Supreme Court decisions

Let’s see. Minority, Hispanic, progressive, female appointed by a Dem. Definitely an idiot in your tiny little influence book. Conservative judges have zero scruples over gifts and don’t abstain even though they clearly have a conflict of interest. Okay In your eyes. Got it. Know right where you’re coming from.
Ahem…


aaand she’s an idiot.
 
Hypocrite cage match Mullin took $1,400,000, had it forgiven, and voted against students. So did quite a few others.
Informed voters knew what he did with the money, which was to buy a mansion in Florida. So, they thought it was quite okay to vote for him. So, I bet he thinks one of the best decisions ever made in his life was to remain in congress, while breaking his promise not to run again. Voters were cool with that, too. I predict Mullin will be senator for as long as he wants as Inhofe did, even if he loses his fight with a union official. He could steer much money in federal grants to other states and people will still vote to reelect him. Republicans got to be fiscally conservative, you know. Okay, how about voting to cut our taxes while you're at it.
 
Last edited:
And….

she’s the poster child for everything that’s wrong with affirmative action. She’s evidently lazy as well as stupid.
I officially confirm you as Troll first class. Congratulations you’ve earned it!
 
Man denies making request cited in landmark Supreme Court LGBTQ case

As website designer Lorie Smith battled Colorado’s public accommodation law, she claimed that one day after filing her lawsuit, a man requested she design a website for his upcoming same-sex marriage.

But the man, identified in the request as “Stewart,” says he has been married to a woman for more than a decade and never submitted the inquiry.

 
Legacy admissions: Harvard accused of favouring mostly white students BBC

Harvard's practice of granting preference to undergraduate applicants with family ties to the elite college is facing a legal challenge.
Advocacy groups have petitioned the government to stop the Ivy League university's legacy admissions.
The policy has long been seen as a perk for the white and wealthy.
The federal complaint comes days after the Supreme Court ruled Harvard and other US colleges could no longer weigh race as a key factor in admissions.
In a landmark decision on Thursday, the nation's highest court voted 6-3 to repeal affirmative action, a decades-old measure.
Affirmative action has long been defended as a policy useful for increasing diversity on university campuses, but Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion that the process used by Harvard and others "picks winners and losers based on the color of their skin".

Spurred by that decision, Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR) - a Boston-based non-profit - filed a federal civil rights complaint on Monday against Harvard for granting "special preference in its admissions process to hundreds of mostly white students - not because of anything they have accomplished, but rather solely because of who their relatives are".
The complaint was filed with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, alleging violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
Harvard declined to comment.
The complaint cites studies published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a think tank, that shows nearly 70% of legacy and donor-related applicants are white, and that such students are six to seven times more likely to be admitted to Harvard than non-legacy applicants.The NBER report further adds that among white students granted admission, over 43% are from athletes, legacies, those on the dean's interest list, and children of faculty and staff.
It goes on to state that these preferences are "conferred without regard to the applicant's credentials or merits" and "systematically disadvantage students of colour".

Filed on behalf of three groups representing black and Latino communities in the New England region, the complaint calls on the Department of Education to investigate Harvard's legacy preferences, deem them illegal and order the university to end the practice if it wishes to keep receiving federal funds.

"There's no birth right to Harvard," LCR's executive director Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal said in a statement. "As the Supreme Court recently noted, 'eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it'."
He added: "Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations? Your family's last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process."
Congresswoman Barbara Lee agreed. The California Democrat tweeted: "Let's be clear: affirmative action still exists for white people. It's called legacy admissions."
Harvard declined to comment on Monday's complaint, but directed the BBC to its response last week to the Supreme Court's ruling.
In Thursday's statement, the university said it would continue to welcome "people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences".
Legacy admissions have already been banned at institutions including the University of California and all of Colorado's public universities, with several efforts targeting the practice elsewhere.

But it still accounts for nearly a quarter of newly admitted students at some of the nation's top schools, and supporters argue the policy builds a strong alumni community and donor base.
 
Man denies making request cited in landmark Supreme Court LGBTQ case

As website designer Lorie Smith battled Colorado’s public accommodation law, she claimed that one day after filing her lawsuit, a man requested she design a website for his upcoming same-sex marriage.

But the man, identified in the request as “Stewart,” says he has been married to a woman for more than a decade and never submitted the inquiry.

