The legal issues and decisions, if anyone were to review them, are not as controversial as people are claiming the outcomes are.
Did anyone really believe that a university can systemically deny hundreds of Asian students admission every year based primarily on their race and not be in violation the Equal Protection clause? Do people at least see how that university procedure could be considered un-Constitutional?
Here are some UNC email and text strings discovered in the SFFA trial (and recited by Gorsuch in his concurrence).
---------------
“[P]erfect 2400 SAT All 5 on AP one B in 11th [grade].”
“Brown?!”
“Heck no. Asian.”
“Of course. Still impressive.”
--------------
“If its brown and above a 1300 [SAT] put them in for [the] merit/Excel [scholarship].”
--------------
“I just opened a brown girl who’s an 810 [SAT].”
-------------
“I’m going through this trouble because this is a bi-racial (black/white) male.”
-------------------- “[S]tellar academics for a Native Amer[ican]/African Amer[ican] kid.”
---------------
Does anyone truly believe university administrators and executives making decisions and behaving in this manner are acting according to the US Constitution (much less morally)?
The supreme court ruled yesterday that colleges cannot make admissions decisions based on race. Today, they ruled that business owners can discriminate against people based on sexual orientation. We have a activist supreme court.
They are two really different, unrelated cases. I don't think you can characterize them like you did and then reasonably link them as "activist."
I’m aware of that. Just like I could have said Catholics and Christians, and people would have understood the distinction I was making.
Let me clarify further by saying Mormons, I meant academia saying, “We’re not interested in your weird Utah stuff here.”
By Christian, I meant academia saying, “We don’t want your southern mega church parking lot full of luxury SUVs with Trump stickers on them stuff here.”
(and on the latter, not sure that I can really blame them!)
I’m aware of that. Just like I could have said Catholics and Christians, and people would have understood the distinction I was making.
Let me clarify further by saying Mormons, I meant academia saying, “We’re not interested in your weird Utah stuff here.”
By Christian, I meant academia saying, “We don’t want your southern mega church parking lot full of luxury SUVs with Trump stickers on them stuff here.”
(and on the latter, not sure that I can really blame them!)
But they’re probably ok with Catholic Christians, because academia is fine with groomers. Gary can clarify for you, if necessary.
Looks like lying 'conservatives' wholly made up the gay web designer case. The 'gay man' who asked for a website for his marriage to 'mike' is apparently long-time hetero married with kids and has no idea why his name is on a letter to the web developer. In other words, GOP activists seem to have invented the whole case to make a point.
A real court would probably have to vacate the decision because the underlying case is phony, but this court won't, I'm sure.
Typical american conservatives. Ends justifies the means. THey learned from trump and all the rest to lie and lie and lie so they don't see anything wrong with lying.
This is typical of dementia patients, they just get and leave.
The host is in shock, this was supposed to happen during a commercial break, not live with millions watching.
That’s quite a stretch on your part. The host held out her hand at the end of the interview which Biden had to stand to reach. He shook her hand then walked away. Did you want him to stand there like a doofus while waiting for a commercial? He’s the leader of the free world and a busy man!
Right wingers are too dense to even listen to Bidens comments in that great interview. It’s because they are locked into their tribal view.
if they listened to Bidens well thought out answers they would have likely agreed with his points. Such as Biden’s view not to expand the Supreme Court because it would politicize it into the future and make it that way permanently. Do you think Trump would ever make such a statement which essentially abandons what is momentarily politically beneficial for himself for the greater good of the country long after he is gone?
not a chance! Trump can’t think more than an hour into the future and it is always me,me,me.
Also, if you listen to that interview it debunks your “Biden old senile dementia patient” view. But you won’t.
Overall inflation cooled to 3.8 percent in the year through May, Friday's report showed, the first time it has slipped below 4 percent since early 2021.
Wall Street blazed to another rally Friday to close a winning week, month and first half of the year after reports suggested pressure on inflation may be easing. . . . The market has cruised through 2023 in part because the economy has been able to defy many predictions for it to fall into a recession . . . . A separate report from the University of Michigan said sentiment among consumers is improving [and] their expectations for inflation aren't rising. That could also make for an easier Fed.
NEW YORK — Wall Street blazed to another rally Friday to close a winning week, month and first half of the year after reports suggested pressure on inflation may be
Yes, actually. They accept JC as their lord and savior and are baptized. They're Christians.
Not according to most Christians. You are aware of the arguments. Why disregard them when deciding to post?
Many Americans (I'm related to a bunch) who style themselves Christians also think that Catholics are not Christians! The notion that Mormons (and Catholics, etc.) are not Christians is a correctable error and I have actually gotten some people to change their opinions on the subject.
