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

[PeterMP]

This is an interesting read on the influence of the Supreme Court and how it was actually a planned thing.

 

https://www.salon.com/2023/06/30/two-anti-equality-decisions-show-billionaires-return-on-investment/

[The Sisko]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

@The Sisko

you can take your predictable and usual bull**** rant and shove it 

 

you don’t know dick about what I do and don’t care about

 

and you’ve demonstrated repeatedly that in the face of someone explaining what they think and why, you’re all too happy to ignore that and make their opinions up for them

Me thinks thou dost protest too much.😂😂

[Cooked Crack]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

That’s not at all what I said. Not even close. 

Going w00t! and agreeing that these are shenanigans seem very accurate with what I wrote

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, ixcuincle said:

Craig is right Biden should do something to the court to make it a level playing field. ****ing stacked ass court. 

These decisions are not Biden’s fault. They are the fault of every person who voted for Donald Trump (who are probably thrilled) AND every person who didn’t vote for Hillary because she wasn’t “likable” enough or other similar bull****. 

[tshile]

20 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Going w00t! and agreeing that these are shenanigans seem very accurate with what I wrote

The beauty of conversing in text is the ability to back and see exactly what someone said

 

what you said was 

“So you don't care that they just making **** up to come to a conclusion you agree with?”

 

you’re accusing me of having an ends justify the means approach. Which is clearly not true given the amount of time I’ve spent pointing out that I don’t understand how these cases even qualified to reach SCOTUS. I even referred to them as shenanigans and gymnastics. 
 

accusing me of not caring is not accurate. It’s not even close to accurate.

 

the fact I disagreed with the policies in general, didn’t think they should exist, and therefore am I happy they are going away, has nothing to do with how these specific cases got before scotus and what I think about that. 
 

 

[Cooked Crack]

Sorry if I think a process is ****ed up and unethical, I'm not going w00t even if I agree with it. The end result got to be greater than erasing debt for millions of people.

[tshile]

Just now, Cooked Crack said:

Sorry if I think a process is ****ed up and unethical, I'm not going w00t even if I agree with it. The end result got to be greater than erasing debt for millions of people.

I understand I’m in the very small minority on this board on these topics. It’s been discussed in the relevant threads to exhaustion. 
 

it should come as a surprise to exactly no one that I’m happy about these rulings. 
 

it seems apparent you’re upset and instead of understanding that I’ve pointed out the issues with how these cases got to scotus, you’re taking shots at me. Presumably, based on history with you responding to me, because you think I’m some sort of ****ty trumper hell bent on making life miserable for people. 
 

but there’s several of you around here. You struggle with dealing with what someone actually says, and like to just make up what their motives are or what they say. I’m not perfect and devolve to that from time to time, but others seem to consistently do it whenever they see something they don’t like. 

[Cooked Crack]

Literally not upset just calling like I see it 🤷‍♂️

[Fergasun]

If you are baking a cake or making a website, you can discriminate however you please.  But not if you are a place of higher education.  Somehow college is not a business (maybe not-for profit colleges are treated differently).  Even though they inherently are flooded with more customers than they can provide a service to.   But, if you are in the business of going to war (service academy), you can also discriminate however you please.  But it's okay to you will be force people to follow Christian rules on abortion.

[Larry]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

Nothing about this means you can just deny service to a protected class.

.... you have to claim it's your religion. 

[The Sisko]

7 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

If you are baking a cake or making a website, you can discriminate however you please.  But not if you are a place of higher education.  Somehow college is not a business (maybe not-for profit colleges are treated differently).  Even though they inherently are flooded with more customers than they can provide a service to.   But, if you are in the business of going to war (service academy), you can also discriminate however you please.  But it's okay to you will be force people to follow Christian rules on abortion.

While I disagree with the ruling, I don’t think it will affect people’s overall chances  in higher Ed too much. I’d imagine kids who were being considered that don’t get into Harvard will almost certainly get into another good school, though maybe not an Ivy. Their lifetime earning potential is likely to take a bit of a hit, but they won’t entirely be shut out. However, I hope the response to this is for Universities to scrap legacy and donor admissions. That would go a long way toward making things fairer for all.

 

However, what really worries me and what will potentially affect a lot more people’s chances in life are the follow on cases that will challenge diversity efforts in other areas like hiring and federal programs targeted at minorities and other underrepresented groups.

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[PeterMP]

To me, this gets hard.

 

I actually believe that long term we might be better off if the Supreme Court strictly interpreted the Constitution.

 

I think we have problems when the Supreme Court forces society ahead faster than many are ready to move ahead, and I think that's partly for blame where we are as a society in terms of the current GOP and the ability of our government to function.

 

On the other hand, I think for certain individuals Supreme Court decisions can have large positive impacts on their lives.  I would not under estimate the positive impact that the Loving and Hodges decisions had on the people it impacted.  I also think such decisions can some times force our society forward.

 

I'm pretty pro-affirmative action, though I don't think in this case the schools did a good job of defending and don't appear to have been doing it smartly (i.e. can't/didn't defend the importance of having a diverse student body for the benefit of the whole student body).  On one hand, I'm sad to see how the case was decided.  On the other when looking at the Constitution, I think it is pretty reasonable.

