decision on personal jurisdiction got everyone so riled up, and as I scroll around this is the first thing I see. Took me longer than it should have to unconfuse myself.

[Maximus]

may they keep the blessed student loan forgivness

[BlueK]

may they keep the blessed student loan forgivness

Usually they defer a lot to the executive branch, especially the conservatives. But it's Biden, so maybe not in this case. But if the executive branch runs the program through dept of education or whatever, then there might not be a legal justification for ruling against it even if they don't think it's good policy.

[Bo Diddley]

Yeah, I would be surprised if it didn't get the axe.

SUwish!

I really have no idea how they'll rule on the student loan thing. Flip a coin?

[Jeff Lebowski]

may they keep kill the blessed blasted student loan forgivness

FIFY

[Jeff Lebowski]

Race-based admissions are dead.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06...095be609c290aa

Race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina are unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, the latest decision by its conservative supermajority on a contentious issue of American life.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the 6-3 majority, said the two programs “unavoidably employ race in a negative manner” and “involve racial stereotyping,” in a manner that violates the Constitution.

Universities can consider how race has affected an applicant’s life, but he emphasized that students “must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor summarized her dissent from the bench — a rare move that signals profound disagreement. The court, she wrote, was “further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society.”

[Non Sequitur]

Race-based admissions are dead.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06...095be609c290aa

Now it's time to kill religion-based admissions. Private universities should no longer be able consider religious affiliation in their admission standards.

[BlueK]

Now it's time to kill religion-based admissions. Private universities should no longer be able consider religious affiliation in their admission standards.

First Amendment problem there.