Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (4 Viewers)

[MT15]

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:

 

[MT15]

The Onion, lol:

 

[Snarky Sack]

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.

Yes they will. People interested in using race as a deciding factor in what opportunities people are allowed or not allowed have always found work arounds for those "pesky laws" forbidding discrimination

Poll taxes, voter literacy tests, vagrancy laws, etc. would work like a charm and creative people could find rational justification for them. "What's the point of voting for the government if you won't pay a small tax to support the government?" "Why do you want someone to vote if they can't read?"

I'm guessing that this time they will use what they are already using in many schools along with the race check off box: Personal stories of overcoming struggles, that indicate race, questions about how the applicant will contribute to diversity with high scores for those who say their color alone will do that, etc.

 

[Optimus Prime]

CNN) — Conservatives – despite their limited federal elected power – racked up another huge win in the great political battle of the early 21st century.

The Supreme Court’s gutting of affirmative action in college admissions on Thursday toppled another pillar of America’s liberal social infrastructure. Democrats have had their successes over the last 20 years – including earlier this month with decisions ordering the redraw of Alabama’s congressional map and rejecting a Trump-backed election law theory – but it often seems as though conservatives have the momentum.

Republicans only control one chamber of Congress, and narrowly so, while Democrats hold the White House and the Senate. And yet Thursday’s ruling further weakened a core principle of Democratic politics that unites the party’s presidents dating to Franklin Roosevelt – that the government should use its power to ease social injustices and lift up the disadvantaged. Civil rights advocates saw the decision as re-erecting barriers based on race that their forbears fought for decades to remove and a step back into tortured history.

Originalist conservatives, however – who argue that the text of the Constitution makes no consideration for prevailing social or racial realities – say justices struck a blow for the core founding principle that everyone is created equal……..

Conservatives are on a roll in their quest to remake America through the courts | CNN Politics

Conservatives – despite their limited federal elected power – racked up another huge win in the great political battle of the early 21st century.

www.cnn.com

 

[Incumbent]

I can understand why Affirmative Action is upsetting to some people on its surface, but once you understand and accept America's long history of racism - from slavery, to Jim Crow, the 13th amendment, systemic social stratification - and recognize the dire, generational socioeconomic consequences, you should be able to see that the injustice isn't in the corrective measures, it's in the hundreds of years of openly practiced racism meant to keep certain people out of classrooms, boardrooms, and government halls. Progress only happened because of policies enacted to open previously closed doors.

 

[DaveXA]

Not really unexpected, but SCOTUS struck down the President's student loan forgiveness. I think from a purely legal standpoint it's the correct call, but I support student loan forgiveness. Congress has to get behind it though. That's the only way you'll legally get forgiveness in the amounts Biden was going for.

I'm sure based on the Court's reasoning, Biden will do something that fits within the contours of the decision today.

June 30, 2023 SCOTUS blocks Biden’s student loan plan and limits LGBTQ protections | CNN Politics

The Supreme Court issued two monumental 6-3 decisions Friday, the final day of its current term. The court blocked President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program and limited LGBTQ protections in a separate case.

www.cnn.com

 

[coldseat]

Not really unexpected, but SCOTUS struck down the President's student loan forgiveness. I think from a purely legal standpoint it's the correct call, but I support student loan forgiveness. Congress has to get behind it though. That's the only way you'll legally get forgiveness in the amounts Biden was going for.

I'm sure based on the Court's reasoning, Biden will do something that fits within the contours of the decision today.

June 30, 2023 SCOTUS blocks Biden’s student loan plan and limits LGBTQ protections | CNN Politics

The Supreme Court issued two monumental 6-3 decisions Friday, the final day of its current term. The court blocked President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program and limited LGBTQ protections in a separate case.

www.cnn.com

I'm really confused here. I read the unanimous decision by the court, and all I got from it was that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to sue and that they suffered not identifiable injury. The district course case was vacated with instructions to dismiss. Headlines not withstanding, how does that add up to the SC striking down the student loan forgiveness plan?

 

[zztop]

On Thursday, the six conservative justices held that affirmative action programs in higher education are unlawful, and in particular, that they violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

The End of Affirmative Action Is Only the Beginning

Yet again, the Supreme Court’s conservatives just get rid of precedents that they don’t like.

nymag.com

The court for decades, as recently as 2016, had upheld college admissions programs that take race into account as one factor among many. Why this sudden change? As a practical matter, two things happened. First, a conservative activist named Edward Blum, who had been trying and failing to engineer this outcome for decades, continued his effort, this time partially reframing his crusade as an effort to combat discrimination against Asian Americans in the admissions process. And second, the composition of the Court dramatically changed after Donald Trump got Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett on the bench, resulting in the majority that issued Thursday’s ruling.

 

[Incumbent]

And second, the composition of the Court dramatically changed after Donald Trump got Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett on the bench, resulting in the majority that issued Thursday’s ruling.

Yep, and voters on the left have to get a lot better at seeing the long game and finding the motivation to vote, even if bregrudgingly, in every election. It was clear in 2016 what a disaster a Trump win would be for progress in this country. The parties aren't "the same", and we keep realizing the dire consequences of that lie over and over and over.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Well Justice Roberts, those criticisms are born from your court repeatedly overturning LAWS that you personally disagree with! In particular, I'm speaking of Laws that were enacted over 50 years ago! Its almost as if your Court has usurped Congress!