(In contrast, the belief that there actually is a "G-d" cannot be corrected easily: People believe what they believe.)
The supreme court ruled yesterday that colleges cannot make admissions decisions based on race. Today, they ruled that business owners can discriminate against people based on sexual orientation. We have a activist supreme court.
They are two really different, unrelated cases. I don't think you can characterize them like you did and then reasonably link them as "activist."
The 303 creative case had no legal standing, and should never have come before the court in the first place. It was a hypothetical business. The supreme court just set a new precedent that you do not need legal standing to bring a case before the supreme court. Why do you think they chose to hear this case in the first place? Do I even need to ask this question? The Supreme court has a 6-3 right wing Christian majority whose goal is to make sure Americans are living under right wing Christian rule. It wasn't that long ago that people cited their "deeply held religious beliefs" as a way to prevent interracial couples from getting married. It is now legal in America to cite their religious beliefs as a way to deny service to people. Completely absurd.
Not according to most Christians. You are aware of the arguments. Why disregard them when deciding to post?
Many Americans (I'm related to a bunch) who style themselves Christians also think that Catholics are not Christians! The notion that Mormons (and Catholics, etc.) are not Christians is a correctable error and I have actually gotten some people to change their opinions on the subject.
(In contrast, the belief that there actually is a "G-d" cannot be corrected easily: People believe what they believe.)
The only correction I have ever heard is that Mormons consider themselves (for obvious political reasons) to be Christians, so that's enough. Ipse dixit. The arguments against, which you are aware of (having argued against them), are not correctable or corrected by that. The arguments against center on that the J. Christ described in Book 2 has significantly different and contradictory characteristics than in Book 3 (the easily discredited and debunked Moroni-Palmyra version). The characteristics and attributes of J. Christ being the sine qua non of the whole movement and enterprise to begin with, it is easy to see how Christians could correctly see Mormonism as a completely different religion. Which it is.
They are two really different, unrelated cases. I don't think you can characterize them like you did and then reasonably link them as "activist."
The 303 creative case had no legal standing, and should never have come before the court in the first place. It was a hypothetical business. The supreme court just set a new precedent that you do not need legal standing to bring a case before the supreme court.
You alleged both cases were activist and linked by judicial activism. One of the cases seems to be the judicial activism you want - preventing racial discrimination. A non-activist court would have told the injured Asians to go pound cuttle fish.
I'm not seeing any discussion of standing by the majority or dissent in the 303 case, although I may have missed it. But even if there were, your concern that "that you do not need legal standing to bring a case before the supreme court" seems as fake as the website business in the 303 case probably is. The bottom line is 303 was able to articulate a harm and I don't think Colorado even challenged that. Colorado seems to have stipulated to the whole case.
Why do you think they chose to hear this case in the first place? Do I even need to ask this question? The Supreme court has a 6-3 right wing Christian majority whose goal is to make sure Americans are living under right wing Christian rule.
I think it was because Colorado seemed intent on arguably violating the SCOTUS ruling from 5 years ago on a very similar issue. Your dark and cynical take on why they chose to review the case seems like a reach, and this case, with its idiotic and limited facts, would be a pretty misguided way to inflict "right wing Christian rule" on America.
It wasn't that long ago that people cited their "deeply held religious beliefs" as a way to prevent interracial couples from getting married. It is now legal in America to cite their religious beliefs as a way to deny service to people. Completely absurd.
I'm not sure what the first sentence regarding interracial couples has to do with anything. And your second sentence is highly exaggerated, if not flat out wrong, given what the majority in 303 said and the distinctions they made.
The Proud Boys organization must pay more than $1 million to a historic Black church in D.C. after a judge determined members of the group damaged a Black Lives Matter sign displayed on the building’s front lawn in 2020.
it was an attempted coup, with multiple prongs. Some violent some arm twisting. But remember, the real problem in America is trans kids and what books are in school libraries. /sarc
Morans.
New reporting:
In a phone call in late 2020, President Donald Trump tried to pressure Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) to overturn the state’s presidential election results, saying that if enough fraudulent votes could be found it would overcome Trump’s narrow loss in Arizona, according to three people familiar with the call. Trump also repeatedly asked Vice President Mike Pence to call Ducey and prod him to find the evidence to substantiate Trump’s claims of fraud, according to two of these people. Pence called Ducey several times to discuss the election, they said, though he did not follow Trump’s directions to pressure the governor. The extent of Trump’s efforts to cajole Ducey into helping him stay in power has not before been reported,
In a phone call, Trump tried to pressure Arizona's governor to overturn the state's 2020 election results. Trump then asked his vice president to repeatedly follow up.
