The Supreme Court Wrecking Ball (and state balls too)

[CrimsonFox]

Just read an article calling that Roberts'supreme court is using the 1st amendment like a wrecking ball.

There is just so much to digest this week alone. Enough for its own home for sure.

[CrimsonFox]

I seriously don't think most of the justices believe one bit anything they are saying as reasons. Their one and only reason is "God told me to"

[CrimsonFox]

But really the notion that LGBTQ people will stop being allowed in hospitals is what inevitably follows. It's not just about wedding cake.
And the whole notion that someone who doesn't want to work on Sunday can sue their employer on religious grounds is so ridiculous.
I presume the satanist church is going to start trolling these decisions.

I saw a thing on facebook saying a woman was going to call up a bakery and ask if they could make a wedding cake for their gay marriage...and if they answered yes then say "oh good. I was just checking to see if you were a douchebag. It's actually for my son's birthday".

[Edward64]

Poll results re: use of race for college admissions.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/amer...y?id=100580375

On Thursday, the Supreme Court set new limits on affirmative action programs in cases involving whether public and private colleges and universities can continue to use race as one factor among many in student admissions.

A little more than half of Americans – 52% -- approve of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on restricting the use of race as a factor in college admissions, while 32% disapprove and 16% saying they don't know.

A majority of Republicans (75%) and independents (58%) approve of the ruling, while a distinct minority of Democrats approve (26%).

And there are deep divisions between racial groups. Most white people (60%) and Asian people (58%) approve of the Supreme Court's decision to limit the use of race in college admissions, while only 25% of Black people support the decision. Hispanic people are split, with 40% approving and 40% disapproving.

I understand the Asian and Black, but I'd thought there would have been more Hispanic support for use of race.

Still, despite most Americans supporting the decision to end affirmative action in universities, Americans are less likely to think Black and Hispanic students have a fair chance of getting into the college of their choice compared to their white and Asian student counterparts. About two-thirds of Americans say that white and Asian students have a fair chance compared to only 47% who say this about Black students and 50% for Hispanic students.

[QuikSand]

I think the correct view is that the Supreme Court, on matters of policy, has simply just turned into another legislative body, albeit one without the usual measures of accountability for such. They now merely construct whatever legal facade they choose after starting out with the policy outcomes they prefer. Oddly enough, as it's mostly the left who supports this disillusionment, it's Gorsuch who is as close as a bastion of legalism as we have right now.

Maybe I was naive before then, but Bush v. Gore was my own eye-opener there, and it has been downhill ever since.

[Brian Swartz]

I don't think it's that simple. There are still many cases on which justices vote against their personal policy preferences. Not as many as there used to be, but it still happens quite often and is not even uncommon. It's just that for evident reasons these cases aren't generally the ones that get the most press attention.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I understand the Asian and Black, but I'd thought there would have been more Hispanic support for use of race.

Honestly this just comes along party lines since roughly 40% of Hispanic's are republican/have conservative leanings, where for Blacks it is around 6%, Asians around 34%.

So both Black and Asian voters seem to have a higher percentage of democrats backing the decision than Hispanic's.

[flere-imsaho]

+1 to what QuikSand said. The main recent difference is that since they got the right-wing supermajority, Thomas & Alito haven't even bothered to hide their naked partisanship. Which makes sense, as they were too busy hiding their naked corruption.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

+1 to what QuikSand said. The main recent difference is that since they got the right-wing supermajority, Thomas & Alito haven't even bothered to hide their naked partisanship. Which makes sense, as they were too busy hiding their naked corruption.

and their pubes in coke

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think the correct view is that the Supreme Court, on matters of policy, has simply just turned into another legislative body, albeit one without the usual measures of accountability for such. They now merely construct whatever legal facade they choose after starting out with the policy outcomes they prefer. Oddly enough, as it's mostly the left who supports this disillusionment, it's Gorsuch who is as close as a bastion of legalism as we have right now.

Maybe I was naive before then, but Bush v. Gore was my own eye-opener there, and it has been downhill ever since.

yup
like i said. They are just making whatever desicion is the conservative decision and just making up wordsalad as a justification

[Toddzilla]

For me, the fact that the court just decided on a case brought by a woman who HASN'T EVEN STARTED HER OWN BUSINESS YET CLAIMED DAMAGES due to the possible future case where she'd be asked to serve a gay person is everything you need to know about the current court's naked appetite for creating law out of thin air.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

For me, the fact that the court just decided on a case brought by a woman who HASN'T EVEN STARTED HER OWN BUSINESS YET CLAIMED DAMAGES due to the possible future case where she'd be asked to serve a gay person is everything you need to know about the current court's naked appetite for creating law out of thin air.

