SCOTUS

[jhu72]

Interesting FACTS? in the Religious Right to f*ck someone over case.

Court decision distorts religious freedom, we are no longer equal.

[youthathletics]

SAT To Be Replaced With DNA Test To Determine How Oppressed You Are

[a fan]

So now in America you can legally discriminate in a business you have not even created when the influencers paid you to sue with a wink and a nod that the SCOTUS Majority would take the case.

Original post snipped....

Not only was the business a figment of her imagination, so were the two supposed customers!

Wait.....what? There was no business? How the F did this get taken up by the Court?

Where have ya been? This is how it works now - The student loan case was filed by 7 GOP controlled states who had no legal stake in the issue nor standing - yet SCOTUS took up the case and ruled in their favor anyway. Majority rules

Missed the memo. How the F did any court pick up the case, let alone SCOTUS? Gross.

[old salt]

SAT To Be Replaced With DNA Test To Determine How Oppressed You Are

Miquel Cardona explaining Biden's new plan to forgive student loan debt. Just cut off your Schlausson.

[ggait]

Legacy Preferences

legacy students are economically beneficial to universities, as they are perceived to be more likely to donate to their university after graduation and have parents who are perceived to be more generous donors



That 'plains it all.

Wrong.

Almost all legacy parents will full pay about $320k to send junior to ivy u. Add that all up and it dwarfs what most alums will ever donate.

Legacy is much more about tuition dollars than donation dollars. And the legacy filter is a great proxy for full pay status.

Ivy U can’t just give applicants a blatant rich parent hook. So legacy is an acceptable way to do that same thing. “We’re not accepting junior because his folks are loaded. We’re accepting him because he’s been raised as part of the family, and already knows the fight song and secret handshake. And maybe because his folks are likely loaded too…”

I have a good friend who sent all four of his kids to ND as full pay legacies. So he’s sent over $1 million to ND. Given that, he doesn’t donate a dime.

ND is the hugest legacy school among the top 25. They also have the highest full pay percentage — 54%!!!!!!

Not a coincidence.

[get it to x]

Interesting FACTS? in the Religious Right to f*ck someone over case.

Court decision distorts religious freedom, we are no longer equal.

Sure we are. The atheist cake maker can certainly refuse to make a custom baptism cake if it goes against their principles. If you want to turn away business, go for it. I think it's dumb on a transactional level, but they have the right to their views. Want a cross or sex toy cake? Just go online.

[MDlaxfan76]

Interesting FACTS? in the Religious Right to f*ck someone over case.

Court decision distorts religious freedom, we are no longer equal.

Sure we are. The atheist cake maker can certainly refuse to make a custom baptism cake if it goes against their principles. If you want to turn away business, go for it. I think it's dumb on a transactional level, but they have the right to their views. Want a cross or sex toy cake? Just go online.

And the 'web designer' who doesn't even design wedding sites can refuse to do work she hasn't even been asked to do...

And who funded that case?

Come on, guess...

can I decide I don't want to make cakes for cross racial couples if I cite the Bible? Serve them at my restaurant?

After all, they can go elsewhere, right?

Or, heck if I'm an atheist and simply believe it's wrong to serve them...cool, not cool?

Or maybe I just don't like Jews...or Muslims...gotta take off that hijab if you want to be served in my restaurant...go down the street, there are other restaurants...

[MDlaxfan76]

So now in America you can legally discriminate in a business you have not even created when the influencers paid you to sue with a wink and a nod that the SCOTUS Majority would take the case.

Original post snipped....

Not only was the business a figment of her imagination, so were the two supposed customers!

Wait.....what? There was no business? How the F did this get taken up by the Court?

Where have ya been? This is how it works now - The student loan case was filed by 7 GOP controlled states who had no legal stake in the issue nor standing - yet SCOTUS took up the case and ruled in their favor anyway. Majority rules

Missed the memo. How the F did any court pick up the case, let alone SCOTUS? Gross.

Likewise the phony web designer. Doesn't even do wedding sites, no one, much less a same-sex couple asked her to do one...totally contrived case.

This is judicial activism on steroids...

[get it to x]

So now in America you can legally discriminate in a business you have not even created when the influencers paid you to sue with a wink and a nod that the SCOTUS Majority would take the case.

Original post snipped....

Not only was the business a figment of her imagination, so were the two supposed customers!

Wait.....what? There was no business? How the F did this get taken up by the Court?

Where have ya been? This is how it works now - The student loan case was filed by 7 GOP controlled states who had no legal stake in the issue nor standing - yet SCOTUS took up the case and ruled in their favor anyway. Majority rules

Missed the memo. How the F did any court pick up the case, let alone SCOTUS? Gross.

Likewise the phony web designer. Doesn't even do wedding sites, no one, much less a same-sex couple asked her to do one...totally contrived case.

