2023 SCOTUS Rulings

[Pwns]

Supreme Court correctly rules against affirmative action.

Groups like the ACLU has been saying for a long time that it's a myth that AA means that certain groups don't need higher academic qualification than others to be admitted, but whenever admissions data comes out that always seems to not be the case.

[GannonFan]

Supreme Court correctly rules against affirmative action.

Groups like the ACLU has been saying for a long time that it's a myth that AA means that certain groups don't need higher academic qualification than others to be admitted, but whenever admissions data comes out that always seems to not be the case.

Never saw how the AA groups were going to win this one. The way that Asian groups were so clearly limited in terms of their admissions and how it was almost exclusively based on race just made this case unwinnable for AA. Will be interesting to see how and if things change going forward in the coming years.

[BDKJMU]

And in true BDKian fashion you jump right to attempting to narrow the debate to parameters that support your partisan point of view.

When discussing corruption, let’s focus on conservative SCOTUS justices and forget about the POTUS and his son with a “yes they should be prosecuted if an investigation uncovers anything” while ignoring the possibility that investigations have been unethically stymied by supporters within the DoJ.

Regarding the AnTiFa fascists, no they didn’t reach the capital which is why you want to focus on that rather than the months of seditious behavior and attacks on other bastions of government authority such as federal courthouses, police stations, etc.

There’s an entire thread on Hunter. He’s been investigated by the DOJ and there’s an ongoing congressional investigation of Hunter and Joe.

If there are more facts tying it all together then we’ll see them. There are very few if any facts regarding the DOJ cover up that you allege. Just whistleblowers who haven’t panned out. It’s a conspiracy theory that conveniently hides something you have trouble with. That one party or one politician from one party can be worse/more criminal than the other in certain regards.

And nice dodge on SCOTUS corruption. It must be ok because it’s happened before and/or both sides do it.

That’s why it’s ok.

Well you clearly haven’t been paying attention the last week to say the IRS whistleblowers testimony hasn’t panned out..

[kalm]

There’s an entire thread on Hunter. He’s been investigated by the DOJ and there’s an ongoing congressional investigation of Hunter and Joe.

If there are more facts tying it all together then we’ll see them. There are very few if any facts regarding the DOJ cover up that you allege. Just whistleblowers who haven’t panned out. It’s a conspiracy theory that conveniently hides something you have trouble with. That one party or one politician from one party can be worse/more criminal than the other in certain regards.

And nice dodge on SCOTUS corruption. It must be ok because it’s happened before and/or both sides do it.

That’s why it’s ok.

Well you clearly haven’t been paying attention the last week to say the IRS whistleblowers testimony hasn’t panned out..

Well this was coming from Comer and Rudy.

What did I miss?

[BDKJMU]

Well you clearly haven’t been paying attention the last week to say the IRS whistleblowers testimony hasn’t panned out..

Well this was coming from Comer and Rudy.

What did I miss?

Go to the Hunter thread.

[GannonFan]

Once again, when faced with a ruling they don't like, the left, through various avenues including the President, instead try to tar and feather the SCOTUS as illegitimate. Heck, Biden pulls out the "years of precedent" canard to say that the ruling is a slap in the face to that precedent.

But seriously, who hasn't seen this ruling coming? Even O'Connor was very clear 20 years ago when she said the day was coming when affirmative action, at least with regards to higher education, was going to have to end. Everything for the past few decades has been pointing to the narrowing and eventually ending of affirmative action in this arena. Heck, even public colleges in California of all places ended it years ago. And the reasoning is very simple - by favoring a particular minority, you end up hurting either the majority or other minorities. It didn't matter when the majority were white students, because affirmative action in that case wasn't going to squeeze white students out of all the other advantages they had as a class in this country. But the kicker was when schools like Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill in these cases, quietly went about setting quotas on "Asian" students. As the Court said, even grouping such a disparate group of cultures as "Asian" is already problematic in itself. Assigning personality scores habitually lower to these students simply in an attempt to make the math work and to give some mathematical cover to establish the Asian quota like these schools did just doesn't pass legal muster. Where else can a public institution say that 20% Asians is about right?

Legally, this is a ruling that was going to happen sooner or later. I've gotten to like Sotomayor more over the past couple of years, but it's hard to stand behind her "race has always mattered, and always will" concept as a way to make racial preference setting as a permanent feature in public institutions. Especially when racial determinations get further and further complicated by the inevitable intermixing of peoples through the generations. There's nothing rogue about this decision, unless that is, you want to make a talking point to stir up the rabble come election time.

