Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2023 3:37 pm
Missed the memo. How the F did any court pick up the case, let alone SCOTUS? Gross.Kismet wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 3:04 pmWhere 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 rulesa fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:54 pmWait.....what? There was no business? How the F did this get taken up by the Court?SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:50 pmOriginal post snipped....
Not only was the business a figment of her imagination, so were the two supposed customers!
Miquel Cardona explaining Biden's new plan to forgive student loan debt. Just cut off your Schlausson.youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 4:03 pm SAT To Be Replaced With DNA Test To Determine How Oppressed You Are
Wrong.
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...get it to x wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 5:15 pmSure 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.
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.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 4:50 pmMissed the memo. How the F did any court pick up the case, let alone SCOTUS? Gross.Kismet wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 3:04 pmWhere 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 rulesa fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:54 pmWait.....what? There was no business? How the F did this get taken up by the Court?SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:50 pmOriginal post snipped....
Not only was the business a figment of her imagination, so were the two supposed customers!
You're probably right. What kind of sauce would you like on your Gander?MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 6:12 pmLikewise 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.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 4:50 pmMissed the memo. How the F did any court pick up the case, let alone SCOTUS? Gross.Kismet wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 3:04 pmWhere 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 rulesa fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:54 pmWait.....what? There was no business? How the F did this get taken up by the Court?SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:50 pmOriginal post snipped....
Not only was the business a figment of her imagination, so were the two supposed customers!
This is judicial activism on steroids...
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.get it to x wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 6:14 pmYou're probably right. What kind of sauce would you like on your Gander?MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 6:12 pmLikewise 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.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 4:50 pmMissed the memo. How the F did any court pick up the case, let alone SCOTUS? Gross.Kismet wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 3:04 pmWhere 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 rulesa fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:54 pmWait.....what? There was no business? How the F did this get taken up by the Court?SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:50 pmOriginal post snipped....
Not only was the business a figment of her imagination, so were the two supposed customers!
This is judicial activism on steroids...
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.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 6:26 pmWhen 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.get it to x wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 6:14 pmYou're probably right. What kind of sauce would you like on your Gander?MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 6:12 pmLikewise 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.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 4:50 pmMissed the memo. How the F did any court pick up the case, let alone SCOTUS? Gross.Kismet wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 3:04 pmWhere 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 rulesa fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:54 pmWait.....what? There was no business? How the F did this get taken up by the Court?SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:50 pmOriginal post snipped....
Not only was the business a figment of her imagination, so were the two supposed customers!
This is judicial activism on steroids...
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.
Read Dan Canon’s “Pleading Out.” You have no idea how correct you are…
On the last, we certainly agree!get it to x wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 6:37 pmSomething 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.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 6:26 pmWhen 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.get it to x wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 6:14 pmYou're probably right. What kind of sauce would you like on your Gander?MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 6:12 pmLikewise 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.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 4:50 pmMissed the memo. How the F did any court pick up the case, let alone SCOTUS? Gross.Kismet wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 3:04 pmWhere 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 rulesa fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:54 pmWait.....what? There was no business? How the F did this get taken up by the Court?SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:50 pmOriginal post snipped....
Not only was the business a figment of her imagination, so were the two supposed customers!
This is judicial activism on steroids...
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.
So for the fake case on Gay Cakes.......how far reaching is this ruling? Does it apply to, say, wholesalers, ggait?ggait wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 5:02 pmWrong.
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.
Good question, sounds like discrimination is hunky dory fine as wine as long as you claim religious belief justification...a fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 8:05 pmSo for the fake case on Gay Cakes.......how far reaching is this ruling? Does it apply to, say, wholesalers, ggait?ggait wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 5:02 pmWrong.
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.
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
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.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 6:05 pmAnd the 'web designer' who doesn't even design wedding sites can refuse to do work she hasn't even been asked to do...get it to x wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 5:15 pmSure 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 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...
We need the duesCarroll81 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:51 pmThe ultimate legacy:jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 10:17 amLegacy Preferencesggait wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 7:20 pmNot really. Just doesn't work that way.No elite school that is serious about diversity efforts can justify keeping their legacy preferences.
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.