SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[Larry]

Hey, we've already heard the "reasoning" of "they can't question unless there's been an impeachment". 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Larry

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[gbear]

A fence was the hardest decision he made all year?  I would think one of their many difficult cases would win this honor. 

[The Evil Genius]

1 minute ago, gbear said:

A fence was the hardest decision he made all year?  I would think one of their many difficult cases would win this honor. 

 

He's likely owned by right wing money. He doesn't have to decide anything. 

Edited May 24, 2023 by The Evil Genius

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

[China]

Supreme Court Ruling Could Blow Up Republican House Control Going Forward

 

The Supreme Court is considering a case brought by North Carolina Republicans that seeks to allow state legislatures to effectively have carte blanche over drawing congressional district maps.

 

If it were to grant the application some believe that the decision could backfire on Republicans, who currently only maintain a slim majority in the House of Representatives, as it would allow California's Democrat-heavy state legislature to redraw district boundaries in their favor.

 

The outcome of the case could have far-reaching effects: the Democrats lost control of the U.S. House of Representatives by four seats in 2022, while at least three Republican seats in California have slim GOP majorities.

 

The case brought by North Carolina Republicans argues the Supreme Court "should intervene to protect the constitution's allocation of power over this matter of fundamental importance to our democratic system of government."

 

While the lawsuit intends to allow state legislatures in North Carolina to set their own district maps without intervention, some believe it could open the door to Democratic gerrymandering in California, making Democrat control of the U.S. House of Representatives far more likely.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

[EmirOfShmo]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[philibusters]

33 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

That somewhat summarizes my view.   I don't like the current system where race and ethnicity play a substantial role.  My preference would be for colleges to use race and ethnicity as a soft factor (something that could distinguish candidates with very similar academic records), but if the only options are race as it is currently used or no race at all, I would probably lean towards the no race at all position. 

[China]

‘Trump too small’ trademark clash to be decided by Supreme Court

 

A crude joke that Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., used to mock what he said was then-2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump's "small hands" will be the centerpiece of a Supreme Court ruling on whether a California lawyer can trademark the phrase "Trump too small."

 

The court on Monday agreed to consider whether Steve Elster could register the trademark for the phrase — a double-entendre meant to insinuate a correspondingly small penis — amid government claims that it would require the written approval of Trump himself. The case will be argued and decided in the court's next term, which begins in October and ends in June 2024.

 

In addition to working as an employment lawyer, Elster is a progressive political activist and works as a teacher for child actors working in film and television.

 

When Elster sought to register the trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2018, he was rejected on the grounds that members of the public would immediate associate the word "Trump" with the then-president. Under established law, the written consent of Trump would be required, the office concluded.

 

The "Trump too small" phrase is a reference to a 2016 Republican presidential primary debate featuring both Trump and Rubio.

 

Rubio joked about Trump having small hands, adding: "And you know what they say about guys with small hands."

 

In a February 2022 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against the trademark office, saying the denial violated Elster's free speech rights under the Constitution's First Amendment.

 

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar then asked the Supreme Court to take up the case, saying in court papers that for decades the trademark office has refused to register trademarks that feature the name of a living person absent written consent.

 

The Supreme Court in recent years has endorsed free speech rights in the trademark context, suggesting Elster could have a chance of prevailing in the case.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Larry]

Admiring the notion that "free speech" requires a trademark.   

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by Larry

[PokerPacker]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

Admiring the notion that "free speech" requires a trademark.   

 

Some speech is more free than others.

[China]

On 5/5/2023 at 7:23 PM, China said:

Harlan Crow and Clarence Thomas Are About to Learn About Gift Taxes

 

Gift taxes were probably not a topic discussed on the yacht or around the campfire during the Harlan Crow-subsidized luxury vacations for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Ginni. But maybe they should have been.

