SCOTUS - AA ... news from the future

[ZiprHead]

"Hearsay" is evidence.

Which is pretty much always excluded. And an error. I checked and it appears the questioning by the Senate is not under oath.

Really?

I don’t see his hand on a bible so I don’t think it counts.

His Bible is probably at home being used as a beer cozy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Hearsay" is evidence.

Which is pretty much always excluded. And an error. I checked and it appears the questioning by the Senate is not under oath.

Really?

I don’t see his hand on a bible so I don’t think it counts.

He was asked how many beers he had before the hearing.

 

[Jarhyn]

"Hearsay" is evidence.

Which is pretty much always excluded. And an error. I checked and it appears the questioning by the Senate is not under oath.

Really?

I don’t see his hand on a bible so I don’t think it counts.

He was asked how many beers he had before the hearing.

Well, he does like beer. At least he was honest about that.

 

[laughing dog]

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

During the confirmation process, nominees do not indicate how they will vote on a question. They simply sidestep the issue with a statement akin to "It is improper for me to indicate how I would vote without hearing the case". So no one asks the question above.

So, proxy questions are asked instead. I get it. But a proxy question answer cannot be treated as if it was the real question's answer. Because it's not.

Please interpret that babble so as to make it relevant to the actual discussion.

The people who did not ask the above question, when that is what they wanted to know, are the ones mincing words.

Nope, but a nominee could say that believe in stare decis unless a case was decided wrongly as Jarhyn pointed out. So, employing your standard of what people should have said, the nominees in question lied by omission.

Non. In fact, you point out that nominees do not indicate how they will vote on a question. That seems proper to me. Saying something is stare decisis and they think it was settled correctly is indicating how they would vote. Saying something is stare decisis and they think it was settled incorrectly is indicating how they would vote. So, they answer the question put to them and don't indicate how they would vote.

When a nominee says they believe in stare decis unless a case was wrongly decided, they are not saying how they will vote in a specific case. In fact, they are stating a truism. Your response is based on a faulty premise which makes it wrong.

 

[Metaphor]

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

During the confirmation process, nominees do not indicate how they will vote on a question. They simply sidestep the issue with a statement akin to "It is improper for me to indicate how I would vote without hearing the case". So no one asks the question above.

So, proxy questions are asked instead. I get it. But a proxy question answer cannot be treated as if it was the real question's answer. Because it's not.

Please interpret that babble so as to make it relevant to the actual discussion.

The people who did not ask the above question, when that is what they wanted to know, are the ones mincing words.

Nope, but a nominee could say that believe in stare decis unless a case was decided wrongly as Jarhyn pointed out. So, employing your standard of what people should have said, the nominees in question lied by omission.

Non. In fact, you point out that nominees do not indicate how they will vote on a question. That seems proper to me. Saying something is stare decisis and they think it was settled correctly is indicating how they would vote. Saying something is stare decisis and they think it was settled incorrectly is indicating how they would vote. So, they answer the question put to them and don't indicate how they would vote.

When a nominee says they believe in stare decis unless a case was wrongly decided, they are not saying how they will vote in a specific case. In fact, they are stating a truism. Your response is based on a faulty premise which makes it wrong.

Nominees don't say such thing in a vacuum. They answer questions. The questions were about a particular case. Roe v Wade.

 

[Jarhyn]

And... The answer rendered to those questions were that the case was a matter of settled law. Not "wrongly settled", but "settled".

It was a question about their legal understanding, and an attempt to ascertain if their legal understanding was so faulty as to fail to acknowledge a right to privacy in one's medica decisions, so as to filter out judicial activists who would attempt to rule against one's right to their own body.

It is not improper to ask about legal understanding of things which are only "controversial" to the extent that some folks really want to enforce the laws offered by their dogmatic branch of a dogmatic church that doesn't even follow their own holy book worth a damn.

It's rather proper in fact to ask, and the answer rendered was a lie: that it was a matter of settled law, not "wrongly settled"

 

[Derec]

Going back to eugenics now are we?

Heritability of intelligence != eugenics.

