SCOTUS

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 15695
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

SCOTUS

#26

Post by kate520 » Fri May 03, 2013 3:58 pm

He just can't let you go, Anita. How sad to still be carrying around such a burden of grievance, after 20 years and a spot on the Court.
DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2456
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

SCOTUS

#27

Post by mmmirele » Fri May 03, 2013 5:28 pm

AdamSerwer @AdamSerwerClassy of Clarence Thomas to call the president a sellout. youtube.com/watch?feature=…Published on May 2, 2013Supreme Court Justice unleashed on media, takes subtle dig at Obama. From a CSPAN discussion, April 9.The Silent Justice Speaks!!!! Oh wait, not from the bench. So sorry to have gotten excited for nothing.

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

SCOTUS

#28

Post by mimi » Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:31 pm

Elizabeth Warren: Supreme Court Is Becoming 'A Subsidiary' of the Chamber of Commerce





By The National Memo





20 June 13








Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) used her remarks at the 2013 American Constitution Society for Law and Policy National Convention to warn that the Supreme Court is being captured by interests representing America's biggest corporations:





Take a look at the win rate of the Chamber of Commerce. According to the Constitution Accountability Center, the Chamber moved from a 43 percent win rate during the very conservative Berger Court to a 56 percent win rate under the very conservative Rehnquist court. And now they are at a 70 percent win rate under the Roberts Court. Follow this pro-business trend to its obvious conclusion and you will end up with a Supreme Court that's a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Chamber of Commerce.The Chamber of Commerce is the nation's largest business lobby. In 2012, it spent over $100 million on lobbying, according to OpenSecret.com. Aligned with the dark money "social welfare" non-profits of the Koch brothers and Karl Rove, the Chamber helped raise and spend about one billion dollars to influence the 2012 elections."All told, the Chamber of Commerce has filed a whopping 18 amicus briefs this Term - just below its record number of 21 in October Term 2010," according to Doug Kendall and Tom Donnelly of the Constitution Accountability Center. "Overall, the Court will likely decide 76 cases this Term, meaning that the Chamber will have participated in roughly 24 percent of the Court's decided cases."





Conservative Justices side with the Chamber 82 percent of the time.more:


[/break1]org/news-section2/318-66/18020-focus-supreme-court-is-becoming-a-subsidiary-of-the-chamber-of-commerce]http://readersupportednews.org/news-sec ... f-commerce

TexasFilly
Posts: 18336
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

SCOTUS

#29

Post by TexasFilly » Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:37 pm

That's already been the state of affairs with the Texas Supreme Court for a few decades now.
I love the poorly educated!!!

Kevin McCarthy: Paul Ryan playing with a head injury -- Jon Lovett

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

SCOTUS

#30

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:47 am

That's already been the state of affairs with the Texas Supreme Court for a few decades now.Most of us don't want to live in Texas and are appalled at the proposition. However, we have been moved into Texas by the Roberts Court against our will. Revolution seems to be in order. That is, we need to insist the red states come through on their secession threats. Perhaps we can accept those 19th Century threats after all.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

SCOTUS

#31

Post by TollandRCR » Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:26 am

This Huffington Post headline and article is flatly wrong, is it not?[link]Supreme Court Affirmative Action Decision: Strikes Down UT-Austin's Race-Conscious Admissions,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/2 ... 45534.html[/link]By a 7-1 vote on Thursday, the Supreme Court struck down the University of Texas at Austin's affirmative action policy as a violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.The decision is a victory for Abigail Fisher, a white woman who claimed that UT-Austin unconstitutionally discriminated against her after the state's flagship university rejected her application in 2008 under its race-conscious admissions program.
“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

TexasFilly
Posts: 18336
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

SCOTUS

#32

Post by TexasFilly » Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:29 am

Well, it certainly didn't happen on Thursday.
I love the poorly educated!!!