 

Recent reports indicate that Crow provided Thomas’ grandnephew with tuition to a pricey boarding school in the 1990s. Thomas did not report this gift from Harlan Crow as required on his annual disclosure forms. But that is nothing new. ProPublica had previously reported on multiple luxury vacations provided to Justice Thomas and his wife via Crow’s yacht and jets—including an island-hopping junket in Indonesia that ProPublica valued at $500,000.

 

That Thomas has made multiple lapses in ethical judgment in not reporting the receipt of such valued largesse from Crow is something for him, SCOTUS, and now Congress to muse over.

 

But what about Crow’s judgment? Did he file gift tax returns and pay gift taxes on any of the gifts he provided to the Thomas family?

 

It is a reasonable question to ask, and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) appears to have formally done so, with a reported due date of a response May 8. In lieu of gift taxes, did Crow expense the value of the trips and tuition provided the Thomases on either personal or business income tax returns? Wyden wants to know.

 

If Crow took business expense deductions for the above referenced “gifts,” then he can’t claim they were gifts. And if that’s the case, he wouldn’t have had to file gift tax returns which—given a potential tax rate of up to 40 percent—would represent a pretty price for the billionaire real estate magnate.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Looks like he's a little confused about how to file an honest disclosure and doesn't know what to do:

 

US Supreme Court's Clarence Thomas delays filing annual financial disclosure

 

Conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, under scrutiny following revelations that he did not disclose luxury trips paid for by a billionaire Dallas businessman, has received an extension to file his mandatory annual financial disclosure, the court said on Wednesday.

 

Seven of the nine justices disclosed their outside income and gifts from 2022, as required for certain senior government officials, while conservative Justice Samuel Alito also was granted an extension, according to the court. Extensions can be granted for up to 90 days.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Ball Security]

 

 

[Long n Left]

6 hours ago, Ball Security said:

 

 

This was a big decision. It now sets precedent for many to litigate against states (looking at you North Carolina) who have done this gerrymandering in the recent past. Could be a positive change of landscape for the 2024 elections.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Long n Left

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just now, Long n Left said:

This was a big decision. It now allows many to litigate against states (looking at you North Carolina) who have done this gerrymandering in the recent past. Could be a positive change of landscape for the 2024 elections.

 

People smarter than me warn that a portion of this is just a stay and isn't as successful as the headlines may sound.

[HOF44]

3 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

People smarter than me warn that a portion of this is just a stay and isn't as successful as the headlines may sound.

I’ve heard this also. 

[China]

On 3/23/2023 at 12:22 PM, China said:

‘I’m fine with you making stuff up’: Top SCOTUS lawyer sparks fiery exchanges in Jack Daniels trademark case over bottle-shaped dog toy

 

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a major intellectual property case involving a dog chew toy, Jack Daniels whiskey, and a fake liquor label advertising its product as “43% poo.”

 

Dog toys and scatological references notwithstanding, the case promises serious implications for the future of parodies within the legal world of intellectual property.

 

Spirits giant Jack Daniels sued VIP Products for trademark dilution based on a rubber dog toy shaped like a bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey featuring a label that read, “Bad Spaniels, the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee Carpet.” The bottom of the toy continues the fecal theme with the words “43% POO BY VOL.” and “100% SMELLY.”

 

A photo of the two products can be seen below.

 

 

The toy’s packaging specifically denies any affiliation with Jack Daniels, but the whiskey maker says there is still a risk that consumers may get confused and think that the two are linked, which would dilute the Jack Daniels brand. VIP products argues that it has a First Amendment right to parody a brand even when the owner of the brand dislikes it.

 

Taking center stage during Wednesday’s arguments was attorney Lisa Blatt, who argued on behalf of Jack Daniels. Blatt is a familiar face to the justices, having argued at least forty cases before the Supreme Court — more than any other woman in history — and has won in more than 80% of those cases.

 

When Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested an analytical framework that was “cleaner” and “more consistent with the statute,” Blatt retorted: “I’m fine with you making up stuff.”

“No, I’m not making it up,” Jackson responded. She then referred to handwritten notes in which the justice captured Blatt’s earlier argument.

