I think your comments re the decisions of the Court are kinda naive. Their decision in Moore v Harper should’ve been a slam dunk in the most uncertain terms inasmuch as what the state was proposing was antithetical to democracy. I have mixed feelings about their decision on affirmative action since I think that colleges should be conside…
I think your comments re the decisions of the Court are kinda naive. Their decision in Moore v Harper should’ve been a slam dunk in the most uncertain terms inasmuch as what the state was proposing was antithetical to democracy. I have mixed feelings about their decision on affirmative action since I think that colleges should be considering socio-economic factors as least as much as race, but the undeniably racist overtones of some of the opinions is undeniable and at odds with reality. But the case that concerns me the most-and places this court in the firmly-beyond-radical-to-the-right of a banana republic is the one involving the Colorado web designer. She had NO standing- one whatsoever. They drum standing into you in law school and here it was TOTALLY lacking. She hadn’t been harmed- it was pure hypothetical. Then it turns out that the person they alleged who was thinking about using her services was totally fabricated and that they used the name of a straight person who does his own designs. How didn’t that come out in the lower court decisions. I’m sorry and am not being snarky, but your saying that the decisions this term aren’t radical is like being grateful that the souse who just beat the shit out you didn’t kill you.
It's okay to be snarky. Mona routinely opines on matters without having followed any of the background discussions on the issue. Her "take" on the Moore decision (which you rightly say should have been a slam dunk) proves the point.
You want an indication that she does not know what the hell she's talking about on legal issues? She cited Justice Thomas WITHOUT derision. Not even conservatives take Justicce Thomas seriously as a legal scholar anymore (never mind his non-existent moral compass).
Ms. Charon's naviete is not surprising given the tenor of her other articles. But to rely on SC Thomas quote without referring SC Brown Jackson, rehashing myths about Black students getting in over Asian students, as well as the old (false) chestnut the correlates the Black students graduation rates with being unprepared, also serves as proof that she didnt take anytime to educated herself on the issue!
There are so many reasons why anyone, of any race doesnt graduate. There are also studies that show students from poorer families maybe called back home to support said family. Or maybe the school experience isnt all the student thought it would be! To just by the lie that its related to being underprepared??
And does it occur to this writer that the stereotypical educational similarities amd focus of (some) Asian Amer communities is what maybe drving the need for the "how to be less Asian" industry. If everyone within your shared cultural makeup has a 4.0, 2400 SAT, 7 AP courses, volunteers at the soup kitchen and plays an instrument at a Juilliard level, then those things are no longer exceptional, they are the norm. Which means you have to do something else to stand out. How is that the fault of a Black or Latino or White student? Maybe they should take up sailing or blame there parents for not donating millions to the school /s
The last point: just read a rolling stone article about MO AG sending a letter to even stop scholarships, and grants for undeserved communities. So now Black and Latinos can't even get money to attend college??? But yeah this is about making sure Asians get a fair shake LMAO.
Really so the woman who refused a gay couple's request to create a website for the wedding was a fake? There was no gay couple requesting a website?
When I first heard it, I thought two things. First, why would a gay couple want to do business with an anti gay business. If I were gay and getting married, that would be my first question to the web designer because who needs that bad MOJO. Just as I may refuse to cater to the wedding of a a 35 year old man to a 14 year old girl, where it's legal in some state.
Then my next thought is, if I were a unique business owner who sold a specific product, I think I should be able to refuse the order for any reason. It would be different for a grocery store or gas station since they sell necessities.
But finding out it was a Bull sht case seems total illegal.
Nope. You can't discriminate based on race, sex, national origin, or other protected categories even if you're a unique business owner selling a specific product. That's the law. The web designer was endrunning that law by claiming she was exercising her right to free speech not discriminating.
I would say that her web design is neither free nor speech but SCOTUS disagrees 6-3.
And yes, there still was the issue of standing and the fake web design inquiry.
I agree. Congratulating the Court for following the law on Moore v. Harper reminds me of the Pence apologists who laud him for refusing to send back the election results on Jan. 6. It was your job. You did it. Do you require us to gush over that fact?
