SCOTUS Issues

[GURPS]

Leftist Activists Call for Clarence Thomas’ Impeachment

A group of Leftists activists are calling on Justice Clarence Thomas to resign or be impeached from the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas covered for insurrectionists like his wife, & he wants to re...

pjmedia.com

 

[GURPS]

Would-Be Kavanaugh Assassin Has a Secret That the Lefty Media Won't Touch​

The FBI discovered a conversation where Roske, who identified as “Sophie 42,” said he was planning to kill three justices.

Online sleuths learned that he had posted an ad on Reddit using the AmericanNick moniker, which the FBI identified as one of Roske’s online aliases. Roske claimed to be a “MtF” (male-to-female) trans person looking for female companions to cuddle and play video games with him.

In the r/GamerPals subreddit, Roske posted a personal ad with the subject line: “F4F [female for female] 25 PST Trans Gamer Girl Seeking Friend.” He detailed in one posting that he prefers women because “there are very few men I have felt comfortable with even platonically so that is why I’m specifying.”

Needless to say, the mainstream media has been mum on Roske’s alleged transgender life. If you are a PJ Media reader, you aren’t surprised. We’ve seen the media go silent on trans violence before. Even when the violence is sexual and against kids.

Remember Randy Stair, the transgendered person who barricaded the exits at the Weis supermarket where he worked and shot three co-workers to death before killing himself? It’s ok if you don’t. The mainstream media also dodged that story when it didn’t fit the narrative. Stair wrote:

I hate guys, I think they’re f***ing disgusting . The facial hair they have, the body hair, the muscle build, and all that f***ng body structure s***… Everything about guys I hate. And the fact that I was forced to live as one, you know, that hurt a lot. And also, I hated my name, too. My life was a living hell.

Remember when the far-left media tried to paint the Highland Park mass-shooter as a conservative, despite the Antifa tats? Nice try.

 

[GURPS]

Next up on the Supreme Court's agenda: Affirmative action​

Progressives who are still reeling from the end of Roe v Wade are already expecting the worst from the Supreme Court’s next term which starts next week. One of the big issues the court will be considering in the next term is affirmative action in college admissions. Time published a primer yesterday.

The high court will hear two cases this term that could determine the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies—and the decision could fundamentally reshape higher education across America.
The high court will hear both cases on Oct. 31. The group Students for Fair Admissions, which says its mission is to help “restore colorblind principles to our nation’s schools, colleges and universities,” has brought both lawsuits, asking the court to preclude any consideration of race as a factor in admissions.
The first case, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, alleges that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy discriminates against Asian American applicants, arguing that Asian Americans are significantly less likely to be admitted than similarly qualified Hispanic, Black, or white students. The plaintiffs argue Harvard’s policy violates Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in institutions that receive federal funding. Harvard responds that it does not discriminate against Asian American applicants, argues that the plaintiffs are citing misleading statistics, and contends that race-conscious admission policies are legal. Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld Harvard’s admissions policy. (Jackson will recuse herself from the case, as she served on Harvard’s Board of Overseers.)
The second case, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, argues that UNC’s consideration of race in admissions not only violates Title VI, but also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which extends to public universities. The plaintiffs argue UNC discriminates against white and Asian applicants by awarding “racial preferences” to Black, Hispanic, and Native American students because they are classified by the school as underrepresented minorities. UNC responds that its policies are lawful and are intended to build a diverse, holistic student body.

 

[Merlin99]

Well this ones easy, the way to get rid of discrimination is to stop discriminating. Discriminating against anyone for anything, color, sexuality, size,...Now I'm only talking about government institutions, I don't have any issue with a private individual or company discriminating against anyone they want, that'll fix itself over time.

 

[GURPS]

But, But, but ..... Affirmative Actions ' isn't ' Discrimination ... it is righting a systemic WRONG

 

[GURPS]

Major government unions lose over 200,000 members after Supreme Court's workers' rights ruling​

The Commonwealth Foundation released the report, which found that the top four public labor unions – AFT, AFSCME, NEA, and SEIU – lost nearly 219,000 members altogether since the Janus v. AFSCME ruling.

“The Janus decision to end forced unionism for government workers accelerated a long-term decline in membership,” the report said. “In response, government unions are conducting aggressive campaigns to unionize new workers with recent successes in Virginia and Colorado.”

