SCOTUS - AA ... news from the future

[ZiprHead]

Because Harvard has a ideological beliefs and untested premises about the desirable composition of its student body, and, if it relied solely on admission measures such as academic performance, academic aptitude, and extra-curriculars, there would be too many Asians in its student body.

Do you have proof of this or is this something you removed from your hind quarters?

Have you forgotten all the posts about admission score differences? Or just look at the current case--they're using a "personality" score to put their thumb on the scale.

No, I haven't. But admission scores and personality tests are only a small part of getting admission. There are 40 differant criterias an applicant has to pass to gain admission.

 

[Jarhyn]

Which justice lied?

'X is settled law' does not equal 'I believe the law was decided correctly and if the same case were before me, I'd settle it the same way'. Nor is the US Supreme Court legally bound to never overturn precedent.

Judges did not 'lie under oath' simply because you don't understand what stare decisis means and what it entails.

If it's settled law they shouldn't have revisited it in the first place.

It absolutely should be if the Court believes it was settled wrongly.

Then it is not "settled" it is "settled wrongly". Not including the "wrongly" does not deliver an accurate perspective on its "settledness".

Just because you really want access to the power to lie without it being called a lie does not change the lie of omission that is created when someone drops contextually important words.

Making the lie obscure and hard to find does not change what it is.

Now that you know this is a lie, you should not repeat it, or it would move from making a dishonest statement to knowingly telling a lie.

 

[laughing dog]

Moreover, it is quite possible that in private meetings with individual Senators, those nominees may have lied. There is a NYT report that Mr. Alito lied to Senator Kennedy during his nomination process (Alito assured Kennedy of respect for Roe V Wade

Alito was confirmed 58-42. Kennedy didn't vote for him. So what does it matter what you think he told Kennedy?

There is a dispute whether Alito, Gorusch, Kennedy and Barrett lied during their confirmation hearings. I produced evidence that Alito lied.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Moreover, it is quite possible that in private meetings with individual Senators, those nominees may have lied. There is a NYT report that Mr. Alito lied to Senator Kennedy during his nomination process (Alito assured Kennedy of respect for Roe V Wade

Alito was confirmed 58-42. Kennedy didn't vote for him. So what does it matter what you think he told Kennedy?

There is a dispute whether Alito, Gorusch, Kennedy and Barrett lied during their confirmation hearings. I produced evidence that Alito lied.

Kennedy?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Which justice lied?

'X is settled law' does not equal 'I believe the law was decided correctly and if the same case were before me, I'd settle it the same way'. Nor is the US Supreme Court legally bound to never overturn precedent.

Judges did not 'lie under oath' simply because you don't understand what stare decisis means and what it entails.

If it's settled law they shouldn't have revisited it in the first place.

It absolutely should be if the Court believes it was settled wrongly.

No. Settled law = let it stand.

Lower courts are bound by the precedent of higher courts. The US Supreme Court is not bound by its own precedent, no matter how long the precedent has stood. In fact, SCOTUS has overturned precedent dozens of times, whether those precedents were considered settled law or not.

This is grossly oversimplified to the point of nonsense, as precedence is really the most important part of American Constitutional Law. Without adherence to precedence, the law becomes amorphous, unpredictable, and highly arbitrary. There is no law of rule indicating that SCOTUS has to abide by stare decisis, but that principle is a bedrock principle of American Constitutional law. To handwave this away is to expose one's gross ignorance on SCOTUS and how the law is examined in this country for nearly 250 years.

There is a test to determine whether a case with stare decisis can be over-ruled. This usually requires something of huge substantial influence... not merely there were enough votes to overrule it on the court. Nothing changed between Alito or Kavanaugh or Gorsuch getting confirmed. The application of the law, the national view on the procedure, it was as it ever was. So for a Judge to say something was stare decisis then, really needed to remain stare decisis now. We don't have 100 years of blatant discrimination and clearly unequal treatment between Plessy and Brown. They lied, they knew exactly what they would do.