This is judicial activism on steroids...

You're probably right. What kind of sauce would you like on your Gander?

[MDlaxfan76]

So now in America you can legally discriminate in a business you have not even created when the influencers paid you to sue with a wink and a nod that the SCOTUS Majority would take the case.

Original post snipped....

Not only was the business a figment of her imagination, so were the two supposed customers!

Wait.....what? There was no business? How the F did this get taken up by the Court?

Where have ya been? This is how it works now - The student loan case was filed by 7 GOP controlled states who had no legal stake in the issue nor standing - yet SCOTUS took up the case and ruled in their favor anyway. Majority rules

Missed the memo. How the F did any court pick up the case, let alone SCOTUS? Gross.

Likewise the phony web designer. Doesn't even do wedding sites, no one, much less a same-sex couple asked her to do one...totally contrived case.

This is judicial activism on steroids...

You're probably right. What kind of sauce would you like on your Gander?

When the "activism" is 9-0, 8-1, or even 7-2, and the majority crosses over partisan lines, that's way, way different than what we're seeing which is the exercise of raw political power.

So, was Brown overturn of Plessy "activist"?...it certainly was a complete overturn of precedent just as Dobbs was and these cases are...but it was unanimous.

Ok, Roe...supposedly the quintessential judicial activism from the left...7-2, with lifelong Republican Blackmun writing that opinion for the majority. Conservative and liberal justices joined...

Of course, that was before partisan interests organized to get only the hardest leaning in their direction nominated to the Court when their side controlled the White House...

And those cases actually had cases with parties harmed...actually harmed...not contrived.

[get it to x]

So now in America you can legally discriminate in a business you have not even created when the influencers paid you to sue with a wink and a nod that the SCOTUS Majority would take the case.

Original post snipped....

Not only was the business a figment of her imagination, so were the two supposed customers!

Wait.....what? There was no business? How the F did this get taken up by the Court?

Where have ya been? This is how it works now - The student loan case was filed by 7 GOP controlled states who had no legal stake in the issue nor standing - yet SCOTUS took up the case and ruled in their favor anyway. Majority rules

Missed the memo. How the F did any court pick up the case, let alone SCOTUS? Gross.

Likewise the phony web designer. Doesn't even do wedding sites, no one, much less a same-sex couple asked her to do one...totally contrived case.

This is judicial activism on steroids...

You're probably right. What kind of sauce would you like on your Gander?

When the "activism" is 9-0, 8-1, or even 7-2, and the majority crosses over partisan lines, that's way, way different than what we're seeing which is the exercise of raw political power.

So, was Brown overturn of Plessy "activist"?...it certainly was a complete overturn of precedent just as Dobbs was and these cases are...but it was unanimous.

Ok, Roe...supposedly the quintessential judicial activism from the left...7-2, with lifelong Republican Blackmun writing that opinion for the majority. Conservative and liberal justices joined...

Of course, that was before partisan interests organized to get only the hardest leaning in their direction nominated to the Court when their side controlled the White House...

And those cases actually had cases with parties harmed...actually harmed...not contrived.

Something is either Constitutional, or is isn't. Many laws have been passed and struck down. Erroneous decisions have been rendered and overturned. Presidents have tried orders that we ruled unlawful. Feelings on both sides were hurt. It's better than one man and his gangster buddies, like Putin.

[PizzaSnake]

Interesting FACTS? in the Religious Right to f*ck someone over case.

Court decision distorts religious freedom, we are no longer equal.

Read Dan Canon’s “Pleading Out.” You have no idea how correct you are…

[Brooklyn]

̶W̶r̶o̶n̶g̶.̶

Corrected for you.

[MDlaxfan76]

So now in America you can legally discriminate in a business you have not even created when the influencers paid you to sue with a wink and a nod that the SCOTUS Majority would take the case.

Original post snipped....

Not only was the business a figment of her imagination, so were the two supposed customers!

Wait.....what? There was no business? How the F did this get taken up by the Court?

Where have ya been? This is how it works now - The student loan case was filed by 7 GOP controlled states who had no legal stake in the issue nor standing - yet SCOTUS took up the case and ruled in their favor anyway. Majority rules

Missed the memo. How the F did any court pick up the case, let alone SCOTUS? Gross.

Likewise the phony web designer. Doesn't even do wedding sites, no one, much less a same-sex couple asked her to do one...totally contrived case.

This is judicial activism on steroids...

You're probably right. What kind of sauce would you like on your Gander?

When the "activism" is 9-0, 8-1, or even 7-2, and the majority crosses over partisan lines, that's way, way different than what we're seeing which is the exercise of raw political power.

So, was Brown overturn of Plessy "activist"?...it certainly was a complete overturn of precedent just as Dobbs was and these cases are...but it was unanimous.