The loss of members, though, has not been as drastic as was predicted by some when the Supreme Court first issued the ruling in 2018.

“I think there were some groups on both sides who expected more,” said Nathan Benefield, senior vice president at the Commonwealth Foundation. “I think our predictions were more cautious. We did this in Michigan … but it took several years to educate people before we saw big changes in membership…”

 

[GURPS]

Libs Angry at Court Because They Don't Get Their Way!​

First up was host Kasie Hunt who asked Jennings if Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell's handling of Supreme Court appointments led to this "contribute to the legitimacy of the court?"

Jennings rightly responded that McConnell "would say polling numbers shouldn’t have anything to do with how the court does its job." Jennings then asked rhetorically "what do we want the court to be subject to the whims of a popular opinion mob? I mean that’s not what they’re there for. They're there to interpret the constitution."

That is obviously true since our founders wanted Supreme Court justices to have life appointments and be confirmed by United States Senators, who were originally supposed to be appointed themselves by state legislatures.

"The people who are questioning its legitimacy are just mad that they're not getting their way every time. An institution’s legitimacy cannot be called into question just because you don't get your way 100 percent of the time," Jennings correctly noted.

Former Clinton administration apparatchik Paul Begala who painfully displayed his complete ignorance of our system of government and our founders' intent cried that "this Supreme Court has a majority of justices who are nominated there by Presidents who first came to office without the support of the American people. They got in through the electoral college, that's fine, but they didn’t have popular support."

Begala obviously doesn't understand that the framers didn't want the government to be run by the tyranny of the majority, which is what the electoral college prevents

Continuing his crying, Begala wailed that the four right-leaning justices (plus John Roberts) "were confirmed by Senators from small states that represent a minority of the American people."

 

[GURPS]

No, Dry Land Isn’t ‘Navigable Water’ For Federal Bureaucrats To Regulate, And SCOTUS Must Say So​

To understand the facts of the controversy is to sympathize with the petitioners. In 2004, Chantell and Mike Sackett purchased a 0.63-acre vacant lot near Priest Lake, Idaho, with the intention of building their family home. After obtaining all necessary local permits, the Sacketts began construction. But shortly after starting preliminary earthmoving activities, government officials entered the lot and said to the Sacketts’ construction workers that the homesite contained “wetlands” subject to federal regulation as “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act.

One could forgive the Sacketts for being surprised. Located in a mostly built-out residential subdivision, their property contains no bodies of water. Nor does the lot include any surface water connections to any body of water. To the north, there lies a county-operated road; to the south, east, and west, there sit residential buildings. Despite the absence of water and the prevalence of surrounding development, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) claim that soggy pockets of the Sacketts’ property are “navigable waters” and are therefore subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then an aerial snapshot of the Sacketts’ property speaks volumes about federal regulatory overreach.

In asserting jurisdiction, the EPA and Corps rely on a convoluted causal chain that would make Rube Goldberg proud. According to the agencies, the Sacketts’ proposed homesite is subject to the Clean Water Act permit because: Priest Lake is navigable water; a non-navigable creek connects to Priest Lake; the non-navigable creek is connected to a non-navigable, man-made ditch; the non- navigable, man-made ditch is connected to wetlands; these wetlands, though separated from the Sacketts’ lot by a 30-foot-wide paved road, are nevertheless “similarly situated” to wetlands alleged to exist on the Sacketts’ lot; and these alleged wetlands on the Sacketts’ property, aggregated with the wetlands across the street, bear a “significant nexus” to Priest Lake. If your head is spinning after that explanation, you’re not the only one.

 

[GURPS]

 

[Hijinx]

No, Dry Land Isn’t ‘Navigable Water’ For Federal Bureaucrats To Regulate, And SCOTUS Must Say So​

To understand the facts of the controversy is to sympathize with the petitioners. In 2004, Chantell and Mike Sackett purchased a 0.63-acre vacant lot near Priest Lake, Idaho, with the intention of building their family home. After obtaining all necessary local permits, the Sacketts began construction. But shortly after starting preliminary earthmoving activities, government officials entered the lot and said to the Sacketts’ construction workers that the homesite contained “wetlands” subject to federal regulation as “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act.