Kevin McCarthy: Paul Ryan playing with a head injury -- Jon Lovett

TexasFilly
Posts: 18336
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

SCOTUS

#33

Post by TexasFilly » Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:39 am

WASHINGTON June 24, 2013 (AP)


The Supreme Court has sent a Texas case on race-based college admissions back to a lower court for another look.





The court's 7-1 decision Monday leaves unsettled many of the basic questions about the continued use of race as a factor in college admissions.





Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, says a federal appeals court needs to subject the University of Texas admission plan to the highest level of judicial scrutiny.[/break1]go.com/Politics/wireStory/high-court-sends-back-texas-race-based-plan-19472434#.UchYXfmG1NA]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStor ... chYXfmG1NA





Have not read the opinion yet. Since the "top ten percent" rule was implemented in anticipation of the Fifth Circuit being upheld by SCOTUS in Hopwood (it was not), and purports to be race neutral, I'm not sure what the ultimate practical outcome of this will be for UT. It only works to preserve minority admissions because we have, in effect, de facto segregation of schools here.
I love the poorly educated!!!

Kevin McCarthy: Paul Ryan playing with a head injury -- Jon Lovett

User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

SCOTUS

#34

Post by Kriselda Gray » Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:39 am

It's been updated. Here's what's at that same link now:Supreme Court Affirmative Action Decision: Sends UT-Austin's Race-Conscious Admissions Back For ReviewPosted: 06/24/2013 10:18 am EDT | Updated: 06/24/2013 10:30 am EDTBy a 7-1 vote on Thursday, the Supreme Court told an appeals court that it misinterpreted the justices' precedent when reviewing the University of Texas at Austin's affirmative action policy.The decision is a provisional victory for Abigail Fisher, a white woman who claimed that UT-Austin unconstitutionally discriminated against her after the state's flagship university rejected her application in 2008 under its race-conscious admissions program. UT-Austin will now have a much more difficult job of proving its program constitutional under the standard the Supreme Court clarified on Monday.Justice Elena Kagan, the former dean of Harvard Law School, recused herself, presumably due to her involvement with the case while she served as President Barack Obama's first solicitor general.This is a developing story and will be updated.
Edit: no mention of their erroneous original headline and story - and they've still got it happening on Thursday.
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

SCOTUS

#35

Post by mimi » Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:50 am

rolandsmartin @rolandsmartinIn today's 7-1 vote to send the affirmative action case back, Justice Ginsburg was the only one who said let the 5th Circuit decision stand.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44911
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

SCOTUS

#36

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:25 am

A poverty-conscious admissions policy would survive strict scrutiny and should be instituted at every school. It would accomplish what race-conscious admissions policies strive for and also help poor white children. All of the poor need help.

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

SCOTUS

#37

Post by esseff44 » Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:25 am

It's looks like they are not going to overturn the 14th Amendment after all. :lol: I woke up this morning thinking about WKA and the part where the justice mentions the fact that his parents were not allowed to become citizens even though they had been living and working in this country where he was born. In my half wake state, I was think the equality of marriage would follow logically in line with WKA....equal protection under the law. Just because his parents had been excluded from citizenship in the past was no reason for him to be treated differently than any other child born on under the jurisdiction of the US. Just because marriage has been reserved for one man and one woman is no reason it should deprive children (of parents of the same sex )of the benefits of having parents of the same legal status as everyone else. It looks like we are going to have to wait a little longer to get the word. It is hard for me to imagine that they could come to any conclusion other than DOMA is unconstitutional as is Prop 8. Congress, state legislatures and the people through initiatives have passed many laws that have been struck down because they did not conform with the basic principles set down in the Constitution and its Amendments. WKA is one of the most important cases that most Americans have never heard of. Loving follows right along striking down racial mixing laws that were passed in states that wanted to preserve inequality under the law after hundreds of years of racial mixing which produced children who did not have the benefits of having parents who were legally married.They have to do it for the children.

