SCOTUS
- RTH10260
- Posts: 16686
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
- Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
- Verified: ✔️ Eurobot
SCOTUS
(original GoodMorningAmerica)Justices to take aim at race-conscious college admissions in affirmative action cases
DEVIN DWYER and SARAH HERNDON
Fri, October 28, 2022 at 2:09 PM·
In her 2003 opinion upholding affirmative action in higher education, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor famously predicted that in 25 years "the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary" in America.
Next week, years after that milestone and with lingering gaps in minority college acceptance and achievement, a new group of justices will decide whether to overrule O'Connor – and more than 40 years of precedent – to declare that admissions policies must be race-blind.
"That would be a sea change in American law with huge implications across society," said Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center.
In a pair of oral arguments Monday, the justices will take up race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard University, the nation's oldest private college, and the University of North Carolina, the nation's oldest public university.
It is the first test for affirmative action before the current court with its six-justice conservative majority and three justices of color, including the first-ever Black woman justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson.
"I think we have to be realistic in that this is a very conservative Supreme Court," said David Lewis, a Harvard University junior and member of the school's Black Students Association. "But this issue has been tried over and over again at the court, and the precedent has still been upheld."
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/justices-aim- ... 00034.html
- RTH10260
- Posts: 16686
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
- Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
- Verified: ✔️ Eurobot
SCOTUS
(original NYT)Hundreds of Publishing Staffers Call for Cancellation of Amy Coney Barrett’s Book Deal
Brittany Bernstein
Fri, October 28, 2022 at 11:56 PM·
Hundreds of publishing staffers have signed an open letter calling on Penguin Random House to axe Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s $2 million book deal because she voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Barrett’s book deal with Sentinel, an imprint of Penguin Random House that focuses on conservative content, was first reported in April 2021. Politico reported at the time that Barrett had a deal for a book about how judges should avoid letting their decisions be impacted by personal feelings.
In an open letter that had received more than 550 signatures as of Friday afternoon, Barrett’s detractors called the deal “a case where a corporation has privately funded the destruction of human rights with obscene profits.”
The letter claims its signatories “care deeply about freedom of speech” and “recognize that harm is done to a democracy not only in the form of censorship, but also in the form of assault on inalienable human rights.”
“As such, we are calling on Penguin Random House to recognize its own history and corporate responsibility commitments by reevaluating its decision to move forward with publishing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s forthcoming book,” the letter said.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hundreds-pub ... 22093.html
- keith
- Posts: 4280
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:23 pm
- Location: The Swamp in Victorian Oz
- Occupation: Retired Computer Systems Analyst Project Manager Super Coder
- Verified: ✅lunatic
SCOTUS
How is she supposed to pay for her college loans then?
(Edit to fix markup)
Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls Would scarcely get your feet wet
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
SCOTUS
Maybe her and Kegs could get lobbying Justices made more legal than it is now.
By which I mean, if it is illegal, how would anyone know for sure and who exactly would tell them?
(go ahead, say something related to shame and/or appearances)
By which I mean, if it is illegal, how would anyone know for sure and who exactly would tell them?
(go ahead, say something related to shame and/or appearances)
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
SCOTUS
Why? They don't have any and don't care.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
SCOTUS
Philly Boondoggle
- Foggy
- Dick Tater
- Posts: 10963
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
- Location: Fogbow HQ
- Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
- Verified: Inventor of flag baseball
SCOTUS
Disclosure form for what? Is it signed under penalty of perjury?
Is it a crime to lie on the disclosure form?
Those are questions.
Is it a crime to lie on the disclosure form?
Those are questions.
I'm Foggy and I forget if I approved this message.
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
SCOTUS
Today the Court heard arguments in cases meant to ensure that white people are not be discriminated against at Harvard.
Because that is what this court sees as one of our time's great injustices that needs righting. White people at Harvard.
Jesus wept.
Because that is what this court sees as one of our time's great injustices that needs righting. White people at Harvard.
Jesus wept.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
-
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
- Occupation: Dude
- Verified: ✅
SCOTUS
And they continue to bemoan the fact that the public does not have much confidence in them despite their strict adherence to THE LAW. They do not let personal feelings or opinions enter into their sacred deliberations and keen analysis.
So, if by some weird twist of fate the Federalist Society is a party to a lawsuit that is pending before these individuals, would they have the presence of mind to recuse themselves? My guess is no.
I'd rather play cards with a card cheat than rely upon these people to do what is morally and ethically right.
So, if by some weird twist of fate the Federalist Society is a party to a lawsuit that is pending before these individuals, would they have the presence of mind to recuse themselves? My guess is no.
I'd rather play cards with a card cheat than rely upon these people to do what is morally and ethically right.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
- raison de arizona
- Posts: 20219
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
- Location: Nothing, Arizona
- Occupation: bit twiddler
- Verified: ✔️ he/him/his
SCOTUS
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/19/us/s ... -wade.htmlFormer Anti-Abortion Leader Alleges Another Supreme Court Breach
Years before the leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, a landmark contraception ruling was disclosed, according to a minister who led a secretive effort to influence justices.
As the Supreme Court investigates the extraordinary leak this spring of a draft opinion of the decision overturning Roe v. Wade, a former anti-abortion leader has come forward claiming that another breach occurred in a 2014 landmark case involving contraception and religious rights.