One could forgive the Sacketts for being surprised. Located in a mostly built-out residential subdivision, their property contains no bodies of water. Nor does the lot include any surface water connections to any body of water. To the north, there lies a county-operated road; to the south, east, and west, there sit residential buildings. Despite the absence of water and the prevalence of surrounding development, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) claim that soggy pockets of the Sacketts’ property are “navigable waters” and are therefore subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then an aerial snapshot of the Sacketts’ property speaks volumes about federal regulatory overreach.

In asserting jurisdiction, the EPA and Corps rely on a convoluted causal chain that would make Rube Goldberg proud. According to the agencies, the Sacketts’ proposed homesite is subject to the Clean Water Act permit because: Priest Lake is navigable water; a non-navigable creek connects to Priest Lake; the non-navigable creek is connected to a non-navigable, man-made ditch; the non- navigable, man-made ditch is connected to wetlands; these wetlands, though separated from the Sacketts’ lot by a 30-foot-wide paved road, are nevertheless “similarly situated” to wetlands alleged to exist on the Sacketts’ lot; and these alleged wetlands on the Sacketts’ property, aggregated with the wetlands across the street, bear a “significant nexus” to Priest Lake. If your head is spinning after that explanation, you’re not the only one.

Where was the Corp of Engineers when they started building the Marijuana Growing facility in the 7th District?
Built in a critical area, with the runoff only yards from a creek, a 53,000 square foot building and parking for employees. Water usage from the same strata as rural homes in the area.

Money talks and BS walks . You got enough money you can build homes in the river. Go to North Beach and see.

 

[limblips]

Where was the Corp of Engineers when they started building the Marijuana Growing facility in the 7th District?
Built in a critical area, with the runoff only yards from a creek, a 53,000 square foot building and parking for employees. Water usage from the same strata as rural homes in the area.

Money talks and BS walks . You got enough money you can build homes in the river. Go to North Beach and see.

When are you going to accept that the rules are only applied when they benefit the left. "Come on man!"

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

The Supreme Court Could Overturn Another Major Precedent. This Time, Americans Might Agree.



The Supreme Court is poised to upend decades of precedent on affirmative action. This Monday, the justices will hear two cases challenging race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The universities use race as one of many factors when deciding which applicants to accept — a practice that has been affirmed multiple times by the Supreme Court, including in a 2003 case where the justices ruled that ensuring racial diversity in higher education is important enough to justify the limited use of race in college admissions.

Now, just months after the Supreme Court upended a decades-old precedent on abortion rights, the precedent on affirmative action is in peril.

Although public opinion on abortion is complex, Americans mostly did not want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and end the constitutional right to abortion. But a ruling limiting or ending affirmative action in higher education — though it would have a huge impact on college admissions — is less likely to draw public outrage. That’s because affirmative action is unpopular, even though Americans do want there to be diversity in higher education.

For example, a Washington Post/Schar School poll conducted Oct. 7-10 found that near-identical shares of Americans supported a Supreme Court ruling “banning colleges and universities from considering a student’s race and ethnicity when making decisions about student admissions” (63 percent), and thought programs that promote racial diversity in higher education are a good thing (64 percent). This is a great example of one of the central tensions in how Americans think about race-conscious admissions: Many people are uncomfortable with the concept of singling out racial minorities for special treatment if it means other students will have to meet a higher standard, even though they also want universities to have racially diverse student bodies.

 

[Merlin99]

The Supreme Court Could Overturn Another Major Precedent. This Time, Americans Might Agree.



The Supreme Court is poised to upend decades of precedent on affirmative action. This Monday, the justices will hear two cases challenging race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The universities use race as one of many factors when deciding which applicants to accept — a practice that has been affirmed multiple times by the Supreme Court, including in a 2003 case where the justices ruled that ensuring racial diversity in higher education is important enough to justify the limited use of race in college admissions.

Now, just months after the Supreme Court upended a decades-old precedent on abortion rights, the precedent on affirmative action is in peril.

Although public opinion on abortion is complex, Americans mostly did not want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and end the constitutional right to abortion. But a ruling limiting or ending affirmative action in higher education — though it would have a huge impact on college admissions — is less likely to draw public outrage. That’s because affirmative action is unpopular, even though Americans do want there to be diversity in higher education.