 

[Toni]

Keeping talking of generational wealth doesn't make it so.

Generational wealth is an observable fact. Families pass assets. It is delusional to deny the existence of generational wealth.

Paul Krugman is a fan of Piketty's book and said he was quite surprised to learn — as Piketty demonstrated with much evidence — the large portion of income disparity that is attributable to inheritance.

In the part of his book I read before giving up in disgust I saw he proved nothing. He showed a continual social structure, he noted that the things that made the people at the top be there changed, he didn't even address whether it was the same people or not. Just because he says things you want to hear doesn't make him right.

Sure. Donald Trump would have been a resounding success even if he had not inherited a large fortune from his parents. Same with Elon Musk.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because Harvard has a ideological beliefs and untested premises about the desirable composition of its student body, and, if it relied solely on admission measures such as academic performance, academic aptitude, and extra-curriculars, there would be too many Asians in its student body.

Do you have proof of this or is this something you removed from your hind quarters?

Have you forgotten all the posts about admission score differences? Or just look at the current case--they're using a "personality" score to put their thumb on the scale.

Because you can't put a test score to ambition, drive, achievement. You are arguing that getting a couple useless analogy questions wrong is a viable defense for never even considering them as candidates for admission.

 

[TSwizzle]

The animus of the left against White males is astonishing.

Almost as much as the animus against Asians!

 

[Oleg]

Moreover, it is quite possible that in private meetings with individual Senators, those nominees may have lied. There is a NYT report that Mr. Alito lied to Senator Kennedy during his nomination process (Alito assured Kennedy of respect for Roe V Wade

Alito was confirmed 58-42. Kennedy didn't vote for him. So what does it matter what you think he told Kennedy?

There is a dispute whether Alito, Gorusch, Kennedy and Barrett lied during their confirmation hearings. I produced evidence that Alito lied.

Heh. There’s no proof, only hearsay. But if Kennedy asked Alito for assurance on ROE, then voted against his confirmation, Alito would be in the clear to say, “Well, fuck you, too.”

 

[Oleg]

Alito be trolling.

 

[Elixir]

There is a test to determine whether a case with stare decisis can be over-ruled.

Should require a National referendum.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Alito be trolling.

And she has apologized for that. I won’t hold my breath for apologies from the right wing when they are wrong.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is a test to determine whether a case with stare decisis can be over-ruled.

Should require a National referendum.

Fuck no! It should require the approval of people that are experts in US Constitutional Law... like it was 30 years ago.

 

[Oleg]

Alito be trolling.

And she has apologized for that. I won’t hold my breath for apologies from the right wing when they are wrong.

This is funny. It also shows the silliness of race-based admissions.

 

[Elixir]

It should require the approval of people that are experts in US Constitutional Law

IMO, not as long as Clarence the Clown is considered an expert in Constitutional Law.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It should require the approval of people that are experts in US Constitutional Law

IMO, not as long as Clarence the Clown is considered an expert in Constitutional Law.

Brown v Board of Education wasn't going to happen in a national referendum! The GOP politicized the Supreme Court starting in the Reagan Administration. And now their nonsensical rulings are written by very competent partisans.

 

[Elixir]

It should require the approval of people that are experts in US Constitutional Law

IMO, not as long as Clarence the Clown is considered an expert in Constitutional Law.

Brown v Board of Education wasn't going to happen in a national referendum! The GOP politicized the Supreme Court starting in the Reagan Administration. And now their nonsensical rulings are written by very competent partisans.

Tru dat. But they’d never have gotten away with what they just did if it was put to the public.

 

[Metaphor]

Which justice lied?

'X is settled law' does not equal 'I believe the law was decided correctly and if the same case were before me, I'd settle it the same way'. Nor is the US Supreme Court legally bound to never overturn precedent.

Judges did not 'lie under oath' simply because you don't understand what stare decisis means and what it entails.

If it's settled law they shouldn't have revisited it in the first place.