 

Blatt doubled down on her position, ostensibly schooling Jackson: “Sorry, but in trademark law you can have a very confusing use of a trademark…”

 

“I’m sorry, Ms. Blatt,” Jackson interrupted, before continuing to press the attorney on the significance of brand confusion in trademark claims.

 

Almost immediately, the internet noticed the awkward exchange between the two women, with some calling Blatt’s comments to the justices “rude” and “condescending.”

 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not appear inclined to gloss over Blatt’s “making up stuff” comment, opting instead to bring clarity and context to the lawyer’s thinly-veiled suggestion that at least some of the justices were improvising their jurisprudence.

 

Sotomayor reminded Blatt that when it comes to interpreting a statutory standard, judges “have to figure out” and “have to create some principles.”

 

“All these tests are judicially-crafted,” Sotomayor said, using a somewhat more nuanced framing than what Blatt’s “making stuff up” implied.

 

“First of all, that’s funny. I’m going to give you that,” she said to Sotomayor. “Second, funny is not relevant.”

 

When Sotomayor interjected during Blatt’s follow-up argument, Blatt snapped: “I’d like to get this answer out. It’s not about whether you get the joke. It’s whether it’s confusing about who made the joke.”

 

“It’s  just a little rich for people who are at your level to say that you know what the average purchasing public thinks about all kinds of female products that you don’t know anything about, or dog toys that you might not know anything about,” Blatt said.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Insulting the members of the Supreme Court doesn't seem like the best way to win them over to your side of the argument.

 

 

Supreme Court rules for Jack Daniel’s in ‘poop-themed’ dog toy trademark fight

 

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of Jack Daniel's in a trademark fight over "poop-themed" dog toys that resemble the company's famous whiskey bottles.

 

The justices on a 9-0 vote ruled against VIP Products LLC, which argued that its products — including the "Bad Spaniels" toy shaped like a whiskey bottle — are obvious parodies and should therefore be protected as free speech under the First Amendment.

 

In a narrow ruling, the court returned the dispute to lower courts for further proceedings.

 

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, said that VIP's alleged infringement of the Jack Daniel's trademark "falls within the heartland of trademark law, and does not receive special First Amendment protection."

 

Click on the link for the full article

[The Sisko]

On 5/30/2023 at 4:20 PM, philibusters said:

 

That somewhat summarizes my view.   I don't like the current system where race and ethnicity play a substantial role.  My preference would be for colleges to use race and ethnicity as a soft factor (something that could distinguish candidates with very similar academic records), but if the only options are race as it is currently used or no race at all, I would probably lean towards the no race at all position. 

Race doesn’t play a substantial role, as you put it, in admissions. Schools that still take race into account do so as one of numerous factors.

 

The idea that many have about race-based criteria is that schools are admitting grossly unqualified applicants over Wil-E-Coyote Super Genius ones simply because of their race or ethnicity. Quite frankly, that’s just silly. In fact, the vast majority of the kids that apply are pretty well qualified. What most schools do then, is use race as one of the factors to make the determination between kids that are more or less on the same level.

 

What’s interesting to me is that one doesn’t hear anyone, especially the Cletus crowd for whom college football is on par with religion, whining that their kid didn’t make it into Squidbillies University because a blue chip football prospect with average grades/test scores was selected instead. Athletics may ostensibly be a race neutral preference, but it is a preference nonetheless that comes much closer to the Wil-E-Coyote scenario I mentioned above than do racial preferences. So objective fairness in the pursuit of higher educational goals isn’t really the issue for these people. I wonder what it could be then?🤔🤔

Finally, it sounds great and supportive of “liberty” to say everything should be race neutral. However it’s a stance that conveniently ignores how the K-12 system is set up in this country and the ways it advantages some and does the opposite for others. Those dis/advantages are race neutral on the surface but often designed to effect very race conscious outcomes. The solution to the college admissions issue should follow the same playbook, i.e., race neutral admissions policies that achieve the same diversity goals as before. The only problem is, I don’t think anyone has come up with a solution that works yet. 

 

[The Evil Genius]

Still delaying your reporting, Clarence? You can't hide being owned by weirdo Harlan anymore.

 

 

 

Those flowers must have been amazing btw.

 

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, The Sisko said:

Race doesn’t play a substantial role, as you put it, in admissions. Schools that still take race into account do so as one of numerous factors.

 

@philibusters

 

Just to add one:

 

"Many colleges, especially selective ones, say race is one of many factors that officials can weigh when choosing which students get accepted. They say it is not a large influence but may sometimes give an edge to underrepresented students in close decisions. Colleges defend the practice as a way to bring a wide mix of students to campus, saying racial diversity benefits all students."

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/most-u-s-adults-say-race-in-college-admissions-should-play-small-role-new-ap-poll-says#:~:text=Many colleges%2C especially selective ones,underrepresented students in close decisions.

 

Mostly elite colleges are looking for people that can demonstrate and communicate a real passion about something.

 

 

[philibusters]

2 hours ago, The Sisko said:

Race doesn’t play a substantial role, as you put it, in admissions. Schools that still take race into account do so as one of numerous factors.

 

The idea that many have about race-based criteria is that schools are admitting grossly unqualified applicants over Wil-E-Coyote Super Genius ones simply because of their race or ethnicity. Quite frankly, that’s just silly. In fact, the vast majority of the kids that apply are pretty well qualified. What most schools do then, is use race as one of the factors to make the determination between kids that are more or less on the same level.

 

What’s interesting to me is that one doesn’t hear anyone, especially the Cletus crowd for whom college football is on par with religion, whining that their kid didn’t make it into Squidbillies University because a blue chip football prospect with average grades/test scores was selected instead. Athletics may ostensibly be a race neutral preference, but it is a preference nonetheless that comes much closer to the Wil-E-Coyote scenario I mentioned above than do racial preferences. So objective fairness in the pursuit of higher educational goals isn’t really the issue for these people. I wonder what it could be then?🤔🤔

Finally, it sounds great and supportive of “liberty” to say everything should be race neutral. However it’s a stance that conveniently ignores how the K-12 system is set up in this country and the ways it advantages some and does the opposite for others. Those dis/advantages are race neutral on the surface but often designed to effect very race conscious outcomes. The solution to the college admissions issue should follow the same playbook, i.e., race neutral admissions policies that achieve the same diversity goals as before. The only problem is, I don’t think anyone has come up with a solution that works yet. 

 

 

I do think race plays a substantial role.  I don't have the data, but I have seen data (perhaps from Harvard given the recent lawsuit) that Asians had to score 100 points higher than Whites, who had to score about 200 points higher than Blacks and Hispanics.  You can argue over what constitutes substantial, but the way I think about it where admission is primarily based on academic credentials, those differences are substantial.

 

I don't quite get the Wiley Coyote reference because wasn't he continually outsmarted by the roadrunner, but I never claimed the students admitted in part due to race were unqualified so its a moot point.  I don't think I would frame the argument against race playing a substantial role in admissions as being based on liberty.  I would frame it more on fairness.   And yes I agree that there is a vast disparity in the educational resources children receive largely based on their socio-economic status.   And I am therefore more receptive to socio-economic affirmative action than race based affirmative action.

 

When its all said and done, perhaps we don't have a huge value difference, perhaps its more factual.  If I believed race was just one of many factors that basically would only distinguish two candidates who were very closed in terms of academic resume, I would not have an issue with it.  And that is what you seem to believe it currently is.  I by contrast am dubious that is the actual system we have today.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, philibusters said:

 

I do think race plays a substantial role.  I don't have the data, but I have seen data (perhaps from Harvard given the recent lawsuit) that Asians had to score 100 points higher than Whites, who had to score about 200 points higher than Blacks and Hispanics.  You can argue over what constitutes substantial, but the way I think about it where admission is primarily based on academic credentials, those differences are substantial.

 

I believe you are wrong.  The difference between all students by race at Harvard is less than 100 points per a section which isn't very much especially when the SAT test still appears to have some racial bias.