I should add that for all the criticism of legislation from the bench, with this case we now have legislation from the philosopher's corner. Metaphysicians in spite of themselves.
Not naïve. Willfully blinkered. The dissents in Moore v Harper left open future approval of the doctrine, and the idea that blacks are more harmed than helped by AA is laughable. President Obama cheerfully acknowledges that he was a beneficiary of affirmative action, which allowed him the opportunity to show what he was capable of.
If you want a more successful graduation rate, fix K-12. No rule says that cannot be done as well. They’re not mutually exclusive.
Remember that Mona considers the loathsome, unethical, hypocritical (he never advocates revisiting Loving, just privacy rights) Clarence Thomas a friend.
Notice Mona skips right on past 303 Creative, because she knows absolutely that it’s a terrible decision. She certainly remembers the concept of “standing” from law school, although I often wonder if she’s forgotten everything else.
Some of my friends are stupid, some of them hold bizarre views. Indeed, in my household, my wife has her own mind as do my children. I do not think anyone who knows us has ever said I was overly influenced by their beliefs, or they mine.
Moore v Harper is a bar so low as to *not* being radical and a "pro-democracy decision" that a Pygmy marmoset would struggle doing the Limbo beneath it. And yet a full 3rd of the court was opposed.
By contrast, Creative 303 would easily accommodate a giraffe, and only a 3rd of the court was opposed.
Too many of the zookeepers are running amok. The former president's "It will be wild" apropos to the result of his SCOTUS appointments. Kind of makes one wonder what's coming next...law of the jungle, perhaps?
Rlritt - I was also amazed by her gun control comment, which was basically, “Why doesn’t Biden do something about it?” Wake up, Mona. Gun control, like safe/legal abortion, is an issue supported by a plurality of voters, but denied by Republicans.
That season's been open for too damned fucking long, with no license required, thanks to all the usual suspects.
Pardon my French. Wait. Nix that.
I won't apologize for it because I share the disgust with, and contempt for, the usual suspects - besides the shooting suspects themselves - voiced by that Philly D.A. as the latest fruits of the gun lobby's efforts were gathered Monday. This, from someone who's a life-long gun owner himself. We're not all shoot 'em up cowboys and Minute Man Militia Wannabe's with a sicko armaments fetish and a couple of screws loose. Or cowards with hate-filled hearts darker than the dead of night.
You might rightfully say this particular subject triggers me. And I'll not be apologizing for that, either.
The biggest story of Moore v. Harper--one that's either only inferred or noted in passing -- is that 3 SCOTUS justices are complete, unadulterated fascists. In-depth articles of their thinking and the outcome they sought to enshrine would be salutary.
Two of them hid behind saying it was moot, but you’re right re the dissenters. I don’t know why there isn’t more energy around booting Thomas and Alito off the Court. My license would be suspended by now if I did 1% of what they’ve done re conflicts and flat out lying/misinterpreting precedent.
And don't you just love Roberts refusing to talk with Congress, like he's not a "co-equal" branch of government and they have every right to ask him to address these blatantly unethical practices of certain Justices?
No need to apologize. See those three little dots next to “reply” at the bottom of your post? Click on those and you will be able to edit what you typed.
And a good thing too: otherwise my posts would be full of misspelling. ;)
Thank you, I will give you the reason on the CO, it is the same "reason" as the equally ridiculous mifepristone case out of TX. They were able to judge shop and get "movement" judges who wanted to upend public accommodation, and they simply passed the case along. The supreme court has movement members, I fear enough to force us back to the 1940's as far as rights for women and minorities go.
It's also fair, I think, to point out that Asian Americans are not more a monolith than Latino Americans or African Americans are. Or White Euro Americans for that matter. There are plenty of Asian Americans who fully supported affirmative action not only because of on-going racial discrimination but the economic discrimination you mention as well.
