The Courts (not specific to either party)

[Archy1221]

3 hours ago, NebraskaHarry said:

It's getting harder and harder to see Archy's posts through all the bs he throws out.

Apparently you don’t read them. 

[NebraskaHarry]

35 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Apparently you don’t read them. 

I have a shovel.

[Archy1221]

9 minutes ago, NebraskaHarry said:

I have a shovel.

Ok.  I’m sure many adult males in Nebraska probably do.   But the lawn and garden thread is somewhere else. 

[RedDenver]

 

[commando]

and that justice later did resign

[knapplc]

So the Supremes allowed Alabama to use their racist map in 2022, then declared those maps illegal today. 

 

 

 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[knapplc]

This is likely the correct decision, even though this will harm minority student candidates. Despite the harm, I think most everyone agrees that basing a prospective student's application success on race is unfair. 

 

I've read that colleges can easily pivot to basing it on their neighborhood, which will have largely the same effect as affirmative action. Dubious as to whether that will be challengeable in court.

 

 

[Archy1221]

SCOTUS decision on race based admission.   Correct call.   Surprised it wasn’t 9-0

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/news/u-supreme-court-strikes-down-140316138.html

[knapplc]

And then there's this. Weird.

 

The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court

In filings in the 303 Creative v. Elenis case is a supposed request for a gay wedding website—but the man named in the request says he never filed it.

 

 

Long before the Supreme Court took up one of the last remaining cases it will decide this session—the 303 Creative v. Elenis case, concerning a Colorado web designer named Lorie Smith who refuses to make websites for same-sex weddings and seeks an exemption from anti-discrimination laws—there was a couple named Stewart and Mike. According to court filings from the plaintiff, Stewart contacted Smith in September 2016 about his wedding to Mike “early next year.” He wrote that they “would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website.” Stewart included his phone number, email address, and the URL of his own website—he was a designer too, the site showed.

 

This week, I decided to call Stewart and ask him about his inquiry.

 

The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its opinion in a case in which Stewart plays a minor role, a case that could be, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated by way of a question at oral argument in December, “the first time in the Court’s history … [that] a commercial business open to the public, serving the public, that it could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.” It took just a few minutes to reach him. I assumed at least some reporters over the years had contacted him about his website inquiry to 303 Creative—his contact information wasn’t redacted in the filing. But my call, he said, was “the very first time I’ve heard of it.”

 

Yes, that was his name, phone number, email address, and website on the inquiry form. But he never sent this form, he said, and at the time it was sent, he was married to a woman. “If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that,” Stewart explained. (Stewart’s last name is not included in the filing, so we will be referring to him by his first name throughout this story.)

 

“I wouldn’t want anybody to … make me a wedding website?” he continued, sounding a bit puzzled but good-natured about the whole thing. “I’m married, I have a child—I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document.”

 

[Enhance]

7 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

SCOTUS decision on race based admission.   Correct call.   Surprised it wasn’t 9-0

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/news/u-supreme-court-strikes-down-140316138.html

I agree it was the correct call but I doubt you're surprised by the lack of unanimity. Race-based admissions has a lot of support across this country because it has helped produce some incredibly successful people.

 

IMO the problem with it is that it's a bandage solution to much deeper problems, which is poverty, opportunity inequity, poor family structures in some minority communities, etc. We should be addressing those problems, not rewarding some kids because of their skin color and simultaneously punishing others because of it. I'm glad this was struck down. It never felt right to me back when I was applying for colleges. I remember being really worried I wouldn't make it into some places because of something like this. I got lucky, but I know others haven't.

[Moiraine]

4 hours ago, Enhance said:

I agree it was the correct call but I doubt you're surprised by the lack of unanimity. Race-based admissions has a lot of support across this country because it has helped produce some incredibly successful people.

 

IMO the problem with it is that it's a bandage solution to much deeper problems, which is poverty, opportunity inequity, poor family structures in some minority communities, etc. We should be addressing those problems, not rewarding some kids because of their skin color and simultaneously punishing others because of it. I'm glad this was struck down. It never felt right to me back when I was applying for colleges. I remember being really worried I wouldn't make it into some places because of something like this. I got lucky, but I know others haven't.

 

 

Addressing the causes is good. And I would be okay with getting rid of affirmative action, but colleges should have to regularly prove they are not discriminating by doing double blind tests with applications. 

[RedDenver]

4 hours ago, Enhance said:

I agree it was the correct call but I doubt you're surprised by the lack of unanimity. Race-based admissions has a lot of support across this country because it has helped produce some incredibly successful people.

 

IMO the problem with it is that it's a bandage solution to much deeper problems, which is poverty, opportunity inequity, poor family structures in some minority communities, etc. We should be addressing those problems, not rewarding some kids because of their skin color and simultaneously punishing others because of it. I'm glad this was struck down.

I don't have a problem with this verdict IF we are going to address all the reasons that minorities are disadvantaged getting into colleges and universities. But we all know we aren't going to do that. We've had this bandage solution because actually fixing the problem isn't easy and many are opposed to the solutions.

 

4 hours ago, Enhance said:

It never felt right to me back when I was applying for colleges. I remember being really worried I wouldn't make it into some places because of something like this. I got lucky, but I know others haven't.

Another way to look at this is that feeling of unfairness you felt in the college admission process due to race is the way many minorities feel in many other aspects of life. I don't have a solution that's actually possible politically, but maybe if we can empathize with each other things will eventually get better. But I doubt it and still think the bandage is the best we can do right now.

[Enhance]

19 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Another way to look at this is that feeling of unfairness you felt in the college admission process due to race is the way many minorities feel in many other aspects of life. I don't have a solution that's actually possible politically, but maybe if we can empathize with each other things will eventually get better. But I doubt it and still think the bandage is the best we can do right now.

Oh I hear you. I think Race-Based admissions is well-intentioned, and that we are long over-due to try and fix the socio-economic issues that plague minorities in America and ultimately lead to policy choices like Race-Based admissions.

But, if the solution (even a bandage solution) to those problems is to reward some people for uncontrollably being one skin color and punish others for uncontrollably being another... can't get behind that. It probably shouldn't have even been a serious policy in the first place, particularly since it spawned use of concerning positions like you mentioned i.e. "now you know what it's like." In my life, most of the time that I've heard that statement or something similar, it's because someone wanted to punish me... not make the situation better.

All that said, I do understand the irony you're getting at here, particularly for Republicans. Many of them are celebrating this decision but will do very little actually address the root problem that led to policies like Race-Based admissions.

[commando]

if i understand the ruling.....the supreme court has ruled that i can deny service to MAGA since i don't approve of their life choices