Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    MT15

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages
    19,457
    Reaction score
    26,663
    Location
    Midwest
    Offline
    With the increased scrutiny due to recent revelations in the press I thought maybe we can use a SCOTUS thread. We can discuss the impending Senate investigation and the legislation proposed today by Murkowski and King in the Senate that will formalize ethical guidelines.

    We can also use this thread to highlight cases that possibly don’t deserve their own thread, like the following.

    I saw this case today, and I cannot believe the US Government is allowed to do this. Unreasonable search and seizure? The examples he gives in the rest of the thread are just sickening:

     
    What's even more unusual is that the SG's office refused to take a position so the Court appointed an amicus to write the brief against the appellant - stating the argument that habeas should not be allowed from this prisoner.

     
    Good overview of upcoming cases
    =======================

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is getting ready to decide some of its biggest cases of the term. The high court has 10 opinions left to release over the next week before the justices begin their summer break.

    As is typical, the last opinions to be released cover some of the most contentious issues the court has wrestled with this term including affirmative action, student loans and gay rights.

    Here’s a look at some of the cases the court has left to decide from the term that began back in October:

    AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

    The survival of affirmative action in higher education is the subject of two related cases, one involving Harvard and the other the University of North Carolina. The Supreme Court has previously approved of the use of affirmative action in higher education in decisions reaching back to 1978.

    But the justices’ decision to take the cases suggested a willingness to revisit those rulings. And when the high court heard arguments in the cases in late October, all six conservative justices on the court expressed doubts about the practice.
    The Biden administration has said that getting rid of race-conscious college admissions would have a “destabilizing” effect that would cause the ranks of Black and Latino students to plummet at the nation’s most selective schools.

    STUDENT LOANS

    The justices will also decide the fate of President Joe Biden’s plan to wipe away or reduce student loansheld by millions of Americans. When the court heard arguments in the case in February, the plan didn’t seem likely to survive, though it’s possible the justices could decide the challengers lacked the right to sue and the plan can still go forward.

    Biden had proposed erasing $10,000 in federal student loan debt for those with incomes below $125,000 a year, or households that earn less than $250,000. He also wanted to cancel an additional $10,000 for those who received federal Pell Grants to attend college. The administration has said millions of borrowers would benefit from the program.


    Regardless of what happens at the high court, loan payments that have been on hold since the start of the coronavirus pandemic three years ago will resume this summer.


    GAY RIGHTS

    A clash of gay rights and religious rights is also yet to be decided by the court. The case involves a Christian graphic artist from Colorado who wants to begin designing wedding websites but objects to making wedding websites for same-sex couples.

    State law requires businesses that are open to the public to provide services to all customers, but the designer, Lorie Smith, says the law violates her free speech rights. She says ruling against her would force artists — from painters and photographers to writers and musicians — to do work that is against their beliefs.

    Her opponents, meanwhile, say that if she wins, a range of businesses will be able to discriminate, refusing to serve Black, Jewish or Muslim customers, interracial or interfaith couples or immigrants……..

     
    In First Amendment case with a 7-2 decision (Thomas, ACB) the court ruled that online threats can only be criminal if the defendant subjectively understood the language to be genuinely threatening.




     
    The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina that relied in part on racial considerations, saying they violate the Constitution.

    The votes split along ideological grounds, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing for the conservative members in the majority, and the liberals dissenting.

    “The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. “Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

    The justices deciding whether affirmative action recognizes and nourishes a multicultural nation, or impermissibly divides Americans by race, represent the most diverse Supreme Court in history. It is composed of four White men, two White women, one Black man, one Black woman and a Latina.

    As recently as 2016, the court upheld an affirmative action program at the University of Texas, concluding for the third time that educational diversity justifies the consideration of race as one factor in admission decisions.


    But Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the only justice remaining on the court from that slim 4-3 majority. At the time, conservative activist Edward Blum, who brought previous challenges to the practice, was already working on new lawsuits he could present to a rebuilt court.

    In the North Carolina case, his group Students for Fair Admissions said the flagship university’s policies discriminated against White and Asian applicants by giving preference to Black, Hispanic and Native American ones.

    The case against Harvard accused the university of discriminating against Asian American students by employing subjective standards to limit the numbers accepted.

    Challengers say that under the equal protection clause, government-run universities like UNC cannot use race as a factor in admissions decisions. Harvard is not subject to that constitutional clause, but must adhere to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That statute prohibits racial discrimination in the exclusion or denial of benefits under “any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

    At oral argument, several conservative justices repeatedly returned to the question of when — if ever — the consideration of race would no longer be necessary in college admissions. The justices pointed to the majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger from 2003 in which Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion said racial preferences were not likely to be needed in 25 years.............

