SCOTUS Issues

[GURPS]

Chief Justice Roberts Accuses Liberal Justices Of Power Grab In Affirmative Action Opinion​

“The principal dissent wrenches our case law from its context, going to lengths to ignore the parts of that law it does not like. The serious reservations that Bakke, Grutter, and Fisher had about racial preferences go unrecognized,” Roberts began. “The unambiguous requirements of the Equal Protection Clause — ‘the most rigid,’ ‘searching’ scrutiny it entails — go without note.”

“And the repeated demands that race-based admissions programs must end go overlooked — contorted, worse still, into a demand that such programs never stop,” Roberts continued. “Most troubling of all is what the dissent must make these omissions to defend: a judiciary that picks winners and losers based on the color of their skin. While the dissent would certainly not permit university programs that discriminated against black and Latino applicants, it is perfectly willing to let the programs here continue. In its view, this Court is supposed to tell state actors when they have picked the right races to benefit. Separate but equal is ‘inherently unequal,’ said Brown. 347 U. S., at 495 (emphasis added). It depends, says the dissent.”

The Chief Justice went on to attack the liberal justices’ apparent attempt to reserve for the Court the power to choose which race deserve such beneficial treatment, saying it was so egregious that it mirrored decisions rendered before the “Second Founding” — when the post-Civil-War-era 14th Amendment and the included Equal Protection Clause put an end to the Court’s freedom to do so.

 

[GURPS]

MSNBC Proves Clarence Thomas’ Point That Race-Based Admissions Uphold The Bigotry Of Low Expectations​

Among the reasons Thomas concurred with the majority’s ruling to strike down race-based admissions was his rejection of the assumption that race, rather than merit, is the primary driver of success.

“These policies may harm even those who succeed academically,” Thomas wrote. “I have long believed that large racial preferences in college admissions ‘stamp [blacks and Hispanics] with a badge of inferiority.'”

“Consequently, ‘[w]hen blacks’ and, now, Hispanics ‘take positions in the highest places of government, industry, or academia, it is an open question… whether their skin color played a part in their advancement,” he added.

Justice Thomas can write from his own experience. Shortly after the decision was handed down, an exchange on MSNBC proved his case.

“Clarence Thomas, you know, he has criticized affirmative action. That’s how — that’s one of the reasons why he graduated from Yale and we know that’s one of the reasons why he’s on the Supreme Court,” said network legal analyst Catherine Christian.

 

[GURPS]

Clarence Thomas Reading His Epic Takedown Of KBJ’s Affirmative Action Dissent Left Her “Visibly Angry”​

“JUSTICE JACKSON’s race-infused world view falls flat at each step…. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism …. Worse, the classifications that JUSTICE JACKSON draws are themselves race-based stereotypes…. “











Justice Thomas was having none of it. But first he laid the foundation (emphasis added):

In the wake of the Civil War, the country focused its attention on restoring the Union and establishing the legal status of newly freed slaves. The Constitution was amended to abolish slavery and proclaim that all persons born in the United States are citizens, entitled to the privileges or immunities of citizenship and the equal protection of the laws. Amdts. 13, 14. Because of that second founding, “[o]ur Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting).

This Court’s commitment to that equality principle has ebbed and flowed over time. After forsaking the principle for decades, offering a judicial imprimatur to segregation and ushering in the Jim Crow era, the Court finally corrected course in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), announcing that primary schools must either desegregate with all deliberate speed or else close their doors. See also Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294 (1955) (Brown II ). It then pulled back in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306 (2003), permitting universities to discriminate based on race in their admissions process (though only temporarily) in order to achieve alleged “educational benefits of diversity.” Id., at 319. Yet, the Constitution continues to embody a simple truth: Two discriminatory wrongs cannot make a right.

***

… I join the majority opinion in full. I write separately to offer an originalist defense of the colorblind Constitution; to explain further the flaws of the Court’s Grutter jurisprudence; to clarify that all forms of discrimination based on race—including so-called affirmative action—are prohibited under the Constitution; and to emphasize the pernicious effects of all such discrimination.

***

 

[SamSpade]

As far as I can understand -

SCOTUS does not exist to address social justice or to rewrite laws to satisfy some social need. It exists to interpret the Constittion. Nothing can be more unfair than to deny someone admission to a school because of his race.

