I just happen to agree that AA is wrong, if that makes sense. — Bob Ross

Fair enough. Like I said, I myself am open to god faith arguments about it and don’t hold a staunch position.

And incidentally, you don’t have to put “Bob” after every post— we know it’s you! :grin:

I look forward to the time when all the esteemed legal scholars in this thread actually engage with the written decision instead of tossing about the vague idea of affirmative action as desirable/non-desirable — Voyeur

And then you go on to do the exact same thing.

Pretty easy to ignore.

does a good job explaining it though.



Hi Bob.

I see your point— it’s a reasonable one. But I’m not sure your characterization of AA is correct. There’s strong arguments in favor of it.

As I said elsewhere, I’d be happy to engage with the details of the case and the holding— but I can’t in good conscience pretend that this isn’t coming from a reactionary court who manages to find any reason to push forward their Federalist Society agenda. That makes me very suspicious of their justifications— just as it did with Dobbs and todays ruling on student loans.

It’s fairly predictable what they will rule. Even the independent legislature theory, which was ridiculous — though they ruled against it, it is not completely dead. That’s telling.

It’s clear what these judges want to do. Yes, we can pretend this case or that case was decided on principles and get into the weeds on each one, but first look at the overall trend.

The long-winded legal contortions and justifications and posturings don’t truly merit much energy when one can do easily predict what the ruling will be beforehand — as I did and anyone can.

Every one of these controversial cases are along party lines. When things are so predictable, you know it’s not a matter of a fair assessment of evidence — it’s foregone.

Teamsters, led by the excellent Sean O’Brien, are about to strike. This will be a big deal in the news shortly, if a contract isn’t reached with UPS.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/teamsters-warn-ups-strike-is-imminent-if-company-doesnt-improve-pay-offer-by-friday/

So in summary:

Unions can be sued if their strikes cause any problems.

The EPA can’t regulate water that isn’t connected to other water somehow.

Racism is over. No need for affirmative action— this isn’t 1965.

Businesses can refuse service to gay people.

Students should stay in debt.

-

Nicely reflects the values of these Bush and Trump appointed lawyers.

Called it:

Supreme Court Rejects Biden’s Debt Forgiveness Plan

How predictable.

Next up: Student loans can’t be canceled. Sorry- too bad. Unconstitutional…somehow. We’ll come up with a reason.

Refusing service to gay people is now fine.

Today is a sad day in American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBT people. The Supreme Court of the United States declares that a particular kind of business, though open to the public, has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. The Court does so for the first time in its history.

The immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status.” — Sotomayor

It’s almost as if there’s a pattern.

Massive wildfires in Canada still raging.
Smoke blanketing the northern US.
Extreme heat in Texas (upwards of 110-120 degrees) — hotter than 99% of the world at some points.

Another summer, more records breaking and more once-in-a-generation events every month.

But at least climate change is a Chinese hoax. So nothing to worry about.

we were encouraged to think minimally competent but diverse racially or genderwise. — jgill

Sounds more like a Fox News anecdote than reality. But so be it.

Fair enough I suppose. True— it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

The Court did not hold there is no more racism. — Hanover

That was a partial joke— but only partial. Yes, they’re not going to outright say it. But we shouldn’t expect that. However, take a look at Shelby v Holder. That’s pretty damn close.

you're just arguing you're unhappy with the result. — Hanover

I’m not particularly unhappy with the result. I don’t have a strong opinion about affirmative action. That doesn’t negate the fact that this court is reactionary to the extreme. What they’re systematically doing to environmental regulations, gun control, and unions is far worse in my view.

Sure…but what is your point? Abortion has been supported and attacked as well. As has almost every other issue they’ve ruled on this term.

Yes— isn’t it great that racism is behind us?

This court is a joke. No one their credibility is in the toilet.

Looking forward to the decades to come and how much damage this court will do — and I can’t help but to still be a little annoyed by the people who encouraged apathy in 2016, because Hillary was “just as bad.” Ditto in 2020 — although thankfully that silliness didn’t prevail.

Instead of simply voting against the worst (Trump), people sat out. Now we have a major branch of government remaking America in the Federalist Society’s image. How sad.

He's basically been saying it outright for years.

Except it is like, highly confidential.
...
Secret. This is secret information.
...
See as president I could have declassified it. Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret.

The tape just reaffirms what everyone with a brain already knew. But his supporters will come up with something — anything — to minimize or outright deny what he did. I don’t see it changing any minds there. Still, it’s the jury that counts.

Too bad this is what he’ll get nailed for and not attempting to literally overturn the election and then inciting an insurrection. He continues to lie about the election to this day — and roughly 80% of Republicans believe it.

Anyway — may he rot in jail if he gets there. Traitorous piece of shit.

We don’t really understand anything about consciousness. So it’s hard to say if insects have it or not.

He’s also looking and sounding a lot older these days. Not as old as Biden, but it still shows through the bronzer.

Well if it’s all a ruse, I give full marks for consistency.

I’m so inundated with Fox News that I may have missed it. — NOS4A2

Indeed.

No corruption at all. Totally clean. Unless you can provide a quote of him stating “I am engaging in corruption.”

Given we know you know the correct answer to the silly quiz is D, why continue to pretend you don't know that? — Baden

He’s not pretending. He really believes it’s C.

What corruption? — NOS4A2

Yeah, and we’re not supposed to laugh.

:lol:

So anything shy of “Go and storm the Capitol building” doesn’t count. Got it.