Ok, Roe...supposedly the quintessential judicial activism from the left...7-2, with lifelong Republican Blackmun writing that opinion for the majority. Conservative and liberal justices joined...

Of course, that was before partisan interests organized to get only the hardest leaning in their direction nominated to the Court when their side controlled the White House...

And those cases actually had cases with parties harmed...actually harmed...not contrived.

Something is either Constitutional, or is isn't. Many laws have been passed and struck down. Erroneous decisions have been rendered and overturned. Presidents have tried orders that we ruled unlawful. Feelings on both sides were hurt. It's better than one man and his gangster buddies, like Putin.

On the last, we certainly agree!

We legislate lots of matters on which we agree and disagree, often passionately, and we should and generally do respect that this process has ebbs and flows...but Constitutionality rulings are not supposed to ebb and flow with political currents and the exercise of raw political power.

But our SCOTUS' decisions as to what is or is not Constitutional should not be a matter of who gets packed onto the Court by partisans, but rather on well reasoned, careful legal analysis which can and does achieve consensus. The stronger the consensus reached, usually the more durable the analysis is expected to be, with a very strong respect for precedents. In order to over turn major, fundamental precedents, it should require very strong consensus to do so, and should not reflect the heat of partisan political interests...else, that's NOT legal analysis based upon prior established and tested Constitutional principles, it's the exercise of raw political power in the immediate.

Remember when conservatives said that judges should not legislate from the bench?
They're right. Only when legislatures violate Constitutional principles should Courts get involved.
And wait until parties actually harmed bring a controversy to the Court.

But here we have multiple examples when standing itself should not have been granted, and yet, among all the possible controversies that SCOTUS has presented to them each year, they are choosing ones which have been contrived with the confidence that the current make-up the Court will result in overturned precedents. Precedents, thoroughly tested over time in multiple cases, that expanded our freedoms, expanded our rights....why? for partisan interest.

That should be a matter for legislatures.
In a democracy.

It only makes it worse that these decisions, which have not gained bi-partisan consensus on the Court, are opposed by strong majorities of Americans. Rather they are extreme departures from precedent.

And then we have the ethics...ugh.

[a fan]

Legacy Preferences

legacy students are economically beneficial to universities, as they are perceived to be more likely to donate to their university after graduation and have parents who are perceived to be more generous donors



That 'plains it all.

Wrong.

Almost all legacy parents will full pay about $320k to send junior to ivy u. Add that all up and it dwarfs what most alums will ever donate.

Legacy is much more about tuition dollars than donation dollars. And the legacy filter is a great proxy for full pay status.

Ivy U can’t just give applicants a blatant rich parent hook. So legacy is an acceptable way to do that same thing. “We’re not accepting junior because his folks are loaded. We’re accepting him because he’s been raised as part of the family, and already knows the fight song and secret handshake. And maybe because his folks are likely loaded too…”

I have a good friend who sent all four of his kids to ND as full pay legacies. So he’s sent over $1 million to ND. Given that, he doesn’t donate a dime.

ND is the hugest legacy school among the top 25. They also have the highest full pay percentage — 54%!!!!!!

Not a coincidence.

So for the fake case on Gay Cakes.......how far reaching is this ruling? Does it apply to, say, wholesalers, ggait?

Scenarios: conservative town starves gay owned businesses by refusing to supply them over "religious grounds" at the wholesale level?

Can a trucking company run by refuse to deliver to a gay owned business now?

Thanks

[MDlaxfan76]

Legacy Preferences

legacy students are economically beneficial to universities, as they are perceived to be more likely to donate to their university after graduation and have parents who are perceived to be more generous donors



That 'plains it all.

Wrong.

Almost all legacy parents will full pay about $320k to send junior to ivy u. Add that all up and it dwarfs what most alums will ever donate.

Legacy is much more about tuition dollars than donation dollars. And the legacy filter is a great proxy for full pay status.

Ivy U can’t just give applicants a blatant rich parent hook. So legacy is an acceptable way to do that same thing. “We’re not accepting junior because his folks are loaded. We’re accepting him because he’s been raised as part of the family, and already knows the fight song and secret handshake. And maybe because his folks are likely loaded too…”

I have a good friend who sent all four of his kids to ND as full pay legacies. So he’s sent over $1 million to ND. Given that, he doesn’t donate a dime.

ND is the hugest legacy school among the top 25. They also have the highest full pay percentage — 54%!!!!!!

Not a coincidence.

So for the fake case on Gay Cakes.......how far reaching is this ruling? Does it apply to, say, wholesalers, ggait?

Scenarios: conservative town starves gay owned businesses by refusing to supply them over "religious grounds" at the wholesale level?

Can a trucking company run by refuse to deliver to a gay owned business now?

Thanks

Good question, sounds like discrimination is hunky dory fine as wine as long as you claim religious belief justification...