Are you really going to argue that there is no genetic component to intelligence?

There is a reason Lysenko/Lamarck were favored in the Soviet Union. It was more ideologically palatable to the commies than Mendel and Darwin. I see the contemporary movement leftism moving in the same direction, which is concerning.

 

[Derec]

And I head back to my sports analogy, and drafting players on more than just a couple statistics. Heck, I remember a classmate who got National Honor Society without taking a single accelerated or AP level class. Their GPA was great, but there was a lack of commitment. Hanging a hat on GPA and SAT/ACT scores negates the other aspects of a potential student that also matter.

I do not know of anybody who thinks the courses taken, and esp. AP and IB classes, should not matter when making admission decisions. The very different classes people in high school (and college, for grad/professional school admissions) is precisely why just looking at GPA as a single number is not sufficient. It is also why the program like they have in Texas where the nominally selective state universities like UT Austin will automatically admit the top x% of each graduating class, ignoring the vast difference in grading between schools. Also, in one school hardly anyone might be taking AP classes and in another one a large fraction of the students might.

This smells a bit like a 'we are all sinners' fallacy. To suggest that generational wealth theft and blatant to violent discrimination was somehow a "wrong" and providing a path to a small number of potentially successful college students a bit more weight outside the bare metrics as "wrong" and being "two wrongs don't make a right" is a bald equivalence fallacy.

I do not see how that justifies discrimination by race in any case. Second, "a bit more weight" is an understatement. Schools like Harvard give a lot of weight to race. So much, in fact, that they end up with a "hyperparity" for black students.

Now, I would not be opposed to giving "a bit more weight" not based on race (which primarily aids offspring of well-off blacks) but by socioeconomic status. But that would help Sue Sue Heck over Theo Huxtable, so that is not ideologically palatable.
I listened to a discussion on NPR about the possible (likely? foregone?) end of racial preferences and the guests ended up agreeing that they were fine with using socioeconomic status as long as it provides a similar level of boost for black applicants as present policies. I.e. they are only interested in using socioeconomic criteria as a proxy for race, and not for its own sake.

How the heck not? My Grandfather benefitted from the GI bill... which made a huge difference for his family (and father). Which then I become a benefactor of. The generational wealth is quite possibly one of the least appreciated wrongs done to blacks in America.

First of all, you cannot assume that the gap in generational wealth is just because of past discrimination. How different people handle money has a lot to do with building generational wealth.
It seems for example that blacks spend more on conspicuous consumption compered with whites. That hinders building of generational wealth.
NBER Working Paper Series: Conspicuous Consumption and Race
I see that myself. A lot of blacks around here driving around in Mercs, Beamers, Caddies, even an occasional Lambo. You'd think the wealth gap was the other way just looking at all the rides on Atlanta's roads!

We aren't talking about AA making up for people getting dogs lashed at them. We are talking about Plessy v Ferguson, wealth restrictions, home owner restrictions holding several generations of blacks back, keeping them from being able to build legacies for their following generations to build off of. AA doesn't come close to fixing that, but we have to start somewhere... or just tell blacks, it'll work out in another 3 or 4 generations.

How long do you want to punish unrelated white and Asian students for Plessy v. Ferguson? The notorious SDoC thought for ~25 years since Grutter (2003). 19 years is close enough. I think leftists nowadays (including justices like Red Sonia Sotomayor) want to make it permanent.

We knew this was an issue in the late 1960s. And nothing was done, so instead of building off the progress of change back then, things were made worse... seemingly quite intentionally so.

We have had racial preferences since the late 1960s or at least early 70s (UC Davis policy behind the 1978 Bakke decision is from 1971 but it is unlikely to be the first such policy at a US university). So it's a demonstrably false statement that "nothing was done". A lot has been done, but a lot of it, including racial preferences, has been the wrong thing. Time to end this failed policy. As they say, first thing to do when in a hole is to stop digging.

 

[laughing dog]

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

During the confirmation process, nominees do not indicate how they will vote on a question. They simply sidestep the issue with a statement akin to "It is improper for me to indicate how I would vote without hearing the case". So no one asks the question above.