I am all for diversity in admissions, but only if every candidate satisfies the same requirements for admission. It isn't ok to me to ever lower a standard simply to meet diversity goals. I saw it, years ago when I went to an engineering school - ONE semester in, and most of the students admitted with a lower requirement had flunked out. Didn't do THEM any favors.

 

[somdwatch]

If any thing Affirmative action seems to have proven that a college degree doesn't make you smart. I mean look at Kamala and Justice Jackson. They graduated STUPID? What school did they go to?

 

[black dog]

If any thing Affirmative action seems to have proven that a college degree doesn't make you smart. I mean look at Kamala and Justice Jackson. They graduated STUPID? What school did they go to?

I dont believe any higher education makes one "smart" it makes one educated.
One is born with "smart"

 

[Kyle]

One is born with "smart"

And sometimes, not.

 

[Hijinx]

The only reason Justice Jackson is on the Supreme Court is because she is black.
Joe Biden stated that .
She is an Affirmative Action appointment, is it any surprise that she would be for Affirmative action?

Indeed there may be some whites guilty of the bigotry of low expectations, but how can blacks complain when they have to admit that every time they cry about losing Affirmative Actions they testify to the fact that they themselves are guilty of it. They know that without Affirmative Action they must compete on equal terms, and THEY fear that blacks cannot do it.

The KNOW that colleges will be searching for blacks that can keep up because they want diversity bad.
But they fear that a lot of blacks who were previously let in for that diversity can't cut the mustard.

It is their fear not mine.

 

[GURPS]

Winsome Sears Nukes Ketanji Brown Jackson's Dissent: ‘Chosen Because She’s Black’​

Justice Clarence Thomas isn’t the only person who made an epic response to Ketanji Brown Jackson’s absurd dissent in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. the University of North Carolina cases. During an appearance on Fox News, Virginia Lt. Gov. Winsome Sears blasted Jackson’s dissent while calling out Jackson as an affirmative action pick to the court.

Host Martha MacCallum asked, “This is the dissent from Justice Jackson. She said, ‘With let them eat cake obliviousness today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces color blindness for all by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life,’ she said. She and Justice Sotomayor were outraged by this decision. Sotomayor said, ‘The opinion today will highlight the court’s own impetus in the face of America who cries for equality resound.’ What would you say to these justices?”

“Well, what you have is the justice who was chosen because she’s black and because she’s a woman,” Sears responded. “You know, that’s what we’re understanding now, what a woman is. And Martha, while we’re playing these stupid games, I’m saying that education and the lack of it in America has risen to a national crisis. China is not playing these stupid games. China is interested in total world domination, and so is Russia and the rest of them. That’s what we have to be concerned about. Our children are not learning. In fact, when they do graduate from high school and decide to go on to college, Martha, more than 60% of them, according to the statistics, need remedial education that very first year.”

 

[GURPS]

Supreme Court Quoted Pelosi In Decision That Killed Biden’s Student Debt Cancellation​

“The Secretary asserts that the HEROES Act grants him the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal. It does not. We hold today that the Act allows the Secretary to ‘waive or modify’ existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, not to rewrite that statute from the ground up,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

The Chief Justice went on to use a statement made by Pelosi to bolster his point, noting that she had agreed Biden had the authority to make some changes in the time or manner that payments were made, but not to waive them altogether.

“People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not,” she said in July of 2021. “He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress.”

 

[GURPS]

Fact Check: Liberal Supreme Court Justices Rely on False Claims about Racism, Anti-Gay Bigotry to Bolster Dissents ​

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the dissent in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, in which the Court ruled that race-conscious admissions policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. She cited an Association of American Medical Colleges study that argues for the “critical importance of diversity in the medical profession.” Affirmative action, Jackson claimed, doubles the chance of black infant survival: “For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die.”

The study, however, finds that black infants have a 99.6 percent survival rate with black doctors and a 99.8 percent survival rate with white doctors. What Jackson misinterpreted when she claimed that the black infant survival rate “doubles” with a black doctor is the discrepancy that more white doctors are in Neonatal intensive care units (NICU), where babies are less likely to survive. If a black baby has a black doctor, it’s likely because that baby is not in a NICU, which of course yields higher survival rates.

Sonia Sotomayor

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a long dissent for 303 Creative v. Elenis, in which the court determined that a Christian web designer cannot be compelled to make a wedding website for a gay couple. In her dissent, Sotomayor said a “social system of discrimination created an environment in which LGBT people were unsafe,” and quoted many examples including the murder of Matthew Shepard, who was, “targeted by two men, tortured, tied to a buck fence, and left to die for who he was,” Sotomayor wrote. Shepard, who was involved in the Wyoming meth drug culture, was murdered by a bisexual who confirmed that the murder had nothing to do with Shepard’s being gay.

