Thank you for realizing you are making up excuses based on your prejudices.
Unlike you, my belief is not faith-based but based on the evidence.
Of course your belief is faith-based. You believe some people and not others, based on your pre-existing prejudices.
Prove it. I based my conclusion on evidence that points to Mr. Alito having lied. While it is possible my conclusion is incorrect, it is based on actual evidence. You presented no evidence on which of my alleged pre-existing prejudices (as opposed to newly formed ones on the spot?) caused me to blindly come to a conclusion.
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.
I think his point is that none of it is from slavery.
I think it's more attitudes than genes but that's going to be hard to settle.
It was presented as a major factor in the disparity we see today. For it to matter there must be a lot of it. Most estates are small, most people who are inheriting are already on their life path. (Realistic examples, three people we know who have inherited recently. All are in their 60s, 2 of the 3 had already retired before losing their last parent. In all three cases the estate is pretty much the house.)
I think that you do not understand what stare decisis means or what it entails.
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.
The court is horribly messed up. That doesn't mean it can't pull a stopped clock.
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.
This case has been through multiple courts. If that data wasn't valid Harvard would have challenged it long ago.
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.
Plessy?
As usual, you fling your conclusions without any basis.
No need to keep admitting you only have conjectures. For some reason, you feel repetition ofyour pedantic apologia makes it more convincing.
Please learn to read. I did not say Mr Kavanaugh lied. I said Mr Alito lied.
Alito was confirmed 58-42. Kennedy didn't vote for him. So what does it matter what you think he told Kennedy?