It absolutely should be if the Court believes it was settled wrongly.

Then it is not "settled" it is "settled wrongly". Not including the "wrongly" does not deliver an accurate perspective on its "settledness".

Just because you really want access to the power to lie without it being called a lie does not change the lie of omission that is created when someone drops contextually important words.

Why did no Senator in any public hearing ask:

Will you overturn Roe v Wade if a suitable case comes up?

Had Kavanaugh, ACB, etc been asked that and said 'No', I can see how they could be regarded as having lied.

Nobody asked that, though. Why not?

Here's my theory: they were not asked because it would be improper to ask them, and their proxy questions are asking something different.

 

[Metaphor]

Which justice lied?

'X is settled law' does not equal 'I believe the law was decided correctly and if the same case were before me, I'd settle it the same way'. Nor is the US Supreme Court legally bound to never overturn precedent.

Judges did not 'lie under oath' simply because you don't understand what stare decisis means and what it entails.

If it's settled law they shouldn't have revisited it in the first place.

It absolutely should be if the Court believes it was settled wrongly.

No. Settled law = let it stand.

Lower courts are bound by the precedent of higher courts. The US Supreme Court is not bound by its own precedent, no matter how long the precedent has stood. In fact, SCOTUS has overturned precedent dozens of times, whether those precedents were considered settled law or not.

This is grossly oversimplified to the point of nonsense, as precedence is really the most important part of American Constitutional Law. Without adherence to precedence, the law becomes amorphous, unpredictable, and highly arbitrary.

That's the nature of law. If it were not, we wouldn't need Courts at all, except to determine findings of fact.

There is no law of rule indicating that SCOTUS has to abide by stare decisis, but that principle is a bedrock principle of American Constitutional law. To handwave this away is to expose one's gross ignorance on SCOTUS and how the law is examined in this country for nearly 250 years.

Who suggested 'doing away with it'?

There is a test to determine whether a case with stare decisis can be over-ruled. This usually requires something of huge substantial influence... not merely there were enough votes to overrule it on the court. Nothing changed between Alito or Kavanaugh or Gorsuch getting confirmed. The application of the law, the national view on the procedure, it was as it ever was. So for a Judge to say something was stare decisis then, really needed to remain stare decisis now. We don't have 100 years of blatant discrimination and clearly unequal treatment between Plessy and Brown. They lied, they knew exactly what they would do.

Whether you think the legal reasoning was wrong does not mean they lied.

 

[Jarhyn]

Which justice lied?

'X is settled law' does not equal 'I believe the law was decided correctly and if the same case were before me, I'd settle it the same way'. Nor is the US Supreme Court legally bound to never overturn precedent.

Judges did not 'lie under oath' simply because you don't understand what stare decisis means and what it entails.

If it's settled law they shouldn't have revisited it in the first place.

It absolutely should be if the Court believes it was settled wrongly.

Then it is not "settled" it is "settled wrongly". Not including the "wrongly" does not deliver an accurate perspective on its "settledness".

Just because you really want access to the power to lie without it being called a lie does not change the lie of omission that is created when someone drops contextually important words.

Why did no Senator in any public hearing ask:

Will you overturn Roe v Wade if a suitable case comes up?

Had Kavanaugh, ACB, etc been asked that and said 'No', I can see how they could be regarded as having lied.

Nobody asked that, though. Why not?

Here's my theory: they were not asked because it would be improper to ask them, and their proxy questions are asking something different.

Their answers, specifically that the law was "settled", rather than "settled wrongly" are where the lie comes from. Their statement, and not the question asked, is sufficient to provide that they thought the matter settled, rather than settled wrongly.

Trying to mince words and figure out clever seeming ways to place a falsehood in someone else's reasoning is still lying.

It won't earn you respect except by people who glorify in getting away with telling lies, or trying to mislead others about your intents, and there are enough people capable of observing that if folks fuck around, they're standing a good chance of finding out.