Sotomayor’s interpretation of Shepard’s death is in line with the mainstream narrative that’s coalesced around the incident. That popular telling has inspired countless articles, a gay-rights non-profit, and, ultimately, the Matthew Shepard Act, a law signed by President Obama in 2009 that expanded the scope of offenses that could be considered hate crimes under federal law. Sotomayor’s version of events was eventually debunked by author Stephen Jiminez, who spent thirteen years reporting and writing a book about Shepard’s death. The book, Hidden Truths about the Murder of Matthew Shepard, was published in 2013 and advances the argument that a dispute over meth was to blame for the tragedy.

 

[GURPS]

Was the Supreme Court Right to Reject Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness Plan?​

Supreme Court, Student Loans, Joe Biden, John Roberts, Justice, Debt, Economy And Jobs, US Congress, US Constitution

AllSides Summary​

Pundits across the political spectrum reacted to the Supreme Court’s Friday decision to overturn the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness plan.

The Details: Writing for the court’s six conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts said the HEROES Act of 2003 — the legal basis for Biden’s plan — only gave the executive branch the power to “incrementally” modify debt repayment policy, not to “fundamentally” alter it. Roberts’ opinion included a quote from former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) saying only Congress had “the power for debt forgiveness.”

Reactions Opposing the Ruling: Perspectives opposing the ruling came primarily from left-rated voices. Progressive activist Nina Turner framed student debt as a “massive problem” and labeled the ruling “devastating” and “un-American.” Furthermore, a UC Berkeley law professor argued in the Los Angeles Times (Lean Left bias) that the court’s majority had wrongly interpreted the HEROES Act’s “plain language” allowing the education secretary to “waive or modify” debt policy. Meanwhile, some center-rated business outlets warned that student loan payments could slow the economy.

Reactions Supporting the Ruling: Perspectives supporting the ruling came primarily from right-rated voices. Some opinions framed Biden’s plan as a “power grab” or a “handout.” Washington Examiner (Lean Right bias) columnist Timothy P. Carney accused Democrats of “stoking hatred toward the court” and agreed with Roberts’ argument that the power to cancel such a large amount of debt rested with Congress, not the president.

 

[GURPS]

ALITO and THOMAS: Government resorting “to racial or ethnic classifications to ration medical treatment … would be a very strong case for prompt review by this Court”​

On June 30, 2023, SCOTUS denied the Petition in the Roberts Case. But Justice Alito joined by Justice Thomas issued a Statement in connection with the denial, which reads in full (emphasis added):

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Statement of JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, respecting the denial of certiorari.

The circumstances underlying the dispute below have long since come and gone, and I therefore agree with the Court’s decision to deny review. But I write to note that this case involves an issue of ongoing importance: whether the Equal Protection Clause permits governments to use race or ethnicity as a proxy for health risk and therefore “prioritize the treatment of patients” on that basis. Roberts v. Bassett, 2022 WL 16936210, *3, n. 2 (CA2, Nov. 15, 2022) (Cabranes, J., concurring) (noting the “portentous legal issues” implicated by such policies).

When “several new COVID–19 treatments for high-risk patients” were approved in late 2021, the treatments were “briefly in short supply” relative to need. Id., at *1 (summary order). New York State “instruct[ed] providers to follow” its guidance on “higher priority risk group” so long as the “supply shortage persisted.” Ibid. Echoing similar guidance from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State’s guidance specified that “ ‘[n]onwhite race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity should be considered a risk factor’” when prioritizing patients. Id., at *1, *3 (alteration in original); Roberts v. Bassett, 2022 WL 785167, *2 (EDNY, Mar. 15, 2022). The State justified the use of race and ethnicity as proxies for health risk by appealing to “‘longstanding systemic health and social inequities.’” Roberts, 2022 WL 785167, at *2.

As we have stated many times and have recently reaffirmed, the Equal Protection Clause places a “daunting” obstacle in the way of any government seeking to allocate benefits or burdens based on race or ethnicity, typically giving way only when the measure in question is “ ‘narrowly tailored’ ”—that is, “ ‘necessary’ ”—to “remediat[e] specific, identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a statute.” Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U. S. ___, ___ (2023) (slip op., at 15). Therefore, government actors may not provide or withhold services based on race or ethnicity as a response to generalized discrimination or as a convenient or rough proxy for another trait that the government believes to be “‘characteristic’” of a racial or ethnic group. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 20).