I think your comments re the decisions of the Court are kinda naive. Their decision in Moore v Harper should’ve been a slam dunk in the most uncertain terms inasmuch as what the state was proposing was antithetical to democracy. I have mixed feelings about their decision on affirmative action since I think that colleges should be considering socio-economic factors as least as much as race, but the undeniably racist overtones of some of the opinions is undeniable and at odds with reality. But the case that concerns me the most-and places this court in the firmly-beyond-radical-to-the-right of a banana republic is the one involving the Colorado web designer. She had NO standing- one whatsoever. They drum standing into you in law school and here it was TOTALLY lacking. She hadn’t been harmed- it was pure hypothetical. Then it turns out that the person they alleged who was thinking about using her services was totally fabricated and that they used the name of a straight person who does his own designs. How didn’t that come out in the lower court decisions. I’m sorry and am not being snarky, but your saying that the decisions this term aren’t radical is like being grateful that the souse who just beat the shit out you didn’t kill you.
It's okay to be snarky. Mona routinely opines on matters without having followed any of the background discussions on the issue. Her "take" on the Moore decision (which you rightly say should have been a slam dunk) proves the point.
You want an indication that she does not know what the hell she's talking about on legal issues? She cited Justice Thomas WITHOUT derision. Not even conservatives take Justicce Thomas seriously as a legal scholar anymore (never mind his non-existent moral compass).
Ms. Charon's naviete is not surprising given the tenor of her other articles. But to rely on SC Thomas quote without referring SC Brown Jackson, rehashing myths about Black students getting in over Asian students, as well as the old (false) chestnut the correlates the Black students graduation rates with being unprepared, also serves as proof that she didnt take anytime to educated herself on the issue!
There are so many reasons why anyone, of any race doesnt graduate. There are also studies that show students from poorer families maybe called back home to support said family. Or maybe the school experience isnt all the student thought it would be! To just by the lie that its related to being underprepared??
And does it occur to this writer that the stereotypical educational similarities amd focus of (some) Asian Amer communities is what maybe drving the need for the "how to be less Asian" industry. If everyone within your shared cultural makeup has a 4.0, 2400 SAT, 7 AP courses, volunteers at the soup kitchen and plays an instrument at a Juilliard level, then those things are no longer exceptional, they are the norm. Which means you have to do something else to stand out. How is that the fault of a Black or Latino or White student? Maybe they should take up sailing or blame there parents for not donating millions to the school /s
The last point: just read a rolling stone article about MO AG sending a letter to even stop scholarships, and grants for undeserved communities. So now Black and Latinos can't even get money to attend college??? But yeah this is about making sure Asians get a fair shake LMAO.
Really so the woman who refused a gay couple's request to create a website for the wedding was a fake? There was no gay couple requesting a website?
When I first heard it, I thought two things. First, why would a gay couple want to do business with an anti gay business. If I were gay and getting married, that would be my first question to the web designer because who needs that bad MOJO. Just as I may refuse to cater to the wedding of a a 35 year old man to a 14 year old girl, where it's legal in some state.
Then my next thought is, if I were a unique business owner who sold a specific product, I think I should be able to refuse the order for any reason. It would be different for a grocery store or gas station since they sell necessities.
But finding out it was a Bull sht case seems total illegal.
Nope. You can't discriminate based on race, sex, national origin, or other protected categories even if you're a unique business owner selling a specific product. That's the law. The web designer was endrunning that law by claiming she was exercising her right to free speech not discriminating.
I would say that her web design is neither free nor speech but SCOTUS disagrees 6-3.
And yes, there still was the issue of standing and the fake web design inquiry.
I agree. Congratulating the Court for following the law on Moore v. Harper reminds me of the Pence apologists who laud him for refusing to send back the election results on Jan. 6. It was your job. You did it. Do you require us to gush over that fact?
I agree that the Colorado case sets the most dangerous precedent of the year, if not the century. No harm no case is out the window.
I should add that for all the criticism of legislation from the bench, with this case we now have legislation from the philosopher's corner. Metaphysicians in spite of themselves.
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-29-2023?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=20533&post_id=132071841&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email
Not naïve. Willfully blinkered. The dissents in Moore v Harper left open future approval of the doctrine, and the idea that blacks are more harmed than helped by AA is laughable. President Obama cheerfully acknowledges that he was a beneficiary of affirmative action, which allowed him the opportunity to show what he was capable of.
If you want a more successful graduation rate, fix K-12. No rule says that cannot be done as well. They’re not mutually exclusive.