“the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully.“

Simple definition. Fits the bill. But no matter — I’m sure you think he bears no responsibility for what happened — which was of course only a peaceful riot. Carry on.

Feel free to shit on me all you want. — NOS4A2

I leave that to others. I mostly laugh. Which admittedly is rude to state explicitly— mea culpa.

But if you want to believe a political rally is "incitement to insurrection", which is the same line repeated by the worst elements in American politics, make a case. — NOS4A2

The evidence is pretty clear. It wasn’t only the rally, of course— it was weeks of whipping the followers up into a frenzy by telling them the election was stolen, a lie so obvious (and yet you accept) it’s laughable. It was completely predictable that something violent would happen.

Trump knew all this, of course, but is not stupid enough to outright state “go storm the Capitol building” — which apparently is what you want…although I’d expect you’d find some way of letting him off the hook even then.

doubtful that you're not a victim of propaganda — NOS4A2

Hilarious coming from you.

All I know is as soon as I post something about a politician, there you and the others are, like clockwork. — NOS4A2

I can’t speak for others, but I don’t engage you often.

This has been the case my entire time here. Why is that? — NOS4A2

In all seriousness, it’s because there aren’t many Trump followers here to shit on.

you feign believing D and pretend to hold both to the same standards but I can go to any page on this or the other thread to see the facts of the matter. — NOS4A2

See, not being in the Trump or Biden cult has an added benefit: the ability to recognize degree. You won’t once find me minimizing Biden’s record (a la “Trump held a rally”) because I’m not in the cult of personality. But if it makes you happy, by all means continue. I mostly read you to laugh anyway.

Your laughing lets me know you have nothing else. — NOS4A2

Nothing else?

The fact that you think I should be defending Joe or Hunter Biden somehow by “refuting” what you say point by point is exactly why I’m laughing at you. There is nothing else.

See Baden’s quiz above. You opt for C). That’s why you’re a clown — not because Joe Biden isn’t dirty. But it’s also funny that you still, after all these years, struggle to see this.

:rofl:

“I have to take all of my things out…”

Let me guess: corporations? — NOS4A2

No no— everyone knows the real problem is Hunter Biden. Please keep railing— I’m definitely not laughing at you.

More fair and balanced analysis. Please don’t let me deter you from railing against the real problem.

Interesting trial in Montana going on right now. A group of children have sued the state government for violating the state constitution by encouraging fossil fuel use. I imagine many more of these lawsuits are in the works. The trial has ended and judge’s orders are expected in a few weeks.

https://mtclimatecase.flatheadbeacon.com/latest-updates/

Held v. Montana is the case.

That said, does anyone really think a gas company had a legitimate reason for giving a self described out of control drug addict hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for a part time gig in an industry he had no real experience in? — Count Timothy von Icarus

No. Hunter Biden should go to jail, along with Joe. For plenty of reasons. It’s just funny to watch the Trump cult’s split personality on these issues. Trump’s innocent; Hunter deserves the chair. Fair and balanced.

Trump just held a peaceful rally. No big deal.

But a non-president did drugs and hired prostitutes! Outrageous.

:lol:

You mean we can't keep giving money away? — jgill

To corporate America, particularly the financial sector? True. We shouldn’t keep giving money away to them.

Also, Friedman’s thinking is long obsolete.

Not talking about a "living wage", only raising wages in general for the purpose of blunting inflation. That's a recipe for leaving older generations on fixed incomes behind. — jgill

So keeping real wages stagnant helps older people. Is this serious?

Wages can keep up with inflation and social programs like Medicaid / Medicare and SS will be just fine. There’s plenty of money to go around, provided we deal with the $800 billion a year gift to defense contractors and the massive tax cuts Trump gave to the corporate sector. To say nothing about trillions in stock buybacks that could easily be given to the workers who generate the astronomical profits we’ve seen the last…40 years.

Conservative canards aside, this can be done —and, importantly, has been done before.

wage-inflation spiral. — jgill

There’s no law of economics that says if you give workers a raise, you must raise your prices to make up for it. I think Wal Mart making 1 or 10 billion less in profits— i.e., absorbing the cost — would be survivable. Considering they make roughly 150 billion. Or, rather than buy back their own stocks, companies can reinvest in workers — like they did for decades prior to the neoliberal assault.

So there is no “wage-inflation spiral.” It’s just more excuses. It’s a pity you buy into this nonsense.

Hunter Biden didn’t pay taxes. As a former president, he should know better. Oh wait.

Donald Trump tried to overturn an election and incited an insurrection, to say nothing about the rapes, tax avoidance, fraud, and homicidal policies (see environmental policies, eg).

Totally the same. In fact, we should be more outraged about… (::checks Fox News::) Hunter Biden. :up:

"Perhaps that's acceptable since ageism is thriving"

ego requiem meam causa. — jgill

No it doesn’t. — Mikie

I rest my case. I’ll repeat: the idea that workers being paid a living wage in the richest country on Earth somehow hurts older Americans is a lie.

Thus, it has nothing to do with being acceptable because of “ageism,” because it’s complete bullshit. Got it? Cool.

Compensating workers more drives up the spiral and leaves retirees behind in the dust. — jgill

No it doesn’t.

The excuses for keeping wages low are getting more and more pathetic. Now it’s supposed to hurt old people… :roll:

Compensate workers more.

True— but you know what really surprised me? Frankie Valli. He was big before Dylan and the Beatles!