Jump to content
UnevenEdge

SCOTUS - The BS we are living


Sawdy

Recommended Posts

Between the affirmative action ruling limiting the scope of race considerations for university and college admissions and this ruling allowing people to discriminate and say it’s their first amendment rights to not participate in speech (that isn’t their speech or representative of their company in any way) they don’t believe in.  “She wasn’t refusing to make websites for people in the lgbtq community….she was only refusing to MAKE SAME SEX wedding websites! See the difference?  It’s not discrimination based on sexual orientation, that’s certainly not allowed, it’s free speech protections.” 
 

complete circus 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Between the affirmative action ruling limiting the scope of race considerations for university and college admissions and this ruling allowing people to discriminate and say it’s their first amendment rights to not participate in speech (that isn’t their speech or representative of their company in any way) they don’t believe in.  “She wasn’t refusing to make websites for people in the lgbtq community….she was only refusing to MAKE SAME SEX wedding websites! See the difference?  It’s not discrimination based on sexual orientation, that’s certainly not allowed, it’s free speech protections.” 
 

complete circus 

 

 

These individuals need out of power now so they don't bother me anymore. Once they are just powerless Americans, they can take a flying leap for all I care. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Icarus27k said:

 

 

These individuals need out of power now so they don't bother me anymore. Once they are just powerless Americans, they can take a flying leap for all I care. 

Unfortunately unless our systems of government do a completely overall it’s gonna be a long time before that happens.  This SCOTUS is going to be this awful for a very long time. Twenty years and that’s the low end, but I agree with your sentiment definitely 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, scoobdog said:

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

Honestly depends on the legacy, if I can really be blunt.

If I had managed some place like Harvard and one of the nieces or nephews was able to aim for that as well and using my name would forward them to the top of the acceptance list, it wouldn't feel like a throw-away because they would be going there to learn. 

But when you get entire families of political inbreds that all get into Ivy Leagues because someone was a legacy, it just seems like those spots could and should have gone to those who actually want to continue their education instead of someone looking for something to do in-between vacations. 

 

5 hours ago, Icarus27k said:

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. 

A roadkill Muppet would still be a higher quality human than the so-called conservative SCROTUS. 

I guess it's time for people to really get their own creative juices flowing, create their own businesses and then refuse service to anyone who belongs to a fundi-christian sect on 'personally held religious beliefs that said people are garbage and any creative content required would violate personal free speech'. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

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.

no, i think it's a step back into a jim crow era, but this time include all undesirables. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, katt_goddess said:

Honestly depends on the legacy, if I can really be blunt.

If I had managed some place like Harvard and one of the nieces or nephews was able to aim for that as well and using my name would forward them to the top of the acceptance list, it wouldn't feel like a throw-away because they would be going there to learn. 

But when you get entire families of political inbreds that all get into Ivy Leagues because someone was a legacy, it just seems like those spots could and should have gone to those who actually want to continue their education instead of someone looking for something to do in-between vacations. 

Deciding who is worthy of an advanced degree is a sticky issue, since, you could also argue those political inbreeds are better equipped to  learn in a collegiate academic program.  Those who need that prestigious Harvard degree to get ahead are also more likely to have had to overcome a substandard public primary and secondary education.  They’re also less likely to have the money to pay for that education.  The university legacy student is a complicated enigma in a system that is overall failing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

Unfortunately unless our systems of government do a completely overall it’s gonna be a long time before that happens.  This SCOTUS is going to be this awful for a very long time. Twenty years and that’s the low end, but I agree with your sentiment definitely 

this is why I'm an anarchist

it makes me happy to know that one day this shitty, fucked up country will die and be forgotten, along with everything any conservative has ever cared about. they're trying to erase us and it's impossible, but they will inevitably be erased

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m sorry but any argument supporting legacy admissions are bad arguments. Having a family member or members attending a university in the past has absolutely zero to do with the current person applying today. A huge chunk of Harvard’s (and the other Ivy leagues) student body are legacy way more than any affirmative action admissions 

IMG_3113.thumb.jpeg.f0e9f7e8e664813d34cff1d629b30a4c.jpeg

 

#endlagacyadmissions

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1060361

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here I come....

I agree with Ricky Smiley. Harvard doesn't want us and only allow the minimum with guise that blacks underperform compared to their white counterparts....The realty being that they want to do away with their minority allowance.

Instead, HBCUs will be happy to have you but schools like Morehouse are on very few people's list of goals despite producing amazing alums.

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, André Toulon said:

Well, here I come....

I agree with Ricky Smiley. Harvard doesn't want us and only allow the minimum with guise that blacks underperform compared to their white counterparts....The realty being that they want to do away with their minority allowance.

Instead, HBCUs will be happy to have you but schools like Morehouse are on very few people's list of goals despite producing amazing alums.

 

which is why sometimes, legacy may be important. 

so many hbcu's went unnoticed for SO long. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Aren’t Howard, Spelman and Moorehouse some of the most prestigious universities in the nation?   
 

https://hbculegacyfoundation.org/

 

They definitely are... that's my point...if they do away with the affirmative action deal, people still have options...

I wish I went to Xavier in retrospect, but I wanted to see strippers and steal weed.