In a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and in interviews with The New York Times, the Rev. Rob Schenck said he was told the outcome of the 2014 case weeks before it was announced. He used that information to prepare a public relations push, records show, and he said that at the last minute he tipped off the president of Hobby Lobby, the craft store chain owned by Christian evangelicals that was the winning party in the case.
In early June 2014, an Ohio couple who were Mr. Schenck’s star donors shared a meal with Justice Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann. A day later, Gayle Wright, one of the pair, contacted Mr. Schenck, according to an email reviewed by The Times. “Rob, if you want some interesting news please call. No emails,” she wrote.
Mr. Schenck said Mrs. Wright told him that the decision would be favorable to Hobby Lobby, and that Justice Alito had written the majority opinion. Three weeks later, that’s exactly what happened. The court ruled, in a 5-4 vote, that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance covering contraception violated their religious freedoms. The decision would have major implications for birth control access, President Barack Obama’s new health care law and corporations’ ability to claim religious rights.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
- MN-Skeptic
- Posts: 3826
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
- Location: Twin Cities
SCOTUS
This is a big story. The takeaway of a lot of folks is that it is Alito who leaked both the Hobby Lobby ruling and the Dobbs ruling.
From the article -
From the article -
As the Supreme Court investigates the extraordinary leak this spring of a draft opinion of the decision overturning Roe v. Wade, a former anti-abortion leader has come forward claiming that another breach occurred in a 2014 landmark case involving contraception and religious rights.
In a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and in interviews with The New York Times, the Rev. Rob Schenck said he was told the outcome of the 2014 case weeks before it was announced. He used that information to prepare a public relations push, records show, and he said that at the last minute he tipped off the president of Hobby Lobby, the craft store chain owned by Christian evangelicals that was the winning party in the case.
Both court decisions were triumphs for conservatives and the religious right. Both majority opinions were written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. But the leak of the draft opinion overturning the constitutional right to abortion was disclosed in the news media by Politico, setting off a national uproar. With Hobby Lobby, according to Mr. Schenck, the outcome was shared with only a handful of advocates.
Mr. Schenck’s allegation creates an unusual, contentious situation: a minister who spent years at the center of the anti-abortion movement, now turned whistle-blower; a denial by a sitting justice; and an institution that shows little outward sign of getting to the bottom of the recent leak of the abortion ruling or of following up on Mr. Schenck’s allegation.
Tim Walz’ Golden Rule: Mind your own damn business!
SCOTUS
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/no ... e-v-elenis
Former members of Amy Coney Barrett’s secretive faith group, the People of Praise, are calling on the US supreme court justice to recuse herself from an upcoming case involving gay rights, saying Barrett’s continued affiliation with the Christian group means she has participated in discriminatory policies against LGBTQ+ people.
The former members are part of a network of “survivors” of the controversial charismatic group who say Barrett’s “lifelong and continued” membership in the People of Praise make her too biased to fairly adjudicate an upcoming case that will decide whether private business owners have a right to decline services to potential clients based on their sexual orientation.
Amy Coney Barrett, who was successfully nominated to the supreme court by Donald Trump.
Revealed: leaked video shows Amy Coney Barrett’s secretive faith group drove women to tears
Read more
They point to Barrett’s former role on the board of Trinity Schools Inc, a private group of Christian schools that is affiliated with the People of Praise and, in effect, barred children of same-sex parents from attending the school.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
SCOTUS
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA14nnln
Top Democrats on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees demanded on Sunday that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts comply with their investigation into the court’s refusal to abide by ethics laws.
And if the court continues to suggest it’s not serious about policing itself, Congress will step in, warned the joint letter from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), chairs of the subcommittees overseeing the federal judiciary in their respective chambers.
“If the Court, as your letter suggests, is not willing to undertake fact-finding inquiries into possible ethics violations that leaves Congress as the only forum,” they wrote.
The letter came a day after The New York Times reported that Justice Samuel Alito leaked the outcome of a 2014 decision in the case of Hobby Lobby v. Burwell. Alito reportedly spoke about the decision ahead of its release to Supreme Court Historical Society donors who were part of an influence operation led by a former conservative evangelical leader, Rev. Rob Schenck.
The two lawmakers firmly stated Congress’ right to investigate the court and demanded Roberts provide information related to the influence operation run by Schenck through his Faith & Action group.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
- pipistrelle
- Posts: 7791
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am
SCOTUS
Won't Roberts wait out the calendar?
- John Thomas8
- Posts: 5973
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:42 pm
- Location: Central NC
- Occupation: Tech Support
SCOTUS
The US Supreme Court is compromised, no longer a valid arbiter of the truth.
SCOTUS
To what avail?
If the Senate remains 50-50, the Dems won’t have subpoena power.
Even if it’s 51-49, the ultimate arbiter of any subpoena will be…the 6-3 Supreme Court.
- keith
- Posts: 4280
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:23 pm
- Location: The Swamp in Victorian Oz
- Occupation: Retired Computer Systems Analyst Project Manager Super Coder
- Verified: ✅lunatic
SCOTUS
Same as the House. So?
Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls Would scarcely get your feet wet
SCOTUS
SCOTUSblog@SCOTUSblog
JUST IN: Whisky, dog toys... and trademark law.
SCOTUS has agreed to hear a dispute between Jack Daniel's and a company that makes squeaking "Bad Spaniels" dog toys. The case will have implications for the tension between parody & intellectual property. https://t.co/OmR3rimMCH
2:26 PM · Nov 21, 2022