SCOTUS - The BS we are living

[Sawdy]

We have the roe v wade thread, but we can assume shit is going to continue to get wicked dumb… more stupid…

so… let’s fucking kick this shit off!

we can assume SCOTUS will uphold this shit too.

 

[Vamped]

What in the goddamn fuck!!?!!

 

[stilgar]

I wish the south would secede again.

[Vamped]

Gonna be real hard to adopt all these "preborn" babies if they're busy discriminating. 

[1pooh4u]

Wtaf no establishment anywhere ever should be allowed to put up exclusionary signs federal funded or not. Wtf is this shit. 

[1pooh4u]

And then Morton’s Steakhouse has the audacity to cry about Kavanaugh being chased out of the place by protesters 

https://nypost.com/2022/07/08/mortons-rips-protesters-who-harassed-kavanaugh-at-dinner/amp/

no peace for any of them. Not home. Not at work. Definitely not at play. Idgaf if their entire family is with them. No fuckin peace for activist judges stripping rights one after another. 

[Sawdy]

31 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Wtaf no establishment anywhere ever should be allowed to put up exclusionary signs federal funded or not. Wtf is this shit. 

The silver lining, we now see all of this deep seeded shit exposed… now what is the country willing to do about it…. 
 

This existed long before all of this, now people are getting comfortable saying what they really felt and doing shit because they think they can make their theocracy a reality.

Edited July 8, 2022 by Sawdy

[1pooh4u]

The Jewish community got real complacent once we were accepted as white and being Jewish was dropped as a racial distinction.  A lot of us, once guaranteed to vote democrat, started becoming Republican, feeling safe in the privilege of whiteness. How blind are we that we turned our back on issues of social Justice and civil rights, thinking that the white Christian default wouldn’t knock us off our pedestal whenever they felt like it. Trump allowed that long held quiet anti Semitism to be said out loud and the message is very clear “we still hate you and only want your vote, money but nothing else”

[1pooh4u]

The crazy shit is they wanted to be foster parents. These Christians are the ones wanting abortions abolished the most yet deny people wanting to foster children. 
pro life my Jewish white fat ass 🙄

[naraku360]

I looked into this a little. From what I found, they're saying the lawsuit was dismissed because they wanted to raise the kid in Florida and the rejection was because the service was only in-state and that it was retroactively accepted (not sure for what reason), along with being unable to demonstrate similar situations.

Not saying it's impossible, or unlikely, that Republicans will try reinstating segregation. Just that, if the judges are being truthful, this doesn't seem like something that will lead to "No Jews Allowed" signs.

Didn't look too deeply into it yet since I was on hold at work when I looked it up. So, probably best to doublecheck me on it.

[katt_goddess]

1 hour ago, 1pooh4u said:

And then Morton’s Steakhouse has the audacity to cry about Kavanaugh being chased out of the place by protesters 

https://nypost.com/2022/07/08/mortons-rips-protesters-who-harassed-kavanaugh-at-dinner/amp/

no peace for any of them. Not home. Not at work. Definitely not at play. Idgaf if their entire family is with them. No fuckin peace for activist judges stripping rights one after another. 

Show me in the Constitution where it specifically states the Right to Eat Dinner. Hell, show me where 'dinner' is mentioned at all.  

If you are fine with claiming that crazy people are allowed to get in the faces of women entering a clinic because anything that would put distance between the attacker and their victims is an attack on the attacker's right to free speech, then you can shut the hell up about people showing up to yell at your stupid ass. Stay home with a precious BEER if you are that thin skinned. 

[discolé monade]

After first agreeing to help them, Holston in January 2021 informed them it wouldn't enroll them in foster-parent training classes because "as a Christian organization, our executive team made the decision several years ago to only provide adoption services to prospective adoptive families that share our belief system in order to avoid conflicts or delays with future service delivery."

[discolé monade]

1 hour ago, 1pooh4u said:

And then Morton’s Steakhouse has the audacity to cry about Kavanaugh being chased out of the place by protesters 

https://nypost.com/2022/07/08/mortons-rips-protesters-who-harassed-kavanaugh-at-dinner/amp/

no peace for any of them. Not home. Not at work. Definitely not at play. Idgaf if their entire family is with them. No fuckin peace for activist judges stripping rights one after another. 

so reading this article. the restaurant was pissed because protestors prosted at their business?

or protestors are made because restaurant served them? 