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

SCOTUS

#38

Post by esseff44 » Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:27 am

: :yeah: A poverty-conscious admissions policy would survive strict scrutiny and should be instituted at every school. It would accomplish what race-conscious admissions policies strive for and also help poor white children. All of the poor need help.:yeah:

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44911
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

SCOTUS

#39

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:30 am

Glad to know I am right 84.74358% of the time. :sterngard:

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

SCOTUS

#40

Post by esseff44 » Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:39 am

Glad to know I am right 61.91944% of the time. :sterngard:I don't remember you EVAH being wrong, Stern. Did I miss some things?

TexasFilly
Posts: 18336
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

SCOTUS

#41

Post by TexasFilly » Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:58 am

A poverty-conscious admissions policy would survive strict scrutiny and should be instituted at every school. It would accomplish what race-conscious admissions policies strive for and also help poor white children. All of the poor need help.This is interesting. How would that work? Who gets to define "poverty"? Rick Perry and the Texas Legislature? The UT Board of Regents? I am not criticizing your idea, I am just curious. ;;)
I love the poorly educated!!!

Kevin McCarthy: Paul Ryan playing with a head injury -- Jon Lovett

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

SCOTUS

#42

Post by TollandRCR » Mon Jun 24, 2013 12:34 pm

The University of California experience after affirmative action was banned by Proposition 209 may be instructive: Oakland Tribune June 24, 2013 [link]"Affirmative action ban at UC, 15 years later",http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new ... ears-later[/link]Proposition 209 -- approved in 1996 -- instantly changed the odds for black, Latino and Native American students vying for a spot in the selective University of California system. The change was felt most acutely at UC Berkeley and UCLA, two of the nation's most competitive and prestigious public universities.At Cal, the freshman admission rates for those three groups plunged by more than 50 percent between 1997 and 1998, the year the ban took effect -- from 45 percent to 20 percent. The proportion of black freshmen fell by half, to 3.4 percent of the class.Despite outreach programs for low-income students, more available spots, a policy to admit the top 9 percent of each high school class and an elaborate selection process that takes into account students' backgrounds, the "underrepresented minorities" in the University of California's nine undergraduate campuses remain decidedly underrepresented.[reports on gains of admissions from low-income families]Still, UC officials acknowledge that those gains have not kept pace with the growing numbers of poor and Latino high school students. And as the system becomes increasingly more competitive, Scott and other observers worry that students from low-performing high schools will find it even harder to gain admission.Poverty does not do its damage only at the level of the family. It also damages at the level of the neighborhood, school district, and county. Students with a latent high potential to perform well in UC's excellent campuses will suffer the consequences of having attended low-performing high schools. Those schools may spend more per-pupil than better-performing schools (we see that in Connecticut), so money alone is not the answer. It may not even be the main answer.The problem requires more than "solving" the problem of the imbalance of historically underrepresented minorities in the nation's colleges and universities. It in fact requires starting at the beginning with inferior grade schools, middle schools, and high schools. The universities can only do so much.
“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28742
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

SCOTUS

#43

Post by Foggy » Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:11 pm

It in fact requires starting at the beginning with inferior grade schools, middle schools, and high schools. The universities can only do so much.All of that, plus maybe some outreach to help parents with homework. I think a lot of parents stuck in poverty, consciously or unconsciously, don't want their children to be more educated and smarter than they are; they don't want to be shown up by their kids. Also, the parents may have not finished school themselves. Poverty and lack of education go hand in hand. The parents can't understand the homework that a bright child in a modern program will bring home, and if they can't understand it they can't help the child figure out new concepts or learn good study habits. Stern's right that you have to intercept poverty with education of the poor regardless of color, but you have to catch them WAY earlier than college age, IMHO.Poor parents raise poor students who get poor grades and are poor when they have kids. Until we figure out how to deal with that and take some action to stop it, it's a cycle that will go on for a long time.
They say that on his deathbed, Voltaire, asked to renounce the devil, said, "This is no time to be making new enemies."