Remember that Mona considers the loathsome, unethical, hypocritical (he never advocates revisiting Loving, just privacy rights) Clarence Thomas a friend.
Notice Mona skips right on past 303 Creative, because she knows absolutely that it’s a terrible decision. She certainly remembers the concept of “standing” from law school, although I often wonder if she’s forgotten everything else.
Exactly. Lazy claims that affirmative action is responsible for the low black graduation rate are everywhere.
Some of my friends are stupid, some of them hold bizarre views. Indeed, in my household, my wife has her own mind as do my children. I do not think anyone who knows us has ever said I was overly influenced by their beliefs, or they mine.
Moore v Harper is a bar so low as to *not* being radical and a "pro-democracy decision" that a Pygmy marmoset would struggle doing the Limbo beneath it. And yet a full 3rd of the court was opposed.
By contrast, Creative 303 would easily accommodate a giraffe, and only a 3rd of the court was opposed.
Too many of the zookeepers are running amok. The former president's "It will be wild" apropos to the result of his SCOTUS appointments. Kind of makes one wonder what's coming next...law of the jungle, perhaps?
Open season on women and children by gun-toting domestic abusers.
Mona Charon said in a podcast that she couldn't understand why gun control wasn't a more significant plank in the Dem platform.
Rlritt - I was also amazed by her gun control comment, which was basically, “Why doesn’t Biden do something about it?” Wake up, Mona. Gun control, like safe/legal abortion, is an issue supported by a plurality of voters, but denied by Republicans.
That season's been open for too damned fucking long, with no license required, thanks to all the usual suspects.
Pardon my French. Wait. Nix that.
I won't apologize for it because I share the disgust with, and contempt for, the usual suspects - besides the shooting suspects themselves - voiced by that Philly D.A. as the latest fruits of the gun lobby's efforts were gathered Monday. This, from someone who's a life-long gun owner himself. We're not all shoot 'em up cowboys and Minute Man Militia Wannabe's with a sicko armaments fetish and a couple of screws loose. Or cowards with hate-filled hearts darker than the dead of night.
You might rightfully say this particular subject triggers me. And I'll not be apologizing for that, either.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/philadelphia-da-urges-voters-gop-111810875.html
The biggest story of Moore v. Harper--one that's either only inferred or noted in passing -- is that 3 SCOTUS justices are complete, unadulterated fascists. In-depth articles of their thinking and the outcome they sought to enshrine would be salutary.
Absolutely totally agree! I cannot believe the media seems to not consider this a story!!
Margaret Talbot wrote an excellent profile of Alito last year in The New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/09/05/justice-alitos-crusade-against-a-secular-america-isnt-over
thanks for the link
Two of them hid behind saying it was moot, but you’re right re the dissenters. I don’t know why there isn’t more energy around booting Thomas and Alito off the Court. My license would be suspended by now if I did 1% of what they’ve done re conflicts and flat out lying/misinterpreting precedent.
Noblesse oblige is as old the hills.
And don't you just love Roberts refusing to talk with Congress, like he's not a "co-equal" branch of government and they have every right to ask him to address these blatantly unethical practices of certain Justices?
Sorry for the typos. None instead of one; spouse instead of souse lol
No need to apologize. See those three little dots next to “reply” at the bottom of your post? Click on those and you will be able to edit what you typed.
And a good thing too: otherwise my posts would be full of misspelling. ;)
I did not know that, very helpful!
Good to know and thanks!! Clearly didn’t know that- and I even looked to see how I could edit my reply!
Thank you, I will give you the reason on the CO, it is the same "reason" as the equally ridiculous mifepristone case out of TX. They were able to judge shop and get "movement" judges who wanted to upend public accommodation, and they simply passed the case along. The supreme court has movement members, I fear enough to force us back to the 1940's as far as rights for women and minorities go.
It's also fair, I think, to point out that Asian Americans are not more a monolith than Latino Americans or African Americans are. Or White Euro Americans for that matter. There are plenty of Asian Americans who fully supported affirmative action not only because of on-going racial discrimination but the economic discrimination you mention as well.