 

I've not been super supportive of the canceling of the student loan.  And like the idea that if the chief executive decides to realistically change the US budget by large sums of money, there should be an avenue to stop it.  Thinking about it happening in another context, if the next Republican President decides to build "the wall" with money from the military and the EPA budget, then I'd like to have the Supreme Court step in and say you can't do it, even if the specific person being harmed is hard to identify.

 

(My issue with many of the conservative members of the Supreme Court is that I don't think they actually believe in a literal interpretation of the Constitution.  They use that as cover to defend their decisions when it can be used to defend their decisions.  But in something like Heller they completely ignored anything about a well regulated militia and the larger truer history of gun ownership in this country.  I strongly suspect that at least Thomas would happily write a decision saying that Constitutional rights extend to the fetus if it had any chance of flying and being supported even though that isn't literally written into the Constitution and the 14th amendment actually says born.  They have no true underlying legal philosophy and do what they think is right/can get away with.)

 

12 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

While I disagree with the ruling, I don’t think it will affect people’s overall chances  in higher Ed too much. I’d imagine kids who were being considered that don’t get into Harvard will almost certainly get into another good school, though maybe not an Ivy. Their lifetime earning potential is likely to take a bit of a hit, but they won’t entirely be shut out. However, I hope the response to this is for Universities to scrap legacy and donor admissions. That would go a long way toward making things fairer for all.

 

However, what really worries me and what will potentially affect a lot more people’s chances in life are the follow on cases that will challenge diversity efforts in other areas like hiring and federal programs targeted at minorities and other underrepresented groups.

 

Schools aren't going to scrap legacy and donor admissions.  Those are too important to their budgets.

 

What will hopefully happen is that the elite schools that have a lot of money will use some of that money (they get from legacy and donor admissions) to over haul their admissions practices and maintain and even increase the diversity in their student body in a manner that is allowed based on this decision.  And maybe even admit people that want/able to be part of making significant change in this country and not just because they check a box.

 

But the quoted post is also just woefully inadequate and inaccurate in describing the decisions that were made.  Religion is 1st amendment right.  It is key corner stone.  It trumps a lot of other stuff.  That being true doesn't mean a business can discriminate however they want.

 

I do think there is a good chance that minority favoritism in government contracts and hiring is next.  It is the next logical step.  And I do suspect that will have a larger economic impact on minorities than this decision.

Edited June 30, 2023 by PeterMP

[Captain Wiggles]

I shoulda been one of them elitist ivory tower legacies at an ivy league institution. Stupid young me said "oh that's waaay to much money to spend just to study music". 🤦‍♂️

[GoCommiesGo]

45 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I do think there is a good chance that minority favoritism in government contracts and hiring is next.  It is the next logical step.  And I do suspect that will have a larger economic impact on minorities than this decision

 

This is an interesting thought, I'm not sure how many people are aware of the different subclasses that make up the small business segment for government contractors. If they do change that and remove the different designations that's going to hurt a lot of people, not just the business owner but the employees that make up the business. I believe we have six designations for small businesses and the total award value for these businesses at just my agency is north of $800 million a year.

 

Though in some respects it may not be a terrible thing, people game the system in some wild ways. My favorite one is a Alaskan Native Women started a business with a service disabled veteran, she owned 51% he owned 49%. They were able to categorize themselves under every designation and based on the purchase received substantial favoritism because of her status as a native Alaskan. 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

.... you have to claim it's your religion. 

I have the same general concern about the flimsiness with which something becomes because one’s religion and when it doesn’t. 
 

presumably there’s a standard that will be stuck to and simply saying “against my religion” doesn’t exactly check the box. 
 

but yes. I’m concerned of how that may be abused as well. 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Fergasun said:

If you are baking a cake or making a website, you can discriminate however you please.  But not if you are a place of higher education.  Somehow college is not a business (maybe not-for profit colleges are treated differently).  Even though they inherently are flooded with more customers than they can provide a service to.   But, if you are in the business of going to war (service academy), you can also discriminate however you please.  But it's okay to you will be force people to follow Christian rules on abortion.

Banning policies that adjust an applicants potential acceptance because of their race, is not discrimination. 
 

in fact, doing what was allowed before  was discrimination. It was acceptable discrimination to many, and still is to many, purely based on the direction of the discrimination.  But when you make choices about people due to their race, that’s discrimination. You may be OK with or even prefer that type of discrimination exist, but it’s still discriminatory. 
 

for as much ****ing that goes on around here about the way republicans play fast and loose with words and facts all the time, you all sure do the same thing when you get wound up. 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

I do think there is a good chance that minority favoritism in government contracts and hiring is next.  It is the next logical step.  And I do suspect that will have a larger economic impact on minorities than this decision.

I think the idea of minority contracts is a good thing. So is the idea of small business requirements. And I’m willing to be there’s compelling arguments for doing even more on that line. 
 

however. 
 

