Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

So its Friday news dump day so we're getting student loan sadness today aren't we.

If so, it’s particularly eye rolling that Thomas and Alito will vote against “hand outs” when they themselves need another 90 days to document what friendly financial assistance they’ve received over the last 365 days.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

So its Friday news dump day so we're getting student loan sadness today aren't we.

Honestly, I'm not as pessimistic as I was about Roe. 

But I think it'll be thrown out due to standing and come back up later when the right party actually files suit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, CTC2 said:

I heard someone say today that for example Harvard is majority minority students. However if you look at economics of those students they come from wealth strata’s significantly greater than the national average.  The point of the commentator was that all schools have to do is focus preference on students with low economic backgrounds and problem solved. I’m not so sure about that but it was something I hadn’t thought of. 
UT does some version of this with its preference for first generation college students. 

This is something UCLA was willing to do, but I don't think it works for Ivy league for the same reason Berkeley has been fighting it.  It is part of their business model to recruit donors via their children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Court holds that the First Amendment bars Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.
 

Oh the fake case won. Shocker 

  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

"As surely as Ms. Smith seeks to engage in protected First Amendment speech," Gorsuch writes, "Colorado seeks to compel speech Ms. Smith does not wish to provide."

Oh yeah I’m sure they’ll stick to this precedent 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

From the Sotomayor dissent: "Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class."

Not sure what is satire anymore.

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This ruling (and the coach prayer ruling) were based on false premises. The plaintiff example case DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN and has not been able to be corroborated to a real person. 

Question for surlylawyers: at what point can a lower court just ignore the supreme court because the """factual basis""" of the case was fabricated?

edit: citation

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

Edited by Captainant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

More from the Gorsuch opinion: A ruling for the state would create an untenable choice for Smith. "If she wishes to speak, she must either speak as the State demands or face sanctions for expresssing her own beliefs, sanctions that may include compulsory participation in remedial training, filing periodic compliance reports . . . and paying monetary fines."

Confused Little Girl GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under Colorado's logic," Gorsuch continues, "the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic--no matter the underlying message--if the topic somehow implicates a customer's statutorily protected trait. . . . Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

Under Colorado's logic," Gorsuch continues, "the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic--no matter the underlying message--if the topic somehow implicates a customer's statutorily protected trait. . . . Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty."

This is what using a shield as as sword looks like

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This ruling (and the coach prayer ruling) were based on false premises. The plaintiff example case DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN and has not been able to be corroborated to a real person. 

Question for surlylawyers: at what point can a lower court just ignore the supreme court because the """factual basis""" of the case was fabricated?

edit: citation

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

They can try. The worst thing that will happen to them is that it will get smacked down on appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://prospect.org/justice/2023-06-19-student-loan-cancellation-supreme-court-mohela/

 

Spoiler

That claim has been called into question. In Supreme Court oral arguments, it was revealed that MOHELA hasn’t made a contribution to that fund in 15 years; MOHELA has also said in its own financial documents that it doesn’t plan to make any payments in the future. Furthermore, an analysis from the Roosevelt Institute and the Debt Collective shows that MOHELA stands to gain revenue if debt cancellation goes forward, because it received additional servicing rights and its liability on certain accounts would be extinguished.

 

Edited by Gourmand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Ace of Aces said:

100 percent businesses will now go full scorched earth and refuse to work with Muslims, Catholics, Jews, etc. Some will refuse Blacks entry and cite that decision. 

The only underlying commonality in the opinions of this court is that white men have rights to guns, religion, and speech, and no one else has any rights. Freedom of religion (to be a bigot) and the right to own guns (for white males) are sacrosanct. All other rights must bend to them. Equal protection? No longer valid if providing equal protection would violate someone's religion. This is a terrible week for this country and history will judge us for it. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This ruling (and the coach prayer ruling) were based on false premises. The plaintiff example case DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN and has not been able to be corroborated to a real person. 

Question for surlylawyers: at what point can a lower court just ignore the supreme court because the """factual basis""" of the case was fabricated?

edit: citation

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

Appellate courts can't determine facts at all, so never.  Manufactured cases are actually quite common and aren't illegal or even really considered deceptive in the court.  The most famous example is probably the Montogmery bus case (Rosa Parks).  It took several runs with several people to create different situations until lawyers decided to proceed with the Rosa Parks instance.

Edited by JBJ
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The only underlying commonality in the opinions of this court is that white men have rights to guns, religion, and speech, and no one else has any rights. Freedom of religion (to be a bigot) and the right to own guns (for white males) are sacrosanct. All other rights must bend to them. Equal protection? No longer valid if providing equal protection would violate someone's religion. This is a terrible week for this country and history will judge us for it. 

Currently reading this and today's decisions just fan my righteous fury

 

Hardcover Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution Book

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that backwards.  Lower courts decide what the facts of the case are, so they CAN dismiss a case if they think the facts and law don't line up.  The Appellate courts can't really change the factual findings from the lower court.  But the fact that a case is manufactured is not a reason to dismiss it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Sorry to distract from the actual point of the thread but nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, was worth the one-term Trump presidency and all the ruin and rot it brought to the surface in this country. And that fucker could potentially win another term in 2024. 

As a general rule I don't typically wish death on individuals, but I can be persuaded to make an exception here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from NYT:

Quote

 

Michael D. Shear
June 30, 2023, 10:59 a.m. ET10 minutes ago
10 minutes ago
Michael D. Shear

White House officials say President Biden will denounce the court ruling in remarks later today and will “announce new actions to protect student loan borrowers.” It is unclear what those new actions will be, but there are some other — more limited — programs that could help some borrowers.

 

Quote

Michael D. Shear
June 30, 2023, 11:00 a.m. ET9 minutes ago
9 minutes ago
Michael D. Shear
The White House will also “be making it crystal clear to borrowers and their families that Republicans are responsible for denying them the relief that President Biden has been fighting to get to them,” according to White House officials.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Second case - 6-3 with the usuals. HEROES act does not authorize debt forgiveness 

I haven’t followed this closely but, at a high level, I’m kind of okay with the message that the President can’t forgive federal loan debt without authorization from Congress. Modern presidents have too much unilateral authority as it is. 

I’m in favor of student loan forgiveness (and generally more fully subsidizing higher education). So let’s lobby Congress to pass a law to that effect.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

So let’s lobby Congress to pass a law to that effect.  

Congress.

Actually governing.

And then, actually governing with the best interests of the people in mind.

haha-agamemnon.gif

 

That will never, ever, ever, ever happen again.  Not as long as the GQP exists.

  • Haha 4
  • Rage+1 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A major business should implement a policy that it will no longer provide services to white men based upon religious belief. Americans need to see the disastrous consequences of this Court's rulings. And this Court needs to be held accountable for its shoddy reasoning. Packing the Court should be job #1, #2, and #3 for Democrats. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Chief Justice Roberts put an addendum on his majority opinion telling the public not to interpret Justice Kagan’s dissent as a sign of discord at the Supreme Court. “It has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of the judiciary,” he wrote, adding that reasonable minds could disagree about the majority’s reasoning but that “we do not mistake this plainly heartfelt disagreement for disparagement. It is important that the public not be misled either. Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country.”

Fucking lulz John

  • Rage+1 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

I haven’t followed this closely but, at a high level, I’m kind of okay with the message that the President can’t forgive federal loan debt without authorization from Congress. Modern presidents have too much unilateral authority as it is. 

I’m in favor of student loan forgiveness (and generally more fully subsidizing higher education). So let’s lobby Congress to pass a law to that effect.  

You mean the Congress where one body is controlled by right wing insurrectionists? LOL

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...