The Supreme Court Wrecking Ball (and state balls too)

[RainMaker]

We have a new contender for craziest spouse on SCOTUS


https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/28/u...e=articleShare

[cuervo72]

Not SCOTUS, but still courts:

A grant program for Black women business owners is discriminatory, appeals court rules | AP News

Black women not allowed to help other black women, basically.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Not SCOTUS, but still courts:

A grant program for Black women business owners is discriminatory, appeals court rules | AP News

Black women not allowed to help other black women, basically.

That is ridiculous. What's next, a school lunch program is discriminatory against hungry adults?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Not SCOTUS, but still courts:

A grant program for Black women business owners is discriminatory, appeals court rules | AP News

Black women not allowed to help other black women, basically.

Would you be fine with a program ran by white men that intentionally discriminated based on race and gender?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Would you be fine with a program ran by white men that intentionally discriminated based on race and gender?

Sigh. The point, I think, is to give aid to those who need it and are unlikely to get it elsewhere. Like, I wouldn't run a charitable organization to help billionaires. Yes, that is an extreme example, but illustrates the basic premise; as far as startup money goes, white men have a decided advantage as opposed to black women. Apparently a goal of rectifying that -- if only a little -- is no good?

What's next? The United Negro College Fund?

(I mean, I guess the argument is that these are "contracts", which strikes me as a load of bull. I don't see how this is really all that different from me getting a bit of scholarship money from an Italian-American group in college because I happen to have an Italian last name. I also wonder about things like in-group loans, etc. Don't the Mormons have some system set up where they fund other Mormon projects? Bet something like that will never be challenged. But oh, Black women, can't assist them!)

[cuervo72]

Also, "program ran [sic] by white men that intentionally discriminated based on race and gender" is, essentially, the whole current status quo.

[cuervo72]

"The world will not be fair until black women show more support to me, a white man."

This is what I'm hearing, basically.

(Lemme guess, initiatives like girls/women in STEM are probably wrongheaded too?)

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Not SCOTUS, but still courts:

A grant program for Black women business owners is discriminatory, appeals court rules | AP News

Black women not allowed to help other black women, basically.

Cue Byron Donalds saying this is a good thing because black women were better off when they just couldn't own businesses.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Would you be fine with a program ran by white men that intentionally discriminated based on race and gender?

This is such a ridiculous simplified argument made by uneducated knuckle draggers who lack the ability to critically think.

It is the equivalent of

"why isn't there white history month?"
"why isn't there straight month?"

etc....you're better than that

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Would you be fine with a program ran by white men that intentionally discriminated based on race and gender?

That's like most of this country's history.

But to answer your question, if white men were enslaved for generations, freed without reparations for the damage inflicted on them, thrown into a segregated system where they did not have access to education, money, or power for over a hundred years, and then finally given more freedom just 60 years ago where they still see their political power gerrymandered away and receive harsher treatment by politicians and our justice system, my answer is yes.

If your country has put a particular group at a massive disadvantage for countless generations, it seems only fair to help level that playing ground. That is if you believe we should be a meritocracy instead of an aristocracy.

[thesloppy]

For anybody who thinks these programs are no longer necessary, can you point out to me when sysystemic racism ended? Should be pretty easy to do, for such a significant change.

[NobodyHere]

It seems most of you here are calling for more systemic racism if you want to allow companies to racially discriminate.

[thesloppy]

Sure, you got me. Direct hit. Now can you tell me when sytemic racism ended?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Sure, you got me. Direct hit. Now can you tell me when sytemic racism ended?

Never as long as racists like you are around.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It seems most of you here are calling for more systemic racism if you want to allow companies to racially discriminate.

Do you know what "grant" means? This is not a business, but a charity of the organization helping minority business owners.


Edit: Fixed it

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Never as long as racists like you are around.

Fresh and funny stuff. When do you think systemic racism ended?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It seems most of you here are calling for more systemic racism if you want to allow companies to racially discriminate.

The problem is due to systematic racism there's a monumental gap that exists and barriers for black entrepreneurs and business owners. Black entrepreneurs get less than 1% of venture capital funding. Black people make up 16% of the population but hold only 3% of the wealth. From '09 to '17 black women led startups pulled 0.0006% of venture capital funding.

Whether we like it or not there are cultural differences between black and white communities and with the vast majority of investors being white, it's more difficult for black men and women to get meetings and secure funding. I don't think it's always systematic racism either. A lot of these investors want to make money regardless of who's helping them make it, but they don't know black culture and black communities so it can be more difficult for them to identify potentially successful startups and promising entrepreneurs.