The debt forgiveness ruling was weird too, but falls in line with the direction the court is headed in. Rather than turning down cases like these, where standing isn't entirely clear or is questionable at best, they've decided to create policy from the bench.

[JPhillips]

Douthat and I agree.

John Roberts “acts, in many ways, like the farsighted Republican president we haven’t had this century — ideological but careful, moderating his own side’s demands but still seeking its advantage,” says @DouthatNYT. https://t.co/DOeGo93bG7

— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) July 2, 2023

[CrimsonFox]

I just thought of the term "The Supreme Cult" and now I want to trademark it

[CrimsonFox]

so not to be a smartass here but really curious what you guys think (as I don't really know much about the history of it)...

What in your opinion was the reason and origin story around Affirmative Action?
What have been its positive and negative impacts?
Where has it been used and where does the law actually state it applies?
How much is it still needed today and are there parts of it that need expanding or removing?

[NobodyHere]

John Roberts came in like a wrecking ball
John Roberts never hit so hard in love
All John Roberts wanted was to break your walls
All you ever did was wreck me
Yeah, you, you wreck me

Is this right?

[Drake]

As someone who works tangentially with college admissions, I have a strong feeling that this case won't be as impactful as people fear it will be. We have targets for minority admissions (define "minority" as nebulously as you want here) based on what the university perceives to be educationally valuable in terms of diversity.

We'll continue to hit those diversity targets. We'll just make the process for how we hit them more opaque it already is.

The basic truth is that we're already drowning in qualified applicants. When you get to the "inclusion" part of the barrel, it's really more about justifiying marginally qualified in-state kids so we can maintain the illusion that we're a state university. It would be so much more financially healthy for us if we ditched a bunch of those kids and admitted the hundreds (maybe thousands?) of over-qualified international kids who are going to be billed at 3x the standard rate instead. But we're committed to "diversity" starting with kids from our own state.

NB: I don't work for admissions, so nothing I say should be construed as the official policy of my university. I just talk to the data people who are rewriting their scripts to generate candidate lists.

Edit: When I say "drowning", what I mean is that our primary constraint is dorm rooms, since we require all first year students to live on campus. That's a hard cap on how many we can admit, with the exception of kids within a 25-mile radius of campus (who aren't required to live in the dorms.) Without that constraint, we could easily double our annual freshman class on qualified applicants alone.

[CrimsonFox]

see Drake, That's where I was thinking...like...in this day and age is there ever a shortage of talented worthy minority candidates from in state/in country?

The dorm thing is on the money which I forgot about.

But the thing is...was affirmative action used to admit candidates that have crappy grades and wouldn't ordinarily be considered? Maybe it was. But with the way the population as well as opportunities grew, one would think that isn't as true anymore. But I really don't know.

oh yeah and they really should stop even bringing in out of country students (except canada/Mexico) in place of US students unless they have a shortage of applicants or are a private school.

[Edward64]

re: the (supposed) non-existent subject of the lawsuit.

Apologies if I'm not using the right terminology but how is it possible neither the prosecuting/defense counsel did not verify, vet, validate etc. all the "key" parties involve? Is this normal?

MSN

Stewart was working on his couch in his Portland, Ore., home last week when he received a text from a New Republic reporter that left him “flabbergasted.”

A request he appeared to have made in 2016 to a Colorado artist to create designs and possibly a website for his same-sex wedding was now part of a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the reporter told him.

Except Stewart — who didn’t want his full name used out of fear of being harassed — is not gay. In fact, he has been married to a woman for 15 years, and he’s a web designer himself.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Drake

Edit: When I say "drowning", what I mean is that our primary constraint is dorm rooms, since we require all first year students to live on campus. That's a hard cap on how many we can admit, with the exception of kids within a 25-mile radius of campus (who aren't required to live in the dorms.) Without that constraint, we could easily double our annual freshman class on qualified applicants alone.

Yeah, there's probably a reason they've been building like mad up in W. Lafayette.

(Also probably a reason they initially didn't offer any aid to my out-of-state Boiler.)

[CrimsonFox]

actually my last post was probably naive since some colleges would probably refuse people BECAUSE of their race regardless of qualifications and thus the AA law was born.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

I seriously don't think most of the justices believe one bit anything they are saying as reasons. Their one and only reason is "God told me to"

Is God the guy paying them tons of money and flying them around on private jets?

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Is God the guy paying them tons of money and flying them around on private jets?

lol touche

[miked]

Sotomayor allegedly turned down free bagels because she felt it was a gift. WTF are Thomas and Alito doing and why is there no federal oversight on the judiciary? Can they be compelled to testify in front of congress?