     
    The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina that relied in part on racial considerations, saying they violate the Constitution.

    The votes split along ideological grounds, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing for the conservative members in the majority, and the liberals dissenting.

    “The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. “Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

    The justices deciding whether affirmative action recognizes and nourishes a multicultural nation, or impermissibly divides Americans by race, represent the most diverse Supreme Court in history. It is composed of four White men, two White women, one Black man, one Black woman and a Latina.

    As recently as 2016, the court upheld an affirmative action program at the University of Texas, concluding for the third time that educational diversity justifies the consideration of race as one factor in admission decisions.


    But Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the only justice remaining on the court from that slim 4-3 majority. At the time, conservative activist Edward Blum, who brought previous challenges to the practice, was already working on new lawsuits he could present to a rebuilt court.

    In the North Carolina case, his group Students for Fair Admissions said the flagship university’s policies discriminated against White and Asian applicants by giving preference to Black, Hispanic and Native American ones.

    The case against Harvard accused the university of discriminating against Asian American students by employing subjective standards to limit the numbers accepted.

    Challengers say that under the equal protection clause, government-run universities like UNC cannot use race as a factor in admissions decisions. Harvard is not subject to that constitutional clause, but must adhere to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That statute prohibits racial discrimination in the exclusion or denial of benefits under “any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

    At oral argument, several conservative justices repeatedly returned to the question of when — if ever — the consideration of race would no longer be necessary in college admissions. The justices pointed to the majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger from 2003 in which Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion said racial preferences were not likely to be needed in 25 years.............

    Yeah, that's not surprising. Was gonna happen sooner or later. I'm sure there will be other considerations that would serve as something of a workaround. They'll just have to be creative in continuing to attract a diverse applicant pool.
     
    Yeah, that's not surprising. Was gonna happen sooner or later. I'm sure there will be other considerations that would serve as something of a workaround. They'll just have to be creative in continuing to attract a diverse applicant pool.
    Yeah I'd honestly say I'm somewhat split on the issue and probably would have liked to find some middle ground (shocking coming for me, I know).. historical context of systemic discrimination against black people is obviously compelling but I also do find the idea that other minority groups were discriminated against as a result to be compelling as well.
     
    Yeah I'd honestly say I'm somewhat split on the issue and probably would have liked to find some middle ground (shocking coming for me, I know).. historical context of systemic discrimination against black people is obviously compelling but I also do find the idea that other minority groups were discriminated against as a result to be compelling as well.

    The other minority group where really only Asian students. They weren't being discriminated against either as individuals or as a group and that was never the purpose of affirmative action. Neither where white applicants for that matter. All affirmative action did was to make it so that members of other minority racial groups had representation that reflected American society and it's diversity. Even with affirmative action, whites and Asian students were still overrepresented in student bodies when compared to their proportion of the population in American society. Hard to call that discrimination. That disparity becomes even more so without affirmative action, as we'll see in the coming years. Hispanic students will be especially hurt.
     
    The other minority group where really only Asian students. They weren't being discriminated against either as individuals or as a group and that was never the purpose of affirmative action. Neither where white applicants for that matter. All affirmative action did was to make it so that members of other minority racial groups had representation that reflected American society and it's diversity. Even with affirmative action, whites and Asian students were still overrepresented in student bodies when compared to their proportion of the population in American society. Hard to call that discrimination. That disparity becomes even more so without affirmative action, as we'll see in the coming years. Hispanic students will be especially hurt.
    I'm not convinced there will be that much change. I guess we'll see, but I'd be surprised if the numbers move more than 10% in either direction outside some unforseen event.
     
    The other minority group where really only Asian students. They weren't being discriminated against either as individuals or as a group and that was never the purpose of affirmative action. Neither where white applicants for that matter. All affirmative action did was to make it so that members of other minority racial groups had representation that reflected American society and it's diversity. Even with affirmative action, whites and Asian students were still overrepresented in student bodies when compared to their proportion of the population in American society. Hard to call that discrimination. That disparity becomes even more so without affirmative action, as we'll see in the coming years. Hispanic students will be especially hurt.
    That's fair and admittedly I haven't looked enough into the issue to have had a solid basis for an opinion.
     
    I'm not convinced there will be that much change. I guess we'll see, but I'd be surprised if the numbers move more than 10% in either direction outside some unforseen event.

    A 10% change is a huge difference. That could wipe out Black/Latino representation at many schools.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom