SCOTUS thread

[Good1]

Your posts are very similar to what's posted on Neo-Nazi forums, illogical, pretentious and pseudo intellectual trash where evidence is sought after jumping to conclusions.

Pretty sure you didn't find those videos yourself, some another low intellect old boomer fed it to you so you can vomit it elsewhere pretending its your own thoughts on the subject.

Now tell me, which party would George Wallace be in these current times?

Well i wouldn't know because i've never been on a neo-nazi forum like you. I don't know what they post. I consulted Googles YouTube algorithm because you wouldn't, because you're not looking for any evidence.

What you just said avoids addressing the evidence i put forth by striking as ad hominin as you think you can get away with, to distract from the facts, which is what a bigot would do. Not since 1933 have we seen a political party formulate it's base so decisively along racial lines.

I don't know about George Wallace, but that was about the time the Democrat party made a conscious decision to actually pander. Now, there has always been a wing of the Democrats that wished the party was not so damned racist. Prior to the Civil War, which was a hot war between slave holding Democrats (who wished to extend the slave culture to the new states coming into the Union) and mostly free state Republicans, those Democrats who wished the party wasn't so damned racist were called the Barnburners. In 1848 they basically had to leave the party, rather than burn it down to the ground.

What i mean about Wallace is i don't know if his racism was just entrenched bigotry, perhaps based on some experience, some kind of nostalgia for 1833, or if it was a cold play for power. That is, yes, while he could not hope to gain even one black vote, perhaps he had calculated that he would then get, oh, 90% of the white vote in his state. Was it a racist play, or was it a power play?

I believe Johnson represents the cold power play, just taking shape at that time, saying whatever it takes to get the black vote. A consummate politician, Johnson, could look at the field of word warfare at that day and time and decide to take a chance on trying to recruit 13% of the population to the polls for their, the politicians, power. Johnson's plan worked well enough to garner 10% of the entire vote in the United States, which represents about 90% of blacks. Johnson may have calculated that you can have power, but not both power and cultural conservation.

So Wallace may have wanted to leave the party, but for different reasons than the Barnburners. There was a shift in tactic. If you don't have an anchor, you will lose the plot. About that time the Democrats were just finally realizing they had lost the Civil war, the hot war, and were starting to lose the post-Civil-war political war, where they would send out their dogs to hang blacks who were part of or supported the Republicans, sooo.....

So, if the issue is simply to RETAIN POWER AT ANY COST, you will not be confused by this shift in tactics. Don't confuse pandering for respect. Joe Biden panders. He does not, nor should anyone expect, that he actually respects those he panders to. Blacks are gradually catching on to this, hence his numbers dropping. This issue is not about race, it is about the retention of power, like the Democrats had power for some decades prior to the Civil war, especially in the South.

 

[Tony Stark]

 

[exGOPer]

Well i wouldn't know because i've never been on a neo-nazi forum like you. I don't know what they post. I consulted Googles YouTube algorithm because you wouldn't, because you're not looking for any evidence.

What you just said avoids addressing the evidence i put forth by striking as ad hominin as you think you can get away with, to distract from the facts, which is what a bigot would do. Not since 1933 have we seen a political party formulate it's base so decisively along racial lines.

I don't know about George Wallace, but that was about the time the Democrat party made a conscious decision to actually pander. Now, there has always been a wing of the Democrats that wished the party was not so damned racist. Prior to the Civil War, which was a hot war between slave holding Democrats (who wished to extend the slave culture to the new states coming into the Union) and mostly free state Republicans, those Democrats who wished the party wasn't so damned racist were called the Barnburners. In 1848 they basically had to leave the party, rather than burn it down to the ground.

What i mean about Wallace is i don't know if his racism was just entrenched bigotry, perhaps based on some experience, some kind of nostalgia for 1833, or if it was a cold play for power. That is, yes, while he could not hope to gain even one black vote, perhaps he had calculated that he would then get, oh, 90% of the white vote in his state. Was it a racist play, or was it a power play?

I believe Johnson represents the cold power play, just taking shape at that time, saying whatever it takes to get the black vote. A consummate politician, Johnson, could look at the field of word warfare at that day and time and decide to take a chance on trying to recruit 13% of the population to the polls for their, the politicians, power. Johnson's plan worked well enough to garner 10% of the entire vote in the United States, which represents about 90% of blacks. Johnson may have calculated that you can have power, but not both power and cultural conservation.

So Wallace may have wanted to leave the party, but for different reasons than the Barnburners. There was a shift in tactic. If you don't have an anchor, you will lose the plot. About that time the Democrats were just finally realizing they had lost the Civil war, the hot war, and were starting to lose the post-Civil-war political war, where they would send out their dogs to hang blacks who were part of or supported the Republicans, sooo.....