[kalm]

Well this was coming from Comer and Rudy.

What did I miss?

Go to the Hunter thread.

I did. Not much there in the way of actual evidence of a crime. Which US code should the Biden crime family be charged under? When will the whistleblowers (at least the ones who haven’t died or were suspended) come forth and give testimony?

[GannonFan]

Go to the Hunter thread.

I did. Not much there in the way of actual evidence of a crime. Which US code should the Biden crime family be charged under? When will the whistleblowers (at least the ones who haven’t died or were suspended) come forth and give testimony?

Not sure of all the details here, but why would you automatically dismiss the testimony of a whistleblower who was suspended? Wasn't that basically what happened to that Army guy who was the whistleblower that led to Trump's first impeachment? Disparaging a whistleblower just simply because they suffer the blowback of the people they are whistleblowing on kinda defeats the whole idea of whistleblowers in the first place, no? Or do we only believe whistleblowers when they happen to be in line with our own partisan views?

[kalm]

I did. Not much there in the way of actual evidence of a crime. Which US code should the Biden crime family be charged under? When will the whistleblowers (at least the ones who haven’t died or were suspended) come forth and give testimony?

Not sure of all the details here, but why would you automatically dismiss the testimony of a whistleblower who was suspended? Wasn't that basically what happened to that Army guy who was the whistleblower that led to Trump's first impeachment? Disparaging a whistleblower just simply because they suffer the blowback of the people they are whistleblowing on kinda defeats the whole idea of whistleblowers in the first place, no? Or do we only believe whistleblowers when they happen to be in line with our own partisan views?

Do you automatically believe every whistleblower like you agree with every SCOTUS ruling?

Go read up on the FBI guys in particular and you’ll see why.

[kalm]

Not sure of all the details here, but why would you automatically dismiss the testimony of a whistleblower who was suspended? Wasn't that basically what happened to that Army guy who was the whistleblower that led to Trump's first impeachment? Disparaging a whistleblower just simply because they suffer the blowback of the people they are whistleblowing on kinda defeats the whole idea of whistleblowers in the first place, no? Or do we only believe whistleblowers when they happen to be in line with our own partisan views?

Do you automatically believe every whistleblower like you agree with every SCOTUS ruling?

Go read up on the FBI guys in particular and you’ll see why.

Or this one…

[BDKJMU]

Once again, when faced with a ruling they don't like, the left, through various avenues including the President, instead try to tar and feather the SCOTUS as illegitimate. Heck, Biden pulls out the "years of precedent" canard to say that the ruling is a slap in the face to that precedent.

But seriously, who hasn't seen this ruling coming? Even O'Connor was very clear 20 years ago when she said the day was coming when affirmative action, at least with regards to higher education, was going to have to end. Everything for the past few decades has been pointing to the narrowing and eventually ending of affirmative action in this arena. Heck, even public colleges in California of all places ended it years ago. And the reasoning is very simple - by favoring a particular minority, you end up hurting either the majority or other minorities. It didn't matter when the majority were white students, because affirmative action in that case wasn't going to squeeze white students out of all the other advantages they had as a class in this country. But the kicker was when schools like Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill in these cases, quietly went about setting quotas on "Asian" students. As the Court said, even grouping such a disparate group of cultures as "Asian" is already problematic in itself. Assigning personality scores habitually lower to these students simply in an attempt to make the math work and to give some mathematical cover to establish the Asian quota like these schools did just doesn't pass legal muster. Where else can a public institution say that 20% Asians is about right?

Legally, this is a ruling that was going to happen sooner or later. I've gotten to like Sotomayor more over the past couple of years, but it's hard to stand behind her "race has always mattered, and always will" concept as a way to make racial preference setting as a permanent feature in public institutions. Especially when racial determinations get further and further complicated by the inevitable intermixing of peoples through the generations. There's nothing rogue about this decision, unless that is, you want to make a talking point to stir up the rabble come election time.

Its Constitutional now, but won’t be 20 years from now. Boy, thats some flawed logic there from O’Connor.

[Pwns]

This was not sarcasm nor is it a parody account. A Biden Bot with a fairly large following.