 

[SFIDC3]

Amy Coney Barrett

I read a CNN article on the "analogies" she used to support her decision, she is clearly not qualified to be a SC justice.....

 

[J-DONK]

Yep, and voters on the left have to get a lot better at seeing the long game and finding the motivation to vote, even if bregrudgingly, in every election. It was clear in 2016 what a disaster a Trump win would be for progress in this country. The parties aren't "the same", and we keep realizing the dire consequences of that lie over and over and over.

We say this but 3 of the current SC justices were put there by a president who didn't win the popular vote. This is less the blame of the people, and more Democrats for never taking up the mantle of true reformers. They are to nice, and to big of cowards to be effective leaders. They talk about norms, and tradition, but all I see is a deep fear of change.

1. Obama's congress could have passed the Wyoming Rule.
2. Dems could have added PR, and some part of DC as a states.
3. Dems could have made RBG retire.
4. Lastly, the primaries need to be a blood sport. No more backroom deals, or single candidate primaries. You find your strength in the conflict of debates.

I find it hard to tell voters they just need to do more, while they keep overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

 

[Incumbent]

We say this but 3 of the current SC justices were put there by a president who didn't win the popular vote. This is less the blame of the people, and more Democrats for never taking up the mantle of true reformers. They are to nice, and to big of cowards to be effective leaders. They talk about norms, and tradition, but all I see is a deep fear of change.

1. Obama's congress could have passed the Wyoming Rule.
2. Dems could have added PR, and some part of DC as a states.
3. Dems could have made RBG retire.
4. Lastly, the primaries need to be a blood sport. No more backroom deals, or single candidate primaries. You find your strength in the conflict of debates.

I find it hard to tell voters they just need to do more, while they keep overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

Talking about the popular vote misses the mark in a system that elects a president via the electoral college but as it is, Trump bested Romney in popular vote, and Clinton underperformed Obama, from the previous election. All I can hope now is that left-leaning voters have learned a lesson from 2016 because that damage is done.

My point isn't to let the DNC and elected democrats off the hook, but to focus on the one thing that every left-leaning person can do, and that is to vote for the last candidate standing who is most closely aligned with their beliefs AND who has a realistic chance of actually winning.

The political Left is much more diverse than the right, which is a challenge for any Democratic candidate to navigate. If we don't ever want another repeat of 2016, we have to get over the divisions - not progressive enough, too progressive, not likable enough, too old, too establishment, too radical - we perpetuate amongst ourselves. Have open and passionate debates in the primaries, let the majority have its say, and if the nominee isn't who we were hoping for, don't let bitterness or apathy allow us to be complicit in helping the other side drag this country even further back. Hold the line, so at the very least, the progress that's been made doesn't get eroded. I remember conversations in 2016, recognizing that if Clinton lost, the conditions to advance the cause for progress would be severely altered, likely for a generation, if not longer. Here we are.

 

[zztop]

The political Left is much more diverse than the right, which is a challenge for any democratic candidate to navigate.

Yea, there is a large variety on the (D) side. You have people like coal-company Manchin, to people like Bernie. Have to hand it to (R) they mostly all have a singular mind and mostly all vote the same way

 

[superchuck500]

 

[efil4]

she forgot the " and the $1500 parents paid for "learning disability" diagnosis to allot you additional hours to take SAT/ACT "

 

[zztop]

I can understand why Affirmative Action is upsetting to some people on its surface, but once you understand and accept America's long history of racism - from slavery, to Jim Crow, the 13th amendment, systemic social stratification - and recognize the dire, generational socioeconomic consequences, you should be able to see that the injustice isn't in the corrective measures, it's in the hundreds of years of openly practiced racism meant to keep certain people out of classrooms, boardrooms, and government halls. Progress only happened because of policies enacted to open previously closed doors.

I wish I could remember where I saw it, because I think there were graphs and everything. But what I remember is that oppression and deliberately putting people at a disadvantage (social, economic, educational etc) does not end with them. It affects their kids, and grand kids, and great grand kids and so on.

 

[J-DONK]

Talking about the popular vote misses the mark in a system that elects a president via the electoral college but as it is, Trump bested Romney in popular vote, and Clinton underperformed Obama, from the previous election. All I can hope now is that left-leaning voters have learned a lesson from 2016 because that damage is done.

My point isn't to let the DNC and elected democrats off the hook, but to focus on the one thing that every left-leaning person can do, and that is to vote for the last candidate standing who is most closely aligned with their beliefs AND who has a realistic chance of actually winning.

The political Left is much more diverse than the right, which is a challenge for any Democratic candidate to navigate. If we don't ever want another repeat of 2016, we have to get over the divisions - not progressive enough, too progressive, not likable enough, too old, too establishment, too radical - we perpetuate amongst ourselves. Have open and passionate debates in the primaries, let the majority have its say, and if the nominee isn't who we were hoping for, don't let bitterness or apathy allow us to be complicit in helping the other side drag this country even further back. Hold the line, so at the very least, the progress that's been made doesn't get eroded. I remember conversations in 2016, recognizing that if Clinton lost, the conditions to advance the cause for progress would be severely altered, likely for a generation, if not longer. Here we are.

I think you have it backwards.

It wasn't the populations failure to vote for HRC. It was the DNP failure to have a real primary that failed the people. This is a simple concept. If you want buy in, have an actual election. I've been through this with more then one of you on this board. The fault lies not with the voting base, but with the candidate.

2016 was a case study in hubris, not petty division. That's what lead to this moment. PRIDE