So, if the issue is simply to RETAIN POWER AT ANY COST, you will not be confused by this shift in tactics. Don't confuse pandering for respect. Joe Biden panders. He does not, nor should anyone expect, that he actually respects those he panders to. Blacks are gradually catching on to this, hence his numbers dropping. This issue is not about race, it is about the retention of power, like the Democrats had power for some decades prior to the Civil war, especially in the South.

You can find similar videos with whites, Asians, Latinos or any other group, but you picked black kids and pretend they are the real racists based on random vids for a conclusion that you have been spouting forever on these forums. And that self segregation is the problem when infact we were talking of state sponsored terrorism against minorities.

And you still can't give a direct answer on George Wallace, you read what he said and did - and still you can't simply say out loud that he will be a hero in the current Republican party.

 

[Good1]

You can find similar videos with whites, Asians, Latinos or any other group, but you picked black kids and pretend they are the real racists based on random vids for a conclusion that you have been spouting forever on these forums. And that self segregation is the problem when infact we were talking of state sponsored terrorism against minorities.

And you still can't give a direct answer on George Wallace, you read what he said and did - and still you can't simply say out loud that he will be a hero in the current Republican party.

You can spout buzz words all you want, conservative, liberal, but that is not going to make you a hero in the Republican party, just ask Chris Chrispy. And especially you're not going to be a hero in the Republican party if you harken back to segregation, pretty much any kind of racial segregation. I'm just pointing out that 99% of circumstances involving some kind of segregation that are taking place today, involves Democrat voters, who respond to racist pandering, and Democrat panderers, who push racist messages to retain power at all costs, even the cost of tearing the nation apart into segregated groups.

The Democrats need, and have needed for some decades now, factions to come together at the polls, in order to retain power. That's just because there weren't enough white racists left in the wild, like Wallace, to keep power. So, the Democrats decided to treat, or at least pretend to treat blacks like Republicans had treated blacks post Civil war. Personally i don't think Republicans were pandering to blacks, it's just that their policies became a natural home for blacks after the Civil war, and maybe a little out of respect for all the dead white men who fought for Lincoln and his Republicans to keep slavery out of the new states coming into the Union. By the 1960's the post Civil war policies and the dead white men who fought with Lincoln were largely forgotten, probably because the Republicans never really did pander. They simply set policy, regardless, for the best product a nation could produce at the time...out of principle.

So in the 60s the Democrats saw an opportunity to actually pander, to pull all of the blacks out of the Republican party, because then, just as today, it goes against Republican policy, rooted deep in their morality? ...to outright pander along the lines of race. Yes, they will fight and die to keep slavery from spreading to new states, but they just won't actually pander. If you don't pander, they are likely to call you a racist. The Republicans promised equal opportunity, while the Democrats did, and do now, promise equal outcome, which inevitably creeps gradually into scenes of unequal privileges, such as college admissions. The Republican still refuse to pander like this, but the Democrats still will.

The Democrats, the DNC, only need the racists that they pander to, to come together, November 7 every two or four years. That is, the Democrats need factions of bigots to come together just long enough to vote for the next old white guy. Each faction represents a reed, which if it stands by itself, can easily be broken. But if you bind the reeds together tightly, they can hardly be broken at the polls. This is basically what fascism is all about. It's a method of negotiating, mainly used by unions, to bargain collectively for whatever it is they want. For this to work, you also have to have a bad guy, or a bad group that you can hate, and have your hatred justified by the unionized (fascist) group and it's talking heads.

So the Democratic machine works on binding together disparate small groups into voting blocks that can be bound together into a narrow majority that can't be broken, hence, the retention of power. This can only work if you can stoke just enough hatred amongst the haters, just enough hatred to avoid an outright pandemic of hatred-derangement-syndrome. In 1933 this worked well enough in Germany, and is working well enough for the Democrats, with the help of a few people to operate the actual voting machines. I keep saying 1933 (not to be confused with 1833) because that was a time when it could have been obvious that the racial rhetoric was thick enough, in one European country, that eventually there would be some hot wars. I'm saying the rhetoric these days is about as thick, just before the authoritarian face of the party in power unmasks itself, and censorship really comes down like a hammer.

Oh, and i picked from the first page that came up in a search of Googles YouTube algorithm for 'university segregated spaces and events'. Can you find any other example from that page?

 

[Tony Stark]

In what is being described as a victory for a merit-based and colorblind approach to college admissions, the Supreme Court Thursday struck down affirmative action as a tool to redress race-based inequalities. The ruling by the court’s conservative majority dealt with affirmative action programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, but would apply across the country.

The precedent set by the court’s decision is primed to transform college admissions standards around the country, yet there is one area where the law mandating diversity in recruitment is remaining conspicuously unchanged: U.S. military academies.