So the case didn't have a leg to stand on. Therefore, any lawyers presenting false information to the court should at least be cited for unethical conduct.
 
Legacy admissions: Harvard accused of favouring mostly white students BBC

Harvard's practice of granting preference to undergraduate applicants with family ties to the elite college is facing a legal challenge.
Advocacy groups have petitioned the government to stop the Ivy League university's legacy admissions.
The policy has long been seen as a perk for the white and wealthy.
The federal complaint comes days after the Supreme Court ruled Harvard and other US colleges could no longer weigh race as a key factor in admissions.
In a landmark decision on Thursday, the nation's highest court voted 6-3 to repeal affirmative action, a decades-old measure.
Affirmative action has long been defended as a policy useful for increasing diversity on university campuses, but Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion that the process used by Harvard and others "picks winners and losers based on the color of their skin".

Spurred by that decision, Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR) - a Boston-based non-profit - filed a federal civil rights complaint on Monday against Harvard for granting "special preference in its admissions process to hundreds of mostly white students - not because of anything they have accomplished, but rather solely because of who their relatives are".
The complaint was filed with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, alleging violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
Harvard declined to comment.
The complaint cites studies published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a think tank, that shows nearly 70% of legacy and donor-related applicants are white, and that such students are six to seven times more likely to be admitted to Harvard than non-legacy applicants.The NBER report further adds that among white students granted admission, over 43% are from athletes, legacies, those on the dean's interest list, and children of faculty and staff.
It goes on to state that these preferences are "conferred without regard to the applicant's credentials or merits" and "systematically disadvantage students of colour".

Filed on behalf of three groups representing black and Latino communities in the New England region, the complaint calls on the Department of Education to investigate Harvard's legacy preferences, deem them illegal and order the university to end the practice if it wishes to keep receiving federal funds.

"There's no birth right to Harvard," LCR's executive director Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal said in a statement. "As the Supreme Court recently noted, 'eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it'."
He added: "Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations? Your family's last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process."
Congresswoman Barbara Lee agreed. The California Democrat tweeted: "Let's be clear: affirmative action still exists for white people. It's called legacy admissions."
Harvard declined to comment on Monday's complaint, but directed the BBC to its response last week to the Supreme Court's ruling.
In Thursday's statement, the university said it would continue to welcome "people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences".
Legacy admissions have already been banned at institutions including the University of California and all of Colorado's public universities, with several efforts targeting the practice elsewhere.

But it still accounts for nearly a quarter of newly admitted students at some of the nation's top schools, and supporters argue the policy builds a strong alumni community and donor base.
Having Barbara Lee in your corner making intelligent arguments is a sure path to victory. I wish them all the luck.
 
Interesting, but not surprising article from WaPo: "Who's Okay with Affirmative Action decision. Many Black Americans."

More black American support the SCOTUS ruling banning Affirmative Action than those that disagree with the SCOTUS ruling.

 
Interesting, but not surprising article from WaPo: "Who's Okay with Affirmative Action decision. Many Black Americans."

More black American support the SCOTUS ruling banning Affirmative Action than those that disagree with the SCOTUS ruling.

While polls have long shown Black Americans in favor of affirmative action, The Washington Post-Schar School poll showed nearly half (47 percent) supported banning the use of race and ethnicity in admissions.

If you dig a little deeper, you begin to see why that might be: the lack of a perceived personal connection to the policy.
"There are some caveats. Affirmative action is difficult to poll, and the results can vary widely. Polls that refer to the goals of affirmative action tend to make the policy somewhat more popular. The recent CBS poll is a case in point: It showed 53 percent of Americans said they wanted affirmative action programs to continue, but 70 percent said colleges shouldn’t be allowed to consider race in admissions."

"Earlier this year, Pew asked people a battery of questions about affirmative action and efforts to increase diversity. While Black Americans were more likely to view affirmative action as positive than negative, fewer than half (46 percent) saw it as mainly positive. (Twenty percent said it was a negative, while the remainder saw it as mixed or said it made no difference.)"
 
Man denies making request cited in landmark Supreme Court LGBTQ case

As website designer Lorie Smith battled Colorado’s public accommodation law, she claimed that one day after filing her lawsuit, a man requested she design a website for his upcoming same-sex marriage.

But the man, identified in the request as “Stewart,” says he has been married to a woman for more than a decade and never submitted the inquiry.

 
Back
Top