 

"A Crimson analysis of the previously confidential dataset — which spans admissions cycles starting with the Class of 2000 and ends with the cycle for the Class of 2017 — revealed that Asian-Americans admitted to Harvard earned an average SAT score of 767 across all sections. Every section of the SAT has a maximum score of 800.

 

By comparison, white admits earned an average score of 745 across all sections, Hispanic-American admits earned an average of 718, Native-American and Native-Hawaiian admits an average of 712, and African-American admits an average of 704."  

 

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american-admit-sat-scores/#:~:text=White applicants earned an average,applicants a score of 622.

 

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/21/new-evidence-racial-bias-sat

 

And gets you to less than 200 points total between all races.

 

I'd love to see where you've "seen" that data.

 

And admission isn't generally based primarily on academic credentials.  It is heavily based on things like extra curriculars.

Searching and reading a little more there is about a 300 point difference in who they will actually send recruitment letters too.

 

https://nypost.com/2018/10/17/harvards-gatekeeper-reveals-sat-cutoff-scores-based-on-race/

But that large of a gap is not showing up in their actual admissions.

Edited June 9, 2023 by PeterMP

[philibusters]

47 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I believe you are wrong.  The difference between all students by race at Harvard is less than 100 points per a section which isn't very much especially when the SAT test still appears to have some racial bias.

 

"A Crimson analysis of the previously confidential dataset — which spans admissions cycles starting with the Class of 2000 and ends with the cycle for the Class of 2017 — revealed that Asian-Americans admitted to Harvard earned an average SAT score of 767 across all sections. Every section of the SAT has a maximum score of 800.

 

By comparison, white admits earned an average score of 745 across all sections, Hispanic-American admits earned an average of 718, Native-American and Native-Hawaiian admits an average of 712, and African-American admits an average of 704."  

 

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american-admit-sat-scores/#:~:text=White applicants earned an average,applicants a score of 622.

 

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/21/new-evidence-racial-bias-sat

 

And gets you to less than 200 points total between all races.

 

I'd love to see where you've "seen" that data.

 

And admission isn't generally based primarily on academic credentials.  It is heavily based on things like extra curriculars.

Searching and reading a little more there is about a 300 point difference in who they will actually send recruitment letters too.

 

https://nypost.com/2018/10/17/harvards-gatekeeper-reveals-sat-cutoff-scores-based-on-race/

But that large of a gap is not showing up in their actual admissions.

 

I had seen different data which is perhaps why I feel differently about it.  For example, "a National Study of College Experience led by Espenshade and Radford (2009) showed that a student who self-identifies as Asian will need 140 SAT points higher than whites, 320 SAT points higher than Hispanics, and 450 SAT points higher than African Americans."

 

https://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/ethnicity-health/asian-american/article-admission#:~:text=To top the fear%2C a,points higher than African Americans.

 

 

I would have to look into why there is such a discrepancy in the numbers we are citing.  It could be that because Harvard is kind of the elite of the elite, the discrepancy is not as high for as say for elite institution that is not quite as elite.   It would also be interesting to see enrolled student data rather than just looking at admitted student data.  I say that simply because my instinct is that its a very competitive market for the top Black and Hispanic students and elite schools are probably sending out fee waivers and somewhat recruiting to them more so than for other top students.  For the 2020 SAT, I think 24% of Asians scored 1400 or higher on the SAT, 7% of whites obtained that score and 1 to 2% of Blacks and Hispanics obtained that score.  

 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/12/01/sat-math-scores-mirror-and-maintain-racial-inequity/

 

If I am wrong and race really isn't that big of a boost, then I don't have an issue with it being used in admissions.   My perception of reality is just very different.  I am not really conservative in that I am a Democrat, but I am probably am a lot more conservative than some posters in this thread and may get my information from different media outlets (my favorite news sources are Youtube shows like Breaking Points and The Rising for what is worth)..  I am not going to pretend like I am an expert on this topic so I may have overestimated the boost, but I still think its fairly substantial.