So, proxy questions are asked instead. I get it. But a proxy question answer cannot be treated as if it was the real question's answer. Because it's not.

Please interpret that babble so as to make it relevant to the actual discussion.

The people who did not ask the above question, when that is what they wanted to know, are the ones mincing words.

Nope, but a nominee could say that believe in stare decis unless a case was decided wrongly as Jarhyn pointed out. So, employing your standard of what people should have said, the nominees in question lied by omission.

Non. In fact, you point out that nominees do not indicate how they will vote on a question. That seems proper to me. Saying something is stare decisis and they think it was settled correctly is indicating how they would vote. Saying something is stare decisis and they think it was settled incorrectly is indicating how they would vote. So, they answer the question put to them and don't indicate how they would vote.

When a nominee says they believe in stare decis unless a case was wrongly decided, they are not saying how they will vote in a specific case. In fact, they are stating a truism. Your response is based on a faulty premise which makes it wrong.

Nominees don't say such thing in a vacuum. They answer questions. The questions were about a particular case. Roe v Wade.

You are mistaken

 

[Derec]

What stats are those and are those stats the only measure used to determine suitability?

SAT is the one published, but things like grades/coursework, extracurriculars etc. should play a role.
Subjective personality scores and race should not.

 

[ZiprHead]

What stats are those and are those stats the only measure used to determine suitability?

SAT is the one published, but things like grades/coursework, extracurriculars etc. should play a role.
Subjective personality scores and race should not.

Harvard administrators would disagree. Are you smarter than a Harvard administrator?

 

[Oleg]

What stats are those and are those stats the only measure used to determine suitability?

SAT is the one published, but things like grades/coursework, extracurriculars etc. should play a role.
Subjective personality scores and race should not.

Harvard administrators would disagree. Are you smarter than a Harvard administrator?

So Harvard does use race to determine suitability? Well, then.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What stats are those and are those stats the only measure used to determine suitability?

SAT is the one published, but things like grades/coursework, extracurriculars etc. should play a role.
Subjective personality scores and race should not.

Harvard administrators would disagree. Are you smarter than a Harvard administrator?

So Harvard does use race to determine suitability? Well, then.

Isn’t that what the current case at the Supreme Court is about? Is that in dispute?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What stats are those and are those stats the only measure used to determine suitability?

SAT is the one published, but things like grades/coursework, extracurriculars etc. should play a role.
Subjective personality scores and race should not.

Harvard administrators would disagree. Are you smarter than a Harvard administrator?

Their behavior is clearly discriminatory, they're being smart about doing something I consider on the evil side.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What stats are those and are those stats the only measure used to determine suitability?

SAT is the one published, but things like grades/coursework, extracurriculars etc. should play a role.
Subjective personality scores and race should not.

Harvard administrators would disagree. Are you smarter than a Harvard administrator?

Their behavior is clearly discriminatory, they're being smart about doing something I consider on the evil side.

Evil... When I think evil, I think Nazis, Charles Manson, Idi Amin, that asshole who cut me off. College admissions, even back in the days of not allowing blacks into their schools (like Harvard) not getting up there.

 

[lpetrich]

Personality science is a thing.

What are the 16 Personality Types? By [Myer Briggs]

Yes indeed. In mainstream psychological research, there is a personality model called the Five Factor Model or the Big Five.

• Openness to Experience: ideas, esthetics
• Conscientiousness: diligence, orderliness, conventionality
• Extraversion: being outgoing and assertive
• Agreeableness: being considerate of others
• Neuroticism: emotional instability, tendency to experience negative emotions

I don't know why the MBTI has continued to be advocated for so long, and why the mainstream of the psychological community has not pushed the Big Five model as an alternative. I've found very little research into the MBTI, and much of it is comparing the MBTI to the Big Five.

• Free open-source BigFive personality traits test - Big Five
• Big Five Personality Test
• The Big Five Project - Personality Test
• Personality Test #1 Free and Scientifically Valid Big Five Personality Test
• Big Five Personality Test
• The Big 5 (OCEAN) Personality Test I Psych Central

 Big Five personality traits

For my part, I'm high in openness and conscientiousness, medium in agreeableness, and low in extraversion and neuroticism.