[1pooh4u]

7 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

so reading this article. the restaurant was pissed because protestors prosted at their business?

or protestors are made because restaurant served them? 

The restaurant is mad because there were protesters but when you allow trash through your doors don’t cry when the health department comes, so to speak 

[1pooh4u]

17 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

After first agreeing to help them, Holston in January 2021 informed them it wouldn't enroll them in foster-parent training classes because "as a Christian organization, our executive team made the decision several years ago to only provide adoption services to prospective adoptive families that share our belief system in order to avoid conflicts or delays with future service delivery."

Let a child languish in a group home or orphanage because you don’t want to hand them over to a Jewish foster home and then force people to have babies too. This is what makes sense to these people 

[Sawdy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/07/08/anti-lgbtq-education-laws-in-effect/

[Seight]

15 hours ago, discolé monade said:

so reading this article. the restaurant was pissed because protestors prosted at their business?

or protestors are made because restaurant served them? 

Yes.

And I know Katt implied it but mediocre $70+ steaks are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

[André Toulon]

Sheesh

[Raptorpat]

There are ten opinions left and this is the final week of the term. I believe decisions will be announced on Tuesday and Friday. Here's a short summary of issues to clench over this week:

Quote

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 loans held 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.

During arguments in the case in December, the court’s conservative majority sounded sympathetic to Smith’s arguments, and religious plaintiffs have in recent years won a series of victories at the high court.

RELIGIOUS RIGHTS

Another case that could end as a victory for religious rights is the case of a Christian mail carrier who refused to work on Sundays when he was required to deliver Amazon packages.

The question for the high court has to do with when businesses have to accommodate religious employees. The case is somewhat unusual in that both sides agree on a number of things, and when the court heard arguments in April both liberal and conservative justices seemed in broad agreement that businesses like the Postal Service can’t cite minor costs or hardships to reject requests to accommodate religious practices. That could mean a ruling joined by both liberals and conservatives.

Less clear, however, was how the justices might decide the particular worker’s case.

VOTING

As election season accelerates, the Supreme Court has still not said what it will do in a case about the power of state legislatures to make rules for congressional and presidential elections without being checked by state courts.

In a case out of North Carolina the justices were asked to essentially eliminate the power of state courts to strike down congressional districts drawn by legislatures on the grounds that they violate state constitutions.

But there’s a wrinkle. Since the justices heard arguments in the case in December, North Carolina’s state Supreme Court threw out the ruling the Supreme Court was reviewing after Republicans claimed control of that court. That could give the justices an out and let them dismiss the case without reaching a decision.

The high court could still take up a similar case from Ohio and reach a decision there, but it wouldn’t be until after the 2024 elections.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-affirmative-action-student-loans-gay-rights-elections-a3007709350cd1606d5ce9ac4de957a6

[Raptorpat]

SCOTUS announced three of its remaining opinions. A jurisdiction case (Mallory v. Norfolk Southern - 5-4 Justice Gorsuch for the majority), a free speech case (Counterman v. Colorado - 7-2 Justice Kagan for the majority), and the big redistricting whammy Moore v. Harper. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf

Moore v. Harper was the case where NC's GOP legislature argued that state courts have no authority to block partisan gerrymandering because legislatures have "plenary" authority to redistrict. There was a whole lot of pants-shitting on this one, as Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Rucho decision a couple years ago that said partisan gerrymandering claims fall outside the reach of federal courts. Roberts wrote the majority opinion in Moore, joined by the libs, Kav, and ACB:

Quote

State courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause. But federal courts must not abandon their own duty to exercise judicial review. In interpreting state law in this area, state courts may not so exceed the bounds of ordinary judicial review as to unconstitutionally intrude upon the role specifically reserved to state legislatures by Article I, Section 4, of the Federal Constitution. Because we need not decide whether that occurred in today’s case, the judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court is affirmed.

Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence:

Quote

the Court has recognized and articulated a general principle for federal court review of state court decisions in federal election cases. In the future, the Court should and presumably will distill that general principle into a more specific standard such as the one advanced by Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Basically, they're saying that state courts can act on elections issues, but the federal courts can say "hold it you've gone too far". Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito dissented.

Seven cases left to go, next opinion day is Thursday and presumably one more day after that.

[Master-Debater131]

Im not surprised about the Moore decision. That always felt like such a fringe idea that it didnt stand a chance.

The two big cases left are over Affirmative Action and Student Loans. With how contentious those are I suspect we get them late on Friday before the 4th of July weekend.

[Raptorpat]

There's also a religious rights/gay rights case and a religious workplace accomodations care. One other that escapes me.

[Master-Debater131]

Not a surprise here. SCOTUS has ruled that race-based admissions violate the 14th amendment.

 

This is a huge deal, and its overdue. Remember, these cases were brought by Asian Americans who were consistently discriminated against by these universities. The use of race as a primary decision factor is racism, pure and simple. By removing the ability of institutions to focus on race it eliminates another racist roadblock that has stood for far too long. Even a couple of decades ago SCOTUS admitted that this would likely need to be struck down at some point.

[Icarus27k]

19 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Not a surprise here. SCOTUS has ruled that race-based admissions violate the 14th amendment.

 

This is a huge deal, and its overdue. Remember, these cases were brought by Asian Americans who were consistently discriminated against by these universities. The use of race as a primary decision factor is racism, pure and simple. By removing the ability of institutions to focus on race it eliminates another racist roadblock that has stood for far too long. Even a couple of decades ago SCOTUS admitted that this would likely need to be struck down at some point.

Did a racist write this? 

[1pooh4u]

Ok so now universities will be majority Asian and fuck it all for other POC?  How about we get rid of legacy admission too because whose hole you fell out of and the pole that placed it there shouldn’t have bearing on admissions either. 

[1pooh4u]

1 hour ago, Icarus27k said:

Did a racist write this? 

Not necessarily but definitely someone ignoring the roadblocks that other POC, especially Black and Latinos face in many public school systems around the country. There are thousands of children that are definitely deserving of an Ivy League education but racial, social and economic barriers make it extremely difficult.  

[Master-Debater131]

The other case that came down had to do with a USPS worker who refused to work on Sunday due to religion.

 

It was a 9-0 decision.

[Icarus27k]

I find it very racist white person to be like, "look, we found some Asian-Americans to argue this and take the heat off us white people". 

[Raptorpat]

last day of the term is tomorrow. Student loans and a religious/LGBT rights case.

[Icarus27k]

Alito and Roberts have written opinions the day so far. I wonder who else is up today. 

 

Unless it's Roberts again in all big cases. 

[Master-Debater131]

4 minutes ago, Raptorpat said:

last day of the term is tomorrow. Student loans and a religious/LGBT rights case.

The Student Loans one will be interesting because so much of it surrounds the idea of Standing. We arent sure if there is enough standing to issue a ruling. If SCOTUS does decide that there is standing then I expect them to overturn the student loan bailout. But I also wouldnt be shocked if they dismiss the case on the technicality of standing.

Its going to be super interesting to see what happens.

[Icarus27k]

The Supreme Court erred in today's affirmative action decision and what the Constitution says about it. 

This bad decision will just have to be overturned in the future. When we don't have a bunch of justices who get right-wing millionaires who pay for vacations for members of the Court. 

 

[1pooh4u]

15 minutes ago, Icarus27k said:

I find it very racist white person to be like, "look, we found some Asian-Americans to argue this and take the heat off us white people". 

Is that what MD did, or did she just point out that they brought the cases because they’re the people not getting in because “there are too many Asians here already” is what they’re told? 

[Master-Debater131]

Something interesting starting to pop up already from this decision is a question on if people who were denied admission because of race can sue for damages. SCOTUS didnt touch that topic today, but it sure seems like that door is open. At a minimum, those involved in this decision likely have standing and an ability to sue Harvard and UNC for damages. Their lifetime earnings potential was likely decreased because of the decision by the schools not to admit them.