When it comes to national priorities, the defense establishment has long been treated with kid gloves and afforded its own perks and protections. Think of the way fiscal hawks on both sides of the aisle regularly greenlight bloated Pentagon budgets. The divergence on diversity guidelines for elite colleges and U.S. military institutions stands out for its gross irony, not least because the most pernicious forms of affirmative action — those which protect the ruling class — remain untouched.

“The Court has come to rest on the bottom-line conclusion that racial diversity in higher education is only worth potentially preserving insofar as it might be needed to prepare Black Americans and other underrepresented minorities for success in the bunker, not the boardroom,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissenting opinion.

A quick look at the details of the ruling itself sheds some light on the problem. The U.S. government had previously filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit asking for an exception for military academies. That brief stated that U.S. military leaders “have learned through hard experience that the effectiveness of our military depends on a diverse officer corps that is ready to lead an increasingly diverse fighting force.” Although the court rejected the same logic being applied to elite colleges, it evidently accepted the need for diversity among future generations of West Point graduates, stating in a footnote to the majority opinion that:

The United States as amicus curiae contends that race-based admissions programs further compelling interests at our Nation’s military academies. No military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context. This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.

Affirmative Action for Whom?

A common criticism of affirmative action programs at universities is that they undermine merit as a primary criterion for selection. Yet the same concern seems equally, if not more, relevant to U.S. military leadership, particularly given the strong emphasis on national security normally espoused by U.S. politicians and the electorate.

The court is apparently hesitant to prioritize demographic diversity in admissions to colleges that, ultimately, determine the future appearance of the country’s elite. But the same concerns do not seem to apply to the military, where one of the possibilities of membership, rather than joining the gilded class, is being severely injured or killed in one of the U.S.’s many foreign military conflicts.

Despite the court’s ruling, which has been widely celebrated among opponents of affirmative action, it is not entirely clear how much that the composition of elite colleges will change. The decision says that universities may continue to consider in admissions “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise.”

The far more pervasive form of elite affirmative action — embodied by preferential treatment for legacy admissions — was left untouched by the court ruling.
This apparent loophole potentially allows applicants to continue to be accepted on the basis of racial background, provided they also give a personal statement about their race that could easily become de rigueur in the future.

The far more pervasive form of elite affirmative action — embodied by preferential treatment for legacy admissions, the children of financial donors, athletes, and relatives of school staff — was left untouched by the court ruling. The oversight is a significant one.

There was, however, one mention of it: In his concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch chastised elite schools like Harvard for their attempts to uphold affirmative action while continuing to defend legacy admissions. Harvard’s “preferences for the children of donors, alumni, and faculty are no help to applicants who cannot boast of their parents’ good fortune or trips to the alumni tent all their lives,” he wrote.

Nonetheless, a 2019 study found that a whopping 43 percent of white students at Harvard were beneficiaries of one of these forms of preferential access. While 70 percent of legacy admissions were white, only 16 percent of Black, Latino, and Asian students benefitted from these preferential considerations.

In effect, while rolling back affirmative action, the court left unscathed a backdoor means of demographic engineering in college admissions that is equally indifferent to merit as a criterion.

 

[exGOPer]

Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Christian web design business who refused to provide services for same-sex weddings on the basis that it violated her first amendment rights.

The vote was 6 to 3.

It’s important to note that the alleged request for the website was made up.

Vote Nader, Vote Jill Stein, Vote Cornel West

 

[Cuddles]

Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Christian web design business who refused to provide services for same-sex weddings on the basis that it violated her first amendment rights.

The vote was 6 to 3.

It’s important to note that the alleged request for the website was made up.

Vote Nader, Vote Jill Stein, Vote Cornel West

shocker

vid above theorizes it's to buy back some legitimacy after Roe. In my opinion, also to kill affirmative action and gay rights which are up next.

 

[UsualName]

SCOTUS is now the might and maybe court. They have proven they are willing to take on hypothetical cases and scenario based arguments in lieu of actual standing to push forward an anti liberal agenda. It really opens the door for a lot of kooky right wing agenda items and brings the court more into the political realm than the judicial realm.

 

[Cuddles]

SCOTUS is now the might and maybe court. They have proven they are willing to take on hypothetical cases and scenario based arguments in lieu of actual standing to push forward an anti liberal agenda. It really opens the door for a lot of kooky right wing agenda items and brings the court more into the political realm than the judicial realm.

now? please. Admin's lost 2 1/2 years that could've been used to sell ppl on filibuster reform and court packing. At the very least it might've scared this partisan body into taking a more moderate approach if they didn't want those two items becoming a reality.

 

[Tony Stark]

SCOTUS is now the might and maybe court. They have proven they are willing to take on hypothetical cases and scenario based arguments in lieu of actual standing to push forward an anti liberal agenda. It really opens the door for a lot of kooky right wing agenda items and brings the court more into the political realm than the judicial realm.

And yet the leader of The Democrat doesn't even support adding judges to court.He just tells Dem voters to bend over and take it.