I wonder about the flip side, can I refuse to serve any bible-thumping bigot I want to?
Can I say that MY Jesus would cast them out of His temple?

[ggait]

Fan — funny how the gay cake and gay website cases both are from the centennial state.

I’d have to study the decision to see where the line was drawn. The hypos are endless.

Suppose I’m a gay guy going to a tailor for a new pinstripe suit. If it is an interview suit, the tailor has to do it. But if it is my gay wedding suit, can he decline?

Can the caterer, florist, invite printer, dress maker, DJ, limo driver, videographer, event hall etc. all decline?

I think the decision treats the web design as a first amendment expressing artist????

[jhu72]

... frankly I think their monied bosses are spooked, panicked! These decisions were really bone head moves from a political perspective. You already have the Dobbs disaster and that is getting worse for the republiCONs. You throw on top of that the affirmative action decision which is disagreed with by 65+ % of the country. You throw on top of that the two decisions today; the debt forgiveness ruling at minimum massively excites the democratic base and I am told there are poor blue collar MAGA voters that are also pissed by the decisions, the dems may pick off some of these voters moving this towards a 60% issue (from the 50% today) much like the abortion issue moved significantly after Dobbs. The religious freedom (web designer) case is so clearly a put up job this will also strongly motivate the democratic base and could pull more voters to the dems when the issue is recast as a SCOTUS corruption issue could, which is a layup to make that argument when their polling numbers are sitting at 30%. This one may have been the religious fascists forcing them to make that decision by threatening withholding of support.

All of these are losing political issues! So why do it?? They could have waited, roll this sh*t out over a number of terms. Perhaps the good old boys pulling the strings are feeling real worried, this had to get done before the next election, where it was already looking real good for the dems, not just Biden.

Roberts has to know his ass is going to look like raw meat in the coming weeks. The dems are going to be setting the court up as a whipping boy and proxy for the republiCONs. Hence his self-serving press release this afternoon trying to get out ahead of the whipping he expects.

[jhu72]

Interesting FACTS? in the Religious Right to f*ck someone over case.

Court decision distorts religious freedom, we are no longer equal.

Sure we are. The atheist cake maker can certainly refuse to make a custom baptism cake if it goes against their principles. If you want to turn away business, go for it. I think it's dumb on a transactional level, but they have the right to their views. Want a cross or sex toy cake? Just go online.

And the 'web designer' who doesn't even design wedding sites can refuse to do work she hasn't even been asked to do...

And who funded that case?

Come on, guess...

can I decide I don't want to make cakes for cross racial couples if I cite the Bible? Serve them at my restaurant?

After all, they can go elsewhere, right?

Or, heck if I'm an atheist and simply believe it's wrong to serve them...cool, not cool?

Or maybe I just don't like Jews...or Muslims...gotta take off that hijab if you want to be served in my restaurant...go down the street, there are other restaurants...

So we are left to do the best we can. Big business is not going to behave in such a petty fashion. This is an issue for mom & pop, family owned businesses. Federal law should be enacted that requires fair notice, If you are going to discriminate you must advertise your reason for discrimination. Readable notice sign on the front door of the shop, readable notice placed on your website, etc. If you are going to be a dick, you must give warning specifying the class(es) of individual you will discriminate against. If you don't give fair warning then you have no constitutional right to discriminate. This would certainly be tested via SCOTUS. You would ferret out just how "un-American" these clowns are willing to be. It will keep the spotlight on the court, just how far are they willing to go to advantage discriminators. Of course you could also do the same thing at state level via business regulation, hefty fines for not giving fair warning.

[Farfromgeneva]

No elite school that is serious about diversity efforts can justify keeping their legacy preferences.

Not really. Just doesn't work that way.

Legacy preferences, of course, mostly admit white, wealthy, suburban kids with good test scores and grades.

But the kids who get squeezed out by the legacy kids are other mostly white, suburban kids with slightly better test scores and grades. And the reason the legacy white kids get in is because their parent are richer and are more likely to full pay the tuition.

The legacy kids do not squeeze out minorities. Because minorities has been its own very powerful tip/hook. The legacy kids (and the recruited athlete kids) squeeze out the highly qualified kids who are unhooked/untipped. If you give some kids a hook, that makes it harder for the unhooked.

If you get rid of legacies and also the minority hook but keep the fetish on high test scores, most of the white legacies would still get in over the now unhooked minority candiadtes.

End of day, it really is all about ability to pay and ability to enroll. Ability to be admitted is not the key aspect. If you want diversity, the school has to throw FA dollars at the diverse kids.

End of day, losing the minority tip in admissions will make diversity more expensive for schools to achieve. And it will require schools to back off of using test scores.

Legacy Preferences

The ultimate legacy:

We need the dues