Thats going to be a very interesting thing to watch moving forward. I expect these schools to try and find a way around this decision, but if their endowments are suddenly at risk of punitive damages they may rethink that strategy.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Master-Debater131

[PenguinBoss]

You don't need affirmative action when a billionaire pays for your nephew's tuition.

[MasqueradeOverture]

I'll be totally honest... affirmative action was the only reason I got into college.

I had like a low 80-something average, barely acceptable SAT scores, zero extracurriculars; but I marked myself as Hispanic and my mom was an alumni so I got in.

Meanwhile, some girl at my high school had a 93 average and played Lacross applied to the same school and got rejected. GOD I love how I played the system HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[scoobdog]

3 hours ago, MasqueradeOverture said:

I'll be totally honest... affirmative action was the only reason I got into college.

I had like a low 80-something average, barely acceptable SAT scores, zero extracurriculars; but I marked myself as Hispanic and my mom was an alumni so I got in.

Meanwhile, some girl at my high school had a 93 average and played Lacross applied to the same school and got rejected. GOD I love how I played the system HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Did you get in because of your race or did you actually get in because you were a legacy?

[MasqueradeOverture]

45 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

Did you get in because of your race or did you actually get in because you were a legacy?

Two leg ups ain't bad.

Fuckin using stilts in this bitch.

[Seight]

11 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Not a surprise here. SCOTUS has ruled that race-based admissions violate the 14th amendment.

 

This is a huge deal, and its overdue. Remember, these cases were brought by Asian Americans who were consistently discriminated against by these universities. The use of race as a primary decision factor is racism, pure and simple. By removing the ability of institutions to focus on race it eliminates another racist roadblock that has stood for far too long. Even a couple of decades ago SCOTUS admitted that this would likely need to be struck down at some point.

I just want you to know this completely ruins my "Now it'll be easier for white people to get into Baylor!" joke I had set up.

[Icarus27k]

5 hours ago, scoobdog said:

Did you get in because of your race or did you actually get in because you were a legacy?

 

There's nothing remotely controversial or unconstitutional about affirmative action. The majority on the Supreme Court are just a bunch of regressive goons. 

[scoobdog]

5 minutes ago, Icarus27k said:

 

There's nothing remotely controversial or unconstitutional about affirmative action. The majority on the Supreme Court are just a bunch of regressive goons. 

I mean there isn’t anything wrong with being a legacy either.

[Raptorpat]

First decision today is a religious rights/LGBT rights case: The Court holds that the First Amendment bars Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

[discolé monade]

wait. 

this is a case?

what happened 'the right to refuse service'?

do states force private businesses to produce, if it goes against that companies policies? i'm really confused 

[discolé monade]

10 hours ago, Icarus27k said:

 

There's nothing remotely controversial or unconstitutional about affirmative action. The majority on the Supreme Court are just a bunch of regressive goons. 

and since it's induction $$ has made sure to spread the angst of HOW bad affirmative action is. 

 this country REALLY is 'great again'.  /s/

[Jman]

Student loan forgiveness was just shot down, and I again realize how lucky I was to be able to pay off my bills last year.  

[Raptorpat]

14 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

what happened 'the right to refuse service'?

do states force private businesses to produce, if it goes against that companies policies? i'm really confused 

The right to refuse service stops at legally prohibited discrimination. Question in this case is whether someone can deny "expressive services" to a legally protected class because it violates their religious beliefs. Majority says yes.

[Master-Debater131]

25 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

wait. 

this is a case?

what happened 'the right to refuse service'?

do states force private businesses to produce, if it goes against that companies policies? i'm really confused 

It was about a state law that amounted to compelled speech. It wasn't about the right to refuse service but a question if the state can compel you to participate in speech that you do not agree with. It focused, in this case, on a web designer who didn't want to provide openly LGBT messages on her designs. That was illegal under Colorado law. 

This ruling means that you cannot be compelled to participate in speech that you do not agree with. You cant outright ban services to entire classes of people, but you also cant be forced to participate in speech.

[1pooh4u]

This court is a clown shoes court 

[MasqueradeOverture]

[Icarus27k]

I feel like I am a better person for not personally knowing any of the people who wrote today's homophobic Court ruling. 

 

I can get much higher quality humans to interact with.