So the question for you is, if we don't have programs like the one the Supreme Court ruled on then what's the solution to this problem?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It seems most of you here are calling for more systemic racism if you want to allow companies to racially discriminate.

This is repayment to those affected by centuries of systemic racism. The state should do its best to right the wrongs of its past and ensure an equal playing ground for its citizens. Would you consider the redress movement racist?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Never as long as racists like you are around.

Systemic racism has existed and continues to exist. The question is how much is still out there.

Using a very generalized 80-20, I’m personally on the 20 whereas some others here are more on the 80.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is repayment to those affected by centuries of systemic racism. The state should do its best to right the wrongs of its past and ensure an equal playing ground for its citizens. Would you consider the redress movement racist?

If the redress movement is for discriminating based on race then yes.

I'm not sure the answer to racism is more racism.

[mtolson]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

If the redress movement is for discriminating based on race then yes.

I'm not sure the answer to racism is more racism.

Thats really stretching the defintion of racism. Maybe you mean reverse descrimination How else would you suggest we achieve a just and inclusive society?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by mtolson

How else would you suggest we achieve a just and inclusive society?

"Just" is the very last thing those backing the affirmative action*garbage want.

*used as a catch all to cover all the insane horseshit discussed over the last few pages of this thread, which was all I could stomach

[thesloppy]

You guys seem very passionate about this. I'd love to hear your personal stories about how this discrimination and injustice has affected your lives.

[Edward64]

FWIW here's how CA did the calculations for reparations. There are nice details & graphics in the article.

I doubt it'll happen (or at least not at $1.2M per person).

Just a moment...

The group considered factors beyond slavery, including housing discrimination, health harms, mass incarceration and excessive policing.

Based on the annual amounts recommended by the report’s authors, a person could receive reparations of more than $1.2 million.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

You guys seem very passionate about this. I'd love to hear your personal stories about how this discrimination and injustice has affected your lives.

[Atocep]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supr...ce-thomas.html

The only way we're going to get supreme court ethics reform is if the liberal justices start taking gifts like Thomas.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

If the redress movement is for discriminating based on race then yes.

I'm not sure the answer to racism is more racism.

That's a unique definition of racism. I consider it repayment for the past wrongs. No different than when we compensate someone who was wrongfully imprisoned or unjustly killed by the state.

[Edward64]

Article has SCOTUS disclosures.

I really don't begrudge them of "trinkets" just as long as there is full disclosure, conform to the rules (which previously seemed prone to ones own definition), and they recuse themselves when needed. I assume there is more rigor & clear "definitions" nowadays to ensure complete transparency,

Regardless, we are cheap ass country to just pay SCOTUS below for a lifetime assignment. I don't know what total compensation/benefits are but we can easily afford $1-2M each a year.

reuters.com

The publishing proceeds supplement the justices' salaries. This year the eight associate justices will receive $298,500, with Chief Justice John Roberts getting $312,200.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Regardless, we are cheap ass country to just pay SCOTUS below for a lifetime assignment. I don't know what total compensation/benefits are but we can easily afford $1-2M each a year.

reuters.com

The real money's in the endorsement deals.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Atocep

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supr...ce-thomas.html

The only way we're going to get supreme court ethics reform is if the liberal justices start taking gifts like Thomas.

What would happen is that every republican would blow the whistle on them and immediately try to impeach and every democrat would demand they resign and the democrat would resign while nothing would happen any of the republican. That's what always happens and will continue to happen

[flere-imsaho]

FWIW, SCOTUS' health plans (which cover them until they die) are top-notch and worth a lot. Perhaps not to make it up to $1-2M/year, but close when we consider the expense of end-of-life care.

Disclosure rules for justices (and most everyone in an elected position at the federal level for that matter) are a complete joke compared to those most working Americans are required to follow. They absolutely need to be toughened up, but asking someone to police themselves never works.

[Atocep]

Alito admits how he really feels and that he can't effectively do his job in a recording where he thought he was talking to a religious fundamental ally.

Deconstructed: Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Caught on Secret Audio

[GrantDawg]

Court related but not Supreme Court related (though it might be that later). Brian Steele, the attorney defending Young Thug in the racketeering case in Fulton County, Georgia has just been arrested for contempt. He called for a mistrial because the judge had met with the DA and a witness Ex-parte. Instead of denying it, the judged demanded Steele tell him who informed him of that and threw him jail when he refused.

[albionmoonlight]

The Young Thug trial proves that every court proceeding should be televised.