Anyone that’s been in place to be a part of high level decision making for organizations, understands the farce this sort of thing has become. There’s an entire market, and people who make careers out of, creating situations that check these boxes but don’t speak to the spirit of the rule in any way shape or form. 
 

id have a hard time being happy if they threw it out. I’m conflicted when it comes to the intentions vs results here. I admittedly don’t have a firm grip on the % of it that is borderline fraudulent. But I know I personally have seen it a lot, and I know it’s rampant.

but the whole system needs to be overhauled. Not sure how that could be done. Scotus throwing it out may get rid of the bad parts but there’s no functional government to turn around and preserve the good parts. 

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

Fight fire with fire. 
 

I was watching a video and got an email from UCLA saying that it might not affect students that much because a student can still talk about the struggles they have faced due to race.
 

Students “Must be treated based on their experiences as an individual” as individual I can still talk about the struggles I have faced due to race. I think it will be okay. 

[Larry]

17 minutes ago, tshile said:

I have the same general concern about the flimsiness with which something becomes because one’s religion and when it doesn’t. 
 

presumably there’s a standard that will be stuck to and simply saying “against my religion” doesn’t exactly check the box

Well, I think it was when Hobby Lobby established that corporations have religion, I think it was Scalia who literally told a lobbying group "don't worry. We'll only apply it to real religions."  
 

I'll also point out. I absolutely guarantee that the Bible never mentioned web page design. Or cake decorating. 
 

And I'm absolutely certain that within my lifetime, Christianity has been claimed to justify racial discrimination. 
 

 

Yes, I'm aware, the Bible does seem to actually mention The Gays. Although I think it's mentioned exactly twice?  And one of them is in the same place that forbids wearing clothing of two different materials, and forbids tattoos. And, I think, mandates that all join must be Kosher?  
 

At the very least, it would seem that "religion" seems to have a very large element of "I get to pick and choose the parts I want". 
 

-----

 

And for the record, I want the definition of what is or isn't religion to be given a lot of latitude. I absolutely do not want this court to be deciding that "Oh, that isn't a real religion."

[Cooked Crack]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/06/30/student-loan-forgiveness-supreme-court-decision/#link-FJVXRVZRUVCJPBCDNSVNIZRJT4

Quote

President Biden said his administration is introducing a “new path” consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling on student loan debt forgiveness that will still provide relief “to as many borrowers as possible, as quickly as possible.” 

 

The president said the plan will allow Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to “compromise, waive or release loans under certain circumstances.” The new approach, Biden said, will be in a “different law than my original plan.” 

 

“This new path is legally sound,” Biden said. “It’s going to take longer. And in my view, it’s the best path that remains.”

 

[Captain Wiggles]

36 minutes ago, Dr. Do Itch Big said:

I can still talk about the struggles I have faced 

 

🤔

 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[bearrock]

 

 

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

I actually believe that long term we might be better off if the Supreme Court strictly interpreted the Constitution.

 

I think we have problems when the Supreme Court forces society ahead faster than many are ready to move ahead, and I think that's partly for blame where we are as a society in terms of the current GOP and the ability of our government to function.

 

On the other hand, I think for certain individuals Supreme Court decisions can have large positive impacts on their lives.  I would not under estimate the positive impact that the Loving and Hodges decisions had on the people it impacted.  I also think such decisions can some times force our society forward.

 

I'm pretty pro-affirmative action, though I don't think in this case the schools did a good job of defending and don't appear to have been doing it smartly (i.e. can't/didn't defend the importance of having a diverse student body for the benefit of the whole student body).  On one hand, I'm sad to see how the case was decided.  On the other when looking at the Constitution, I think it is pretty reasonable.

 

I've not been super supportive of the canceling of the student loan.  And like the idea that if the chief executive decides to realistically change the US budget by large sums of money, there should be an avenue to stop it.  Thinking about it happening in another context, if the next Republican President decides to build "the wall" with money from the military and the EPA budget, then I'd like to have the Supreme Court step in and say you can't do it, even if the specific person being harmed is hard to identify.

 

(My issue with many of the conservative members of the Supreme Court is that I don't think they actually believe in a literal interpretation of the Constitution.  They use that as cover to defend their decisions when it can be used to defend their decisions.  But in something like Heller they completely ignored anything about a well regulated militia and the larger truer history of gun ownership in this country.  I strongly suspect that at least Thomas would happily write a decision saying that Constitutional rights extend to the fetus if it had any chance of flying and being supported even though that isn't literally written into the Constitution and the 14th amendment actually says born.  They have no true underlying legal philosophy and do what they think is right/can get away with.)

 

As understood in legal scholarship, strict interpretation and literal interpretation mean different things.  And even literal interpretation is watered down by the caveat that unless the interpretation using the ordinary and natural meaning results in absurd results.  What is an absurd result?  Scalia thought right to bear arm extending to nuclear arms would be absurd.  But is it?  If so why?  If not why not?  Some think right to bear arm extending to anything that's not the equivalent of revolutionary war era musket is absurd too.  It's not as if even the seemingly hardline rule of literal interpretation resolves all these questions without controversy.  Judges' justification and explanations may vary, but what they consider the appropriate outcome will most likely sway the particular way their chosen method of interpretation is applied.

Edited June 30, 2023 by bearrock

[The Evil Genius]