[Ghost Econ]

I see this thread title and all I can think about is Sam Alito swinging around on a wrecking ball in tighty whites and and a white tank top with his man boobs flopping around.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miked

Sotomayor allegedly turned down free bagels because she felt it was a gift. WTF are Thomas and Alito doing and why is there no federal oversight on the judiciary? Can they be compelled to testify in front of congress?

Don't forget that a mysterious benefactor paid off all of Kavanaugh's old debts. He owed a few hundred thousand if I remember correct.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

I see this thread title and all I can think about is Sam Alito swinging around on a wrecking ball in tighty whites and and a white tank top with his man boobs flopping around.

Hawt

[molson]

Originally Posted by miked

Sotomayor allegedly turned down free bagels because she felt it was a gift.

This reminds me of a friend I have who was a judge - she went to jiffy lube, and the guy working on her car was someone she sentenced to probation a few years earlier. He said he was doing well, was off drugs and everything. He punched in the best coupon code they had available, which must have been $10 or $15 off. On her way home, she basically panicked, went back, and insisted she had to pay the discount back.

[flere-imsaho]

Millions of Americans work in industries where there are strong anti-corruption regulations and doing even a fraction of what Thomas & Alito have done would not only be grounds for immediate dismissal, criminal charges might also follow.

But somehow it's OK for them. Unreal.

[CrimsonFox]

Not Supreme court but....wrecking ball indeed

Here in ohio republicans have decided to say "fuck you people, you don't get to a say in the state constitution".

Volunteers worked tirelessly to get enough signatures to put something on the ballot in november to amend the constitution to do something favorable for abortion availibility. I don't know all the details.

But BECAUSE OF THIS... old republicans and their petty bullshit have created a SPECIAL BALLOT IN AUGUST that if passed will cause this change: All amewndments must pass with 60% favor instead of just majority. So it would mean that the movember ballot thing for abortion will be toast because it apparently is possible with the current state senate makeup.

typical republican petty bullshit yes. I expect more of this shit everywhere really.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

Not Supreme court but....wrecking ball indeed

Here in ohio republicans have decided to say "fuck you people, you don't get to a say in the state constitution".

Volunteers worked tirelessly to get enough signatures to put something on the ballot in november to amend the constitution to do something favorable for abortion availibility. I don't know all the details.

But BECAUSE OF THIS... old republicans and their petty bullshit have created a SPECIAL BALLOT IN AUGUST that if passed will cause this change: All amewndments must pass with 60% favor instead of just majority. So it would mean that the movember ballot thing for abortion will be toast because it apparently is possible with the current state senate makeup.

typical republican petty bullshit yes. I expect more of this shit everywhere really.

I'll be voting against the proposed amendment.

Not really because of the 60% rule, I think changing a constitution should have more than 50% of the population buying into the change. 50% is a whim and attitudes could change the very next day.

But I think they're changing the ballot collection requirement so that you have to get x number of signatures in every county in Ohio. So in theory one county could block any amendment. I think that swings the difficulty pendulum way too far in the other direction.

[Brian Swartz]

Yeah, as described, that's not at all saying people don't get a say. The idea that a bare majority can amend the constitution is I think a bad one.

Obviously 'we don't like this proposed amendment so we're going to make it harder to pass' is not a good reason for this and pretty transparent political maneuvering, but as a general matter of policy/governmental structure I would personally favor a change like that in Ohio (sans NobodyHere's concerns) and my main question would be whether 60% is high enough.

[CrimsonFox]

Oh that's right. It requires 100% of counties signaturewise

[QuikSand]

To the extent Brett Kavanaugh's colleagues think about him at all, they seem to view him as a fixer who can cobble together five votes for a diaphanous majority opinion that decides almost nothing.

On the Supreme Court's clear intellectual lightweight: https://t.co/AK8cIdQ73O pic.twitter.com/uNSM221DR6

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) July 19, 2023

emerging consensus that Kavanaugh is just a dope

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

To the extent Brett Kavanaugh's colleagues think about him at all, they seem to view him as a fixer who can cobble together five votes for a diaphanous majority opinion that decides almost nothing.

On the Supreme Court's clear intellectual lightweight: https://t.co/AK8cIdQ73O pic.twitter.com/uNSM221DR6

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) July 19, 2023

emerging consensus that Kavanaugh is just a dope

Never would have guessed based on his testimony in front of senate.

This is the way Trump's people want the federal government to work though. Hire under qualified political extremists that aren't exactly intelligent and make them feel they owe you.

Their plans to reshape the executive branch if Trump wins in 2024 is downright frightening. Bannon hinted at it after the 2020 election, but more details have started leaking. Pull federal agencies directly under the president, fire people that aren't seen as "team players", and have 1000 federal workers ready to be hired on day 1 based solely on their political affiliation and willingness to be a team player. Bannon complained that too many federal agencies had people that used silly things like regulations, laws, ect to prevent the first Trump administration from fully achieving their goals.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

To the extent Brett Kavanaugh's colleagues think about him at all, they seem to view him as a fixer who can cobble together five votes for a diaphanous majority opinion that decides almost nothing.