[RainMaker]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...mpa-rcna151242

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...mpa-rcna151242

Thomas, deservedly, is getting a ton of heat but Alito is worse. Thomas is fairly consistent in his rulings and how he reaches them. Alito moves the goalposts to find the justification to fit his decision.

[Edward64]

CNN is playing up Barrett's disagreement with Thomas. Don't know how significant (or has this happen before) but I like the hint (?) towards more flexibility & moderation.

The Supreme Court’s approach on ‘history and tradition’ is irking Amy Coney Barrett | CNN Politics

When the Supreme Court last week rejected a lawyer’s bid to trademark the phrase “Trump Too Small,” all nine justices agreed on the outcome, but strong disagreements arose over the majority’s decision to invoke the nation’s “history and tradition” to rebuff the trademark.

Barrett, who endorsed the court’s conclusion that a provision of federal trademark law barring the registration of an individual’s name without that person’s consent is constitutional, wrote separately to express her displeasure with the reasoning of Thomas’ decision to rely on “history and tradition.”

That route, Barrett argued in a 15-page concurrence, “is wrong twice over.” The court’s three liberals signed on to parts of Barrett’s opinion.

Though Barrett acknowledged in her opinion that “tradition has a legitimate role to play in constitutional adjudication,” the Trump nominee said that “the court’s laser-like focus on the history of this single restriction misses the forest for the trees” and sought to poke holes in the history and tradition-first route taken by Thomas and the other conservative justices who agreed with his legal rationale.

Thomas & Alito are the oldest at 75 & 74. Fair chance next President will nominate another 1-2 justices. Joe needs to play that up more.

[JPhillips]

The only thing SCOTUS conservatives love as much as diluting minority voting power is making bribery legal.

[larrymcg421]

Jackson's dissent is absolutely fire there. What a great SCOTUS pick and people are still going to try to fall all over themselves to claim Biden and Trump are the same.

I'll give Barrett credit for a pretty good opinion in the social media case. She burns Alito's ridiculous dissenting opinion, although saves some of the strongest criticisms for the footnotes.

[Atocep]

The SC should start billing the 5th circuit for doing their legal research for them. This conservative SC still sits far to the left of that court and has to fix their mistakes. Barrett even called them out for misrepresenting facts in a case.

[larrymcg421]

Chevron down. Homeless people told to fuck themselves. A lifeline given to Jan 6 defendants. What a day for SCOTUS.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Chevron down. Homeless people told to fuck themselves. A lifeline given to Jan 6 defendants. What a day for SCOTUS.

Explain to me again why Biden is even an issue when this is what really matters.

[JPhillips]

And no guidelines on Chevron, so that MAGA judge in TX now gets to decide whether or not every regulation is constitutional.

[Ksyrup]

In addition to weakening the J6 argument against a Trump presidency, the other thing the SC's J6 decision did - in practical terms, not legal - is give Trump cover to pardon every single person convicted of a J6-related offense. He's already talked about doing it, and now he has a blanket rationale to apply to every one of them once he's elected.

[CrimsonFox]

If you like those decisions you're gonna love when they completely make Trump immune to everything.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And no guidelines on Chevron, so that MAGA judge in TX now gets to decide whether or not every regulation is constitutional.

I found this comment (in a lawyer forum, of course) to be the best example of trying to find a silver lining:

Not sure this is completely bad news. Shredding the administrative state is going to take hundreds of thousands of billable hours.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I found this comment (in a lawyer forum, of course) to be the best example of trying to find a silver lining:

It was my immediate thought when I saw the decisions. Lawyers everywhere must be salivating.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Explain to me again why Biden is even an issue when this is what really matters.

You see the liberal media is out to get Donald Trump. Wait, that can't be right. The media is not owned by a few extremely wealthy people that want all regulation and democracy destroyed and will use trump as a pawn and/or puppet to accomplish that? I think that could be it.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And no guidelines on Chevron, so that MAGA judge in TX now gets to decide whether or not every regulation is constitutional.

Just like gerrymandering, which was dominated by conservative states in the 10's, they don't want a democracy. They want a rigged system where the rules are set by people they can give brib....gratuities to. If you like Russia, you're in for a treat.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I found this comment (in a lawyer forum, of course) to be the best example of trying to find a silver lining:

Lawyers to set up a shell company. (Wouldn't want the public knowing that MegaCorp is going to start pumping chemicals into the water supply.)

Lawyers to file for an injunction.

Lawyers file for delay after delay after the injunction.

Lawyers to eventually try a case.

Lawyers to appeal.

Lawyers to start the whole process over again to gut banking regulations.