 

[lpetrich]

If an opinion doesn't go the way you want, the Court must be corrupt

Projection. That is a hallmark of Republicans, straight up. Their core platform is “the only way we can lose is if it’s rigged”. They actually SAY that. It’s the core premise of their (your?) whole dishonest method of attaining and retaining power.
The ACTUAL corruption of the SC is evident in the wife of one trying to overthrow a free and fair election, and her husband lying about what he knew about her. Just as the three Trump “justices” lied under oath about Stare Decisis and “settled law ”.
Previous courts have made decisions wth which I disagreed and I never thought them corrupt. But this one is.

Which justice lied?

Collins, Manchin Say Kavanaugh and Gorsuch Misled Them on Roe V. Wade - Senators Susan Collins and Joe Manchin

'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.

Metaphor, what do *you* think that "settled law" means? I want what you think, not what anyone else might think.

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

As with "settled law", what do *you* think that "stare decisis" means?

Settled Law - Virginia Law Review

“Settled law” appears frequently in judicial opinions—sometimes to refer to binding precedent, sometimes to denote precedent that has acquired a more mystical permanence, and sometimes as a substantive part of legal doctrine.

stare decisis | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.

 

[ZiprHead]

stare decisis | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.

Which they acknowledged respecting and then turned around on. They lied.

 

[Metaphor]

If an opinion doesn't go the way you want, the Court must be corrupt

Projection. That is a hallmark of Republicans, straight up. Their core platform is “the only way we can lose is if it’s rigged”. They actually SAY that. It’s the core premise of their (your?) whole dishonest method of attaining and retaining power.
The ACTUAL corruption of the SC is evident in the wife of one trying to overthrow a free and fair election, and her husband lying about what he knew about her. Just as the three Trump “justices” lied under oath about Stare Decisis and “settled law ”.
Previous courts have made decisions wth which I disagreed and I never thought them corrupt. But this one is.

Which justice lied?

Collins, Manchin Say Kavanaugh and Gorsuch Misled Them on Roe V. Wade - Senators Susan Collins and Joe Manchin

'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.

Metaphor, what do *you* think that "settled law" means? I want what you think, not what anyone else might think.

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

As with "settled law", what do *you* think that "stare decisis" means?

Settled Law - Virginia Law Review

“Settled law” appears frequently in judicial opinions—sometimes to refer to binding precedent, sometimes to denote precedent that has acquired a more mystical permanence, and sometimes as a substantive part of legal doctrine.

stare decisis | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.

I've already explained this a number of times. Roe v Wade was settled law. Settled law means the original decision had been confirmed a number of times and of course was binding on lower courts.

I've already explained, "settled law" is descriptive of a legal decision's history. Any justice could think something was wrongly settled.

Not one senator asked "Would you overturn Roe v Wade", which was the real question whose answer they wanted to know. They did not ask because such a question would be impermissible. So instead they sought assurance from proxy questions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As with "settled law", what do *you* think that "stare decisis" means?

Settled Law - Virginia Law Review

“Settled law” appears frequently in judicial opinions—sometimes to refer to binding precedent, sometimes to denote precedent that has acquired a more mystical permanence, and sometimes as a substantive part of legal doctrine.

stare decisis | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.

I've already explained this a number of times. Roe v Wade was settled law. Settled law means the original decision had been confirmed a number of times and of course was binding on lower courts.

ANY CASE settled by SCOTUS binds the lower courts.

Stare decisis can be interpreted to mean SCOTUS can use it to base other case judgments on!

I've already explained, "settled law" is descriptive of a legal decision's history. Any justice could think something was wrongly settled.

And you keep being wrong about it. Man, it is like dealing a geology discussion with a YEC.

Not one senator asked "Would you overturn Roe v Wade", which was the real question whose answer they wanted to know.

Stare Decisis is effectively the same thing, which is why all those lawyers asked that lawyer that specific law question.