For example, a Washington Post/Schar School poll conducted Oct. 7-10 found that near-identical shares of Americans supported a Supreme Court ruling “banning colleges and universities from considering a student’s race and ethnicity when making decisions about student admissions” (63 percent), and thought programs that promote racial diversity in higher education are a good thing (64 percent). This is a great example of one of the central tensions in how Americans think about race-conscious admissions: Many people are uncomfortable with the concept of singling out racial minorities for special treatment if it means other students will have to meet a higher standard, even though they also want universities to have racially diverse student bodies.

It’s like they don’t know the way to end discrimination is to quit discriminating.

 

[stgislander]

Although public opinion on abortion is complex, Americans mostly did not want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and end the constitutional right to abortion.

The Constitution is a funny thing. Unless specifically identified in the text, what one SCOTUS grants, another SCOTUS can take away.

 

[GURPS]

The Constitution is a funny thing. Unless specifically identified in the text, what one SCOTUS grants, another SCOTUS can take away.

What Uncle Sugar givers, uncle sugar can take away

 

[GURPS]

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS FOR THE WIN​

Seth Waxman, the primary attorney defending Harvard (a former solicitor general under President Clinton), was going head-to-head with Chief Justice John Roberts about whether race is a “minor” factor in admissions, or a decisive factor, as the defenders of race-conscious admissions were trying to have it both ways all day. Let’s just pick up the dialogue in the middle:

MR. WAXMAN: No, I know. I’m –I’m attempting to answer your question.
There is no doubt that for –as the testimony showed, that for applicants who are essentially so strong on multiple dimensions, so extraordinarily strong on multiple dimensions that they are sort of on the bubble, that they might –they have a real candidate for admission, African American –being African American or being Hispanic or in some instances being Asian American can provide one of many, many tips that will put you in.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, people say that, yes, but you will have to concede, if it provides one of many, that in some cases it will be determinative.
MR. WAXMAN: I do. I do concede that.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Okay. So we’re talking about race as a determining factor in admission to Harvard.
MR. WAXMAN: Race in some –for some highly qualified applicants can be the determinative factor, just as being the –you know, an oboe player in a year in which the Harvard-Radcliffe orchestra needs an oboe player will be the tip.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Yeah. We did not fight a Civil War about oboe players.

 

[GURPS]

Affirmative Action Has a Very Rough, No Good Day at the Supreme Court​

At issue are two cases where universities use racial preferences to manage the melanin level of their student body (Supreme Court Adds Two New Education Affirmative Action Cases to its Docket and the Left Cries ‘Armageddon’). The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill is a state university that uses race in its admission process. Students for Fair Admissions, SFFA, sued in 2014 and lost the case before an Obama judge who ruled that UNC only used the tip used race minimally and had damned good reasons for doing so. Harvard is a private university that also uses race to manage who gets in. The issue, in this case, is that Harvard had a policy of actively discriminating against Asian applicants (Asian students sue Harvard for discrimination).





Harvard prevailed at trial on appeal to the First Circuit. SFFA bypassed bringing the UNC case to the Fourth Circuit and appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

When the Supreme Court accepted and combined the two cases, this is how the issues to be argued were framed:

(1) Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions;
(2) Whether a university can reject a race-neutral alternative because it would change the composition of the student body, without proving that the alternative would cause a dramatic sacrifice in academic quality or the educational benefits of overall student-body diversity, and
(3) whether Harvard College is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives.

Just as in the Dobbs case, the fundamental issue before the Supreme Court is whether a previous precedent is still valid. In Dobbs, the precedents were Roe and Casey. Here the precedent is Grutter vs. Bollinger which ruled the Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” The decision was a rather reluctant endorsement of the practice. Sandra Day O’Connor said that legalized racial discrimination couldn’t go on forever. “[R]ace-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time,” she wrote. “The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”

 

[GURPS]

Ketanji Brown Jackson clashes with anti-affirmative action lawyer during Supreme Court arguments​

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Monday clashed with a lawyer for a student group seeking to end affirmative action in college admissions, as the justice challenged whether the group has "standing" to sue.

"Why is it that race is doing anything different to your members' ability to compete in this environment," in comparison to a number of other factors involved in admissions, Jackson asked Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) lawyer, Patrick Strawbridge.

"It's in the context of all of the other factors…the admissions office is looking at," Jackson added. "You haven't demonstrated or shown one situation in which all they look at is race. They're looking at the full person."

 

[GURPS]