[GannonFan]

Not sure of all the details here, but why would you automatically dismiss the testimony of a whistleblower who was suspended? Wasn't that basically what happened to that Army guy who was the whistleblower that led to Trump's first impeachment? Disparaging a whistleblower just simply because they suffer the blowback of the people they are whistleblowing on kinda defeats the whole idea of whistleblowers in the first place, no? Or do we only believe whistleblowers when they happen to be in line with our own partisan views?

Do you automatically believe every whistleblower like you agree with every SCOTUS ruling?

Go read up on the FBI guys in particular and you’ll see why.

I don't automatically discount every whistleblower nor every SCOTUS ruling. I like to think about these things first before I judge them. Try it, it's helpful.

[GannonFan]

Do you automatically believe every whistleblower like you agree with every SCOTUS ruling?

Go read up on the FBI guys in particular and you’ll see why.

I don't automatically discount every whistleblower nor every SCOTUS ruling. I like to think about these things first before I judge them. Try it, it's helpful.

With that in mind, I don't particularly like the ruling they just came out with regarding the websites for weddings and if they can decline doing websites for LGBQT weddings. I was on board with the wedding cake one from a few years ago - that guy made special cakes for some weddings and his cakes were considered art. He still made cakes for anyone and any weddings, but he didn't do the special ones, with his artwork, for gay weddings. In that case, I was fine with the ruling in that the guy considered the special ones to be an artform and he didn't want to do that for things he disagreed with. He would still sell his regular wares to anyone. In this case, I think it takes it one step further in that I don't believe the woman with the websites has anything to offer for gay weddings - they're off the board entirely. I think that's an important distinction. She's selling something to the public, but specifically eliminating a class of citizens from what she sells. I don't agree with that.

See, thinking works.

[GannonFan]

Oh, and I'm good with blocking Biden's attempt to forgive student loans via Executive Order. Not sure how anyone ever thought that was Constitutional.

So okay with taking race out as a consideration for college admissions, not okay with letting businesses restricting their services to groups they don't want to serve, and okay with not letting a President be the sole decider of eliminating half a trillion dollars of government money.

[BDKJMU]

6-3 in gay weddings case:
Supreme Court Rules Christian Web Design Company Does Not Have to Promote Gay Weddings
https://redstate.com/streiff/2023/06/30 ... gs-n769284

6-3 striking down Biden student loan program:
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/ar ... ation-plan

And the left predictably is losing their collective shit..

[GannonFan]

6-3 in gay weddings case:
[b-2Supreme Court Rules Christian Web Design Company Does Not Have to Promote Gay Weddings[/b]
https://redstate.com/streiff/2023/06/30 ... gs-n769284

6-3 striking down Biden student loan program:
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/ar ... ation-plan

And the left predictably is losing their collective shit..

They were 9-0 in denying standing to one of the claimants in the Biden student loan program group of cases. And I think they were 9-0 on the case yesterday of the mailman and having to work on Sundays.

[Pwns]

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the student loan forgiveness plan if it wasn't a blatant midterm-year ploy to buy votes.

We've probably needed to move onto a system where we taper off college enrollment and beef up funding to cut out-of-pocket costs, but we have a not-insignificant minority of people who think race should be used instead of academics for admission so how do we fairly decide who gets to go?

[kalm]

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the student loan forgiveness plan if it wasn't a blatant midterm-year ploy to buy votes.

We've probably needed to move onto a system where we taper off college enrollment and beef up funding to cut out-of-pocket costs, but we have a not-insignificant minority of people who think race should be used instead of academics for admission so how do we fairly decide who gets to go?

Why should we have to make that decision beyond academic competency? We’re the greatest and wealthiest country on earth. Anyone who wants higher education (be it trade schools, CC’s, or advanced degrees) should be able to afford it and gain entry. Regardless of race or affluence.



We choose for it not to be so.

[CAA Flagship]

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the student loan forgiveness plan if it wasn't a blatant midterm-year ploy to buy votes.

We've probably needed to move onto a system where we taper off college enrollment and beef up funding to cut out-of-pocket costs, but we have a not-insignificant minority of people who think race should be used instead of academics for admission so how do we fairly decide who gets to go?

Why should we have to make that decision beyond academic competency? We’re the greatest and wealthiest country on earth. Anyone who wants higher education (be it trade schools, CC’s, or advanced degrees) should be able to afford it and gain entry. Regardless of race or affluence.



We choose for it not to be so.

I want to play in Major League Baseball.

[kalm]

Why should we have to make that decision beyond academic competency? We’re the greatest and wealthiest country on earth. Anyone who wants higher education (be it trade schools, CC’s, or advanced degrees) should be able to afford it and gain entry. Regardless of race or affluence.