Edited by André Toulon
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, André Toulon said:

They definitely are... that's my point...if they do away with the affirmative action deal, people still have options...

I wish I went to Xavier in retrospect, but I wanted to see strippers and steal weed.

Don’t feel too bad I made pretty dumb ass decisions during my college years too. Hell, I didn’t even graduate 🫠

The HBCUs have legacy admissions as well, but at this point in time, they aren’t an equivalent evil to the Ivy League or other elite schools counterparts and for exactly the reasons you said. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Don’t feel too bad I made pretty dumb ass decisions during my college years too. Hell, I didn’t even graduate 🫠

The HBCUs have legacy admissions as well, but at this point in time, they aren’t an equivalent evil to the Ivy League or other elite schools counterparts and for exactly the reasons you said. 

I....ok, I guess you're pointing out the hypocrisy, and yeah, they definitely have legacy admissions but their acceptance rate is far higher than any ivy league school. 

If you got the grades, you still have a really solid chance to get in.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, André Toulon said:

I....ok, I guess you're pointing out the hypocrisy, and yeah, they definitely have legacy admissions but their acceptance rate is far higher than any ivy league school. 

If you got the grades, you still have a really solid chance to get in.

It wasn’t to point out a hypocrisy, only an acknowledgment that they do it, but at this time in history, it’s not as damaging as the Ivy League because they aren’t as well known or sought after like their Ivy League counterparts. Save for Moorehouse, Howard and Spelman, which are pretty well known and highly regarded options to higher education.  Quite a few HBCUs have closed down or lost accreditation. You never hear that happening to the Ivy League schools 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This SCOTUS has thrown away both who has standing to bring a law suit, and precedent.  The conservative Justices use the examples of legalizing gay intimacy and shooting down “separate but equal” laws as their right to blow up precedence.  So typically conservative, to compare apples and oranges swearing they’re exactly the same fruits, when the world knows they are not. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, discolé monade said:

fuck. that's right. desantis fucked up in texas. 

 

 

And Chris Christie doesn’t stand a chance. He knows it. He’s just in it to take actual punches at Trump.  Nikki Haley and DeSastrious refuse to. They’ll attack Biden, never Trump, and on the rare instance they do attack him they quickly back pedal.  Attacking Biden only is a weird strategy when Trump is the opponent 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 1pooh4u said:

And Chris Christie doesn’t stand a chance. He knows it. He’s just in it to take actual punches at Trump.  Nikki Haley and DeSastrious refuse to. They’ll attack Biden, never Trump, and on the rare instance they do attack him they quickly back pedal.  Attacking Biden only is a weird strategy when Trump is the opponent 

CC is in it for the fucking troll! and he's kind of doing a good job...so far.  nikki haley is a turnip. dont know anything about desastrious. lulz...that name. 

biden needs to step down. he doesn't have the balls to challenge the gop. he tried. but much like the cock blocking that happened with obama, biden can't seem to make any headway. 

this country is just running amuck. 

that scotus decision that was based off a fabricated gay couple, and proven that, in fact, the man in question, is a straight male, married to a straight woman, with a child, and would never have

had a website done FOR a wedding. also....how fucking stupid is a wedding website? jfc. 

this is our scotus in action. just like tyt stated, they are now deciding that they are going to choose the wording. iono man...something has to absulutely fucking give. 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m actually surprised it took this long for our judges justices and government officials to get on board with the chunk of the country who believes facts and words no longer have any meaning at all.   I guess Trump Boebert Green Hawley etc were the test cases for how far down the sewer we can go and how much gas lighting will the populace allow. Turns out “Mikey likes it” or rather enough of the right mikeys in the exact right places do. the mainstream GOP and even our courts got on board with it. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

I’m actually surprised it took this long for our judges justices and government officials to get on board with the chunk of the country who believes facts and words no longer have any meaning at all.   I guess Trump Boebert Green Hawley etc were the test cases for how far down the sewer we can go and how much gas lighting will the populace allow. Turns out “Mikey likes it” or rather enough of the right mikeys in the exact right places do. the mainstream GOP and even our courts got on board with it. 

There is a shocking amount of bargaining ability in the phrase "they allow me to say it" apparently.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
16 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

Justice Thomas was also getting gifts from Cowboys owner Jerry Jones.  He gifted Justice Thomas a Super Bowl ring and flights on his pvt jet

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/clarence-thomas-received-a-super-bowl-ring-from-jerry-jones

 

Spoiler

So now we know how much power a black guy has to hold for Jerry Jones to like them if they aren't athletic.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Oh they’re definitely overturning that because they fuckin think they know better than the experts 

the chevron doctrine allows judges to defer to agencies interpretation of ambiguous laws.  that means judges get to say “look I don’t know shit about how the environment works so I defer to the scientists in charge of (insert agency here) to interpret the law in the best interest of the planet. They strike that down and judges get to make decisions about shit they know nothing about based on their feelings or based off whichever corporate interest spent the most $$ on said judge like how Justice Thomas does things 

Pat can definitely explain it better or correctly since my interpretation is based off reading 3 articles about what the chevron doctrine is

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...