AFFIRMATIVE ACTION - STRUCK DOWN!!! (Page 1/5)
82-T/A [At Work] JUN 29, 10:29 AM
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/n...ses-live/ar-AA1dcVTg

Fantastic outcome, I could not be more pleased. As a person who has directly been able to benefit with a Hispanic heritage on my mom's side, I don't think it's fair at all for universities to pick and choose who they are allowed to allow, based on race. I recognize that had it not been for the Asian-American community, this lawsuit never would have progressed... but I'm pleased that SCOTUS ruled the way they did.
olejoedad JUN 29, 01:42 PM
It always smacked of racism to me.

I understand why it was passed into law years ago, as some segments of society needed a leg up due to discrimination by the racists in society.

Hopefully our society has grown past that time and has become more ethnically accepting.
randye JUL 01, 10:32 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

It always smacked of racism to me.

I understand why it was passed into law years ago, as some segments of society needed a leg up due to discrimination by the racists in society.

Hopefully our society has grown past that time and has become more ethnically accepting.




It always smacked of violating the last 14 words of the 14th Amendment to me.

The government carving out special classes of citizens for any reason is wrong and this latest decision hopefully will also serve to help knock down any of the wrong headed ideas about government "reparations".
Wichita JUL 01, 10:37 PM
Notice the left "pack the court", drum is beating louder.

Funny that they want term limits for only the Supreme Court justices, but none of the other lower court judges, and ironically, none for themselves in Congress.

This is of course after they appointed their own Affirmative Action judges to the bench.

This is the convoluted and narcissistic nature and thinking of leftist. They are not good people.

[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 07-01-2023).]

rinselberg JUL 02, 12:57 PM
It's my understanding that it would require a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits or a "too many birthdays" (age) limit on federal judges at large, but the terms (or ages) of Supreme Court justices could be limited without a Constitutional Amendment. After a Supreme Court justice "terms" or "ages" out, he/she/they would retain their status as a federal judge (unless they resigned), but their Supreme Court "gig" would have ended, and there would be a Supreme Court vacancy to be filled.

Here's a "nugget" from academia: The Supreme Court has become more conservative (overall) than the statistical indicators of public opinion across the United States, and public opinion underestimates just how conservative the Supreme Court has become.

"A decade-long longitudinal survey shows that the Supreme Court is now much more conservative than the public"

quote
Leveraging three unique surveys collected over a decade that ask members of the public about the policy issues before the US Supreme Court, we show how the court stands relative to the public. As we demonstrate, the court has, since 2020, become much more conservative than the public and is now more similar to Republicans in its ideological position on key issues. We also find that members of the public update their beliefs about the court’s ideology when its composition and rulings change. Even so, many members of the public currently underestimate the court’s conservative leaning, which in turn makes them less likely to support making changes to the institution than they would otherwise.


Stephen Jessee et al for PNAS; June 6, 2022.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2120284119

PNAS is acronymic for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The three authors are faculty members of the Department of Government at the University of Texas at Austin, the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University, and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, respectively.

Here's a compendia of rinse-preferred opinion and editorial columns or "op-eds" from the Brookings Institution, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, and last but not least, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D) from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, one of the 13 colonies that became the United States.

"Term limits—a way to tackle the Supreme Court’s crisis of legitimacy"
Norman Eisen and Sasha Matsuki for the Brookings Institution; September 26, 2022
https://www.brookings.edu/a...risis-of-legitimacy/

"The Supreme Court isn’t well. The only hope for a cure is more justices."
Nancy Gertner and Laurence H. Tribe for the Washington Post; December 9, 2021.
https://www.washingtonpost....tribe-nancy-gertner/

"The Supreme Court Doesn't Need 9 Justices. It Needs 27"
Jacob Hale Russell for Time; July 16, 2018.
https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/

"Expand the Supreme Court—By A Lot"
Glenn Harlan Reynolds for Newsweek; July 4, 2022.
https://www.newsweek.com/ex...-lot-opinion-1721105

"In Op-Ed [for the Boston Globe], Senator Warren Calls for Supreme Court Expansion to Protect Democracy and Restore Independent Judiciary"

quote
[Senator] Warren Cosponsors "Judiciary Act of 2021" to Expand the [Supreme] Court by Four Seats

Elizabeth Warren newsroom; December 15, 2021.
https://www.warren.senate.g...ndependent-judiciary

This includes the full text of Senator Warren's op-ed for the Boston Globe.


All of these articles were published in 2022 or before, so none of it is actually a reaction to any of the latest rulings from the Supreme Court.


Isn't it time you had a Supreme Court that was rationally sized and organized to match what should be its proper workload as the highest court in the land, in a land and people as large and diverse as the United States? A Supreme Court that is fairly representative of the nation that you are part of? Well now you can, and with these rinse-preferred options, you don't need a Constitutional Amendment to have it.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-02-2023).]

Wichita JUL 02, 01:45 PM
ray b JUL 02, 02:20 PM
AGE LIMITS

let them be until 70 then byby

no need to keep them after 70

and we need 43 to work full time
far less nut religious jerkets would be a BIG PLUS
rinselberg JUL 02, 02:47 PM

quote
Originally posted by Wichita:
Wichita JUL 03, 09:01 AM
The coming crop of leftist Biden brat children in law school can't cope? Damn, what a generation of softies. 🤣 I guess they will be looking forward to the UBI system to get out of their parents basements.

[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 07-03-2023).]

82-T/A [At Work] JUL 03, 09:13 AM

quote
Originally posted by Wichita:

The coming crop of leftist Biden brat children in law school can't cope? Damn, what a generation of softies. 🤣 I guess they will be looking forward to the UBI system to get out of their parents basements.







My law school sent out an e-mail to everyone basically saying the same nonsense. But one of the teachers I keep in touch with (whom is very liberal) sent me a letter she sent to her teachers explaining that these court decisions reflect the traditional role of the Supreme Court and. She said it's important to understand that the court does not legislate, and we must respect these decisions, even if we don't like it. I was pretty impressed.