We choose for it not to be so.

I want to play in Major League Baseball.

Go for it.

[GannonFan]

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the student loan forgiveness plan if it wasn't a blatant midterm-year ploy to buy votes.

We've probably needed to move onto a system where we taper off college enrollment and beef up funding to cut out-of-pocket costs, but we have a not-insignificant minority of people who think race should be used instead of academics for admission so how do we fairly decide who gets to go?

Why should we have to make that decision beyond academic competency? We’re the greatest and wealthiest country on earth. Anyone who wants higher education (be it trade schools, CC’s, or advanced degrees) should be able to afford it and gain entry. Regardless of race or affluence.



We choose for it not to be so.

How is that measured? And by measuring, is that in and of itself discriminatory?

[BDKJMU]

[BDKJMU]

Gorsuch Issues Brutal Takedown of Sotomayor's Dissenting Opinion in 303 Creative Case

The wise Latina:

"The Supreme Court of the United States declares that a particular kind of business, though open to the public, has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. The Court does so for the first time in its history,”

Gorsuch:

It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case. Much of it focuses on the evolution of public accommodations laws, post, at 7–13, and the strides gay Americans have made towards securing equal justice under law, post, at 14–17. And, no doubt, there is much to applaud here. But none of this answers the question we face today: Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?

When the dissent finally gets around to that question—more than halfway into its opinion—it reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom. The dissent claims that Colorado wishes to regulate Ms. Smith’s “conduct,” not her speech.Post, at 24–29. Forget Colorado’s stipulation that Ms. Smith’s activities are “expressive,” App. to Pet. for Cert.181a, and the Tenth Circuit’s conclusion that the State seeks to compel “pure speech,” 6 F. 4th, at 1176. The dissent chides us for deciding a pre-enforcement challenge. Post, at 23. But it ignores the Tenth Circuit’s finding that Ms. Smith faces a credible threat of sanctions unless she conforms her views to the State’s. 6 F. 4th, at 1172–1175.The dissent suggests (over and over again) that any burden on speech here is “incidental.” Post, at 24, 26–30, 32–33. All despite the Tenth Circuit’s finding that Colorado intends to force Ms. Smith to convey a message she does not believe with the “very purpose” of “[e]liminating . . . ideas”that differ from its own. 6 F. 4th, at 1178.4

Nor does the dissent’s reimagination end there. It claims that, “for the first time in its history,” the Court “grants a business open to the public” a “right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” Post, at 1; see also id., at 26, n. 10,35. Never mind that we do no such thing and Colorado itself has stipulated Ms. Smith will (as CADA requires) “work with all people regardless of . . . sexual orientation.” App.to Pet. for Cert. 184a. Never mind, too, that it is the dissent that would have this Court do something truly novel by allowing a government to coerce an individual to speak contrary to her beliefs on a significant issue of personal conviction, all in order to eliminate ideas that differ from its own.

There is still more. The dissent asserts that we “sweep under the rug petitioners’ challenge to CADA’s Communication Clause.” Post, at 26. This despite the fact the parties and the Tenth Circuit recognized that Ms. Smith’s Communication Clause challenge hinges on her Accommodation Clause challenge. (So much so that Colorado devoted less than two pages at the tail end of its brief to the Communication Clause and the Tenth Circuit afforded it just three paragraphs in its free-speech analysis. See Brief for Respondents 44–45; 6 F. 4th, at 1182–1183.)5 The dissent even suggests that our decision today is akin to endorsing a “separate but equal” regime that would allow law firms to refuse women admission into partnership, restaurants to deny service to Black Americans, or businesses seeking employees to post something like a “White Applicants Only”sign. Post, at 1, 16–21, 26, 28–29, 32, and n. 13, 37. Pure fiction all.

In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position. For instance:While stressing that a Colorado company cannot refuse “the full and equal enjoyment of [its] services” based on a customer’s protected status, post, at 27, the dissent assures us that a company selling creative services “to the public” does have a right “to decide what messages to include or not to include,” post, at 28. But if that is true, what are we even debating?

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarko ... e-n2625179

[GannonFan]

I will say, the past few cases have been excellent in terms of the justices arguing out loud (well, in the written word) in their opinions. Truth be told, that's the kind of opinions and dissents I want to hear, point going after the other point. Makes the cases much more accessible that way.