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

SCOTUS

#44

Post by TollandRCR » Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:25 pm

...Poor parents raise poor students who get poor grades and are poor when they have kids. Until we figure out how to deal with that and take some action to stop it, it's a cycle that will go on for a long time.James Campbell showed about four decades ago that it is possible to interrupt this vicious cycle and that the Catholic schools of his time were particularly effective at doing so. He also showed that no matter what happened or failed to happen in schools, the parental home has a lasting and dominant influence, conditioning whether the child thinks that it is socially acceptable to excel academically. That cultural factor figures hugely; see Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot, The Good High School: Portraits of Character and Culture.
“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

GCharlotte
Posts: 229
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:55 pm

SCOTUS

#45

Post by GCharlotte » Mon Jun 24, 2013 5:21 pm

I think those practicing law in California should think twice about making SCOTUS mad. I'm pretty sure they just bench slapped the 9th and basically told them to get on with an execution.(my opinion)

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

SCOTUS

#46

Post by esseff44 » Mon Jun 24, 2013 5:53 pm

The University of California experience after affirmative action was banned by Proposition 209 may be instructive: Oakland Tribune June 24, 2013 [link]"Affirmative action ban at UC, 15 years later",http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new ... ears-later[/link]Proposition 209 -- approved in 1996 -- instantly changed the odds for black, Latino and Native American students vying for a spot in the selective University of California system. The change was felt most acutely at UC Berkeley and UCLA, two of the nation's most competitive and prestigious public universities.At Cal, the freshman admission rates for those three groups plunged by more than 50 percent between 1997 and 1998, the year the ban took effect -- from 45 percent to 20 percent. The proportion of black freshmen fell by half, to 3.4 percent of the class.Despite outreach programs for low-income students, more available spots, a policy to admit the top 9 percent of each high school class and an elaborate selection process that takes into account students' backgrounds, the "underrepresented minorities" in the University of California's nine undergraduate campuses remain decidedly underrepresented.[reports on gains of admissions from low-income families]Still, UC officials acknowledge that those gains have not kept pace with the growing numbers of poor and Latino high school students. And as the system becomes increasingly more competitive, Scott and other observers worry that students from low-performing high schools will find it even harder to gain admission.Poverty does not do its damage only at the level of the family. It also damages at the level of the neighborhood, school district, and county. Students with a latent high potential to perform well in UC's excellent campuses will suffer the consequences of having attended low-performing high schools. Those schools may spend more per-pupil than better-performing schools (we see that in Connecticut), so money alone is not the answer. It may not even be the main answer.The problem requires more than "solving" the problem of the imbalance of historically underrepresented minorities in the nation's colleges and universities. It in fact requires starting at the beginning with inferior grade schools, middle schools, and high schools. The universities can only do so much.There is that experience, but IIRC, there were also studies that show a higher percentage of those underrepresented groups were making it to a degree and graduate school. Too many of the students admitted that were not adequately prepared for college level work dropped out along the way or failed to pass the courses at a college level. It still goes back to early childhood education and the culture the child is exposed to as he is growing up, the amount of parental and self-discipline and the kind of peer pressure exerted on them. It is much more that just admissions. The before and after are just as important if not more.Yesterday there was a news item about about an initiative in the Oakland schools system to double the number of 3rd grader reading at grade level before they pass them on up. It was a comprehensive program that included parentss and much more.[/break1]kqed.org/americangraduate/2013/06/17/new-initiative-aims-to-double-percentage-of-oakland-youth-reading-on-grade-level-by-the-end-of-third-grade-by-2020/]http://blogs.kqed.org/americangraduate/ ... e-by-2020/

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

SCOTUS

#47

Post by TollandRCR » Mon Jun 24, 2013 6:21 pm

One of the findings of the sociologists of the 1960s-1970s was that a good predictor of the success of children in school was whether there were books (not including the Bible) in the house. Culture matters a lot; that is what Lawrence-Lightfoot mostly emphasizes.
“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27064
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

SCOTUS

#48

Post by bob » Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:22 pm

You might not get Berkeley, you might have to settle for [ . . . ] UCLA :o -xx
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Eligibility Lawsuits”