On the Supreme Court's clear intellectual lightweight: https://t.co/AK8cIdQ73O pic.twitter.com/uNSM221DR6

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) July 19, 2023

emerging consensus that Kavanaugh is just a dope

he like beer

[CrimsonFox]

So here are the specific things that signatures are being gathered for this year in Ohio for the november ballot:


Type Title Subject Description
CICA Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative Abortion Provides that each individual has the right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, and that the state of Ohio may regulate abortion after fetal viability unless if it is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient
CISS Marijuana Legalization Initiative Marijuana Legalizes the recreational use of marijuana for adults 21 years of age or older


THAT is why they rushed the "emergency August 8" measure. This is the way they can ensure or try to ensure both initiatives fail. Let us not pretend that this is about anything but abortion really because that's what it is about. It isn't about careful scrutiny of the constitution. The current way things are done are to get things on the ballot. The signature rule alone would pretty much prevent that as any one district can kill any initiative they want. And with all the gerrymandering done republicans have a very easy time getting 60% of anything. Actually even if the 60% thing fails, I don't see how the abortion thing really has a chance in ohio seeing how many rep congressmen there are.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

emerging consensus that Kavanaugh is just a dope

I mean, I'm shocked.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'll be voting against the proposed amendment.

Not really because of the 60% rule, I think changing a constitution should have more than 50% of the population buying into the change. 50% is a whim and attitudes could change the very next day.

But I think they're changing the ballot collection requirement so that you have to get x number of signatures in every county in Ohio. So in theory one county could block any amendment. I think that swings the difficulty pendulum way too far in the other direction.

Well my mind hasn't changed since this post so I voted no today.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Well my mind hasn't changed since this post so I voted no today.

And you are right. 50% vote is a crazy low to alter a state constitution. There should e a bit of a higher bar. But the GOP got greedy with the signature requirement.

[JPhillips]

I get this, but everybody knows this is about abortion, so the real contest here is does %50+1 of the highly gerrymandered legislature get to ban abortion or does %50 +1 of the voting public get to keep it legal.

Of course the Ohio GOP is already looking at ways to ignore a referendum call or successful vote.

[GrantDawg]

Looks like "No" is going to win by a landslide.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

OSU campus voted 98% for "No".

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I get this, but everybody knows this is about abortion, so the real contest here is does %50+1 of the highly gerrymandered legislature get to ban abortion or does %50 +1 of the voting public get to keep it legal.

Of course the Ohio GOP is already looking at ways to ignore a referendum call or successful vote.

Honestly though I think that saying this is about abortion is rather short sighted.

[CrimsonFox]

I voted a big FUCK YOU NO!

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

OSU campus voted 98% for "No".

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

i wonder if that 2% is getting the shit kicked out of them at the moment

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

I voted a big FUCK YOU NO!

no Trout option I take it...

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Honestly though I think that saying this is about abortion is rather short sighted.

LaRose shouldn't have taken a break from running for Senate, er being Secretary of State to say that then.

[Brian Swartz]

I think the point is that a change of this magnitude would have impacts long beyond the immediate motivation for doing it.

I.e., it can be and in this case I would say it is true that:

- Abortion is a primary motivator for those trying to make this happen, and
- If it was enacted many more issues would be affected in the future beyond abortion. As in, anything you want to change the constitution for, including changing this requirement.

One of them being true and important and relevant doesn't mean the other isn't also true and important and relevant.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I get this, but everybody knows this is about abortion, so the real contest here is does %50+1 of the highly gerrymandered legislature get to ban abortion or does %50 +1 of the voting public get to keep it legal.

Of course the Ohio GOP is already looking at ways to ignore a referendum call or successful vote.

word. i mean I'm not sure why anyone here is arguing about this issue as if it were in a vacuum but perhaps they're just not up to speed. This and other state issues like this are an extension of mitch mcconnell politics. To shut down the normal avenues of sense and rig things however they can to push through things. GOP actually banned new inituitives in august because of low voter turnout but then suddenly allow this one and this one was thrown together so fast JUST because the abortion rights initiative got enough signatures. also note on this ballot it would have prevented any grace period for getting signatures.


but yeah ohio has been supergerrymandered for awhile. but also been superfoxnewsed. they lost some big businesses like ncr and others. I think the GOP capitalized on that stuff and convinced the blue collar it was dems fault...and also doubled down with the religious right who have things like lightning touchdown jesus along 75.