Under that precedent, New York’s general reference to “longstanding systemic health and social inequities” would not have sufficed to allow the State to deny a person medical treatment simply because that person is viewed by the State as being a member of the wrong racial or ethnic group. The shortage at issue in this case appears, thankfully, to have concluded. But in the event that any government again resorts to racial or ethnic classifications to ration medical treatment, there would be a very strong case for prompt review by this Court.

I was in the wrong place at the wrong time to challenge the racist garbage sweeping medicine. A great evil has taken over the medical profession and public health bureaucracy, something we have documented at CriticalRace.org and will continue to document. If the right case and a plaintiff with standing comes along, we also will challenge racist medical guidelines through the Equal Protection Project.

 

[GURPS]

Supreme Court Considering a Case That Might Upend Hundreds of January 6 Prosecutions​

One of the rioters, Edward Lang, is facing 11 charges and pleaded not guilty to all of them. But a district court judge threw out the charges relating to “obstruction of an official proceeding” concerning Lang and two others accused of violence at the Capitol.

The law in question sentences a guilty party to up to 20 years in prison for anyone who “corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document,” or “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” Lang is questioning whether the Sarbanes-Oxley statute fits the behavior of hundreds of rioters.

Sarbanes-Oxley was passed in response to financial malfeasance in the 2002 bankruptcies of telecom giant Worldcom and Enron, an energy company based in Houston. Lang argues that the obstruction defined in Sarbanes-Oxley bears no relationship to the violence that occurred on January 6, 2021.

The New York Sun:

The panel of the United States Appeals Court for the District of Columbia, though, by a 2-to-1 margin, upheld the use of the obstruction charge, deciding that Judge Nichols’s reading was too cramped. Judge Pan, writing for the majority, ruled that the “broad interpretation of the statute — encompassing all forms of obstructive acts — is unambiguous and natural.”
The request for a hearing before the Nine asks whether the statute, intended to clamp down on financial malfeasance, “can be used to prosecute acts of violence against police officers in the context of a public demonstration that turned into a riot.” Mr. Lang argues that a “statute intended to combat financial fraud has been transformed into a blatant political instrument to crush dissent.”

Lang’s petition before the high court warns that a “revolution is underway, with ambitious federal prosecutors reworking the penal code to make it do work never intended to be done, work that threatens to chill, and does chill, ordinary Americans in their First Amendment rights.” The petition says there’s no need to “create a new and novel application of a statute to capture the violence that took place that day.”

 

[GURPS]

Justice Alito enraged liberals this week when he pushed back on their recent rhetoric threatening to impose a code of ethics on the highest court in the land.

The veteran justice finally felt the need to speak up in light of Democrats pushing a doomed-for-failure bill to try to force a code of ethics on the Supreme Court.

Alito's response: Get lost.

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

Justice Alito Says Congress Lacks Authority to Regulate Supreme Court​

Supreme Court, Samuel Alito, US Congress, Ethics, Politics

AllSides Summary​

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito pushed back on efforts by Democratic lawmakers to impose ethical standards on the Supreme Court, stating Congress lacks the constitutional authority to do so.

Key Quotes: In an interview with the Wall Street Journal Opinion (Lean Right bias), Alito responded to recent allegations of ethical conflicts in the Supreme Court, stating, “I marvel at all the nonsense that has been written about me in the last year.” Alito asserted that “Congress did not create the Supreme Court… No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) responded on Twitter, stating, “What a surprise, guy who is supposed to enforce checks and balances thinks checks shouldn’t apply to him.”

For Context: In recent months, a string of reports from left-rated outlets have stirred controversy surrounding the Supreme Court. In April, ProPublica (Lean Left bias) published a report detailing a close friendship between Justice Clarence Thomas and Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow, outlining expensive vacations Thomas went on paid for by Crow. In June, another report from ProPublica stated that Alito appeared to violate "a federal law that requires justices to disclose most gifts" by not reporting a 2008 trip with billionaire Paul Singer, who had a case before the court.

How the Media Covered It: Outlets across the spectrum are mildly reporting on Alito’s comments, with the primary focus being the quote regarding Congress lacking constitutional authority to impose regulations on the Supreme Court.