Supreme Court wonāt hear racial discrimination challenge to TJ high school admissions
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear another case over the role of race in school admissions, months after the conservative majority struck down affirmative action in college admissions.
The justices refused to review whether a revamped admissions policy at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology (TJ), one of the nationās top-ranked high schools, discriminates against Asian Americans.
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas publicly dissented, saying they would have taken up the case.
The county urged the Supreme Court to let the lower ruling stand, contending the coalition misrepresented the facts of the case and insisting that TJās admissions scheme complies with the Fourteenth Amendmentās Equal Protection Clause.
āThe new policy is race-neutral and race-blind,ā the county, represented by Don Verrilli, who served as U.S. solicitor general in the Obama administration, wrote in its response.
āIt seeks to mitigate socioeconomic obstacles faced by students of all races and to ensure that high-performing students at all County public middle schoolsānot merely those attending the few āfeederā schools that serve the Countyās more affluent communitiesāhave a fair shot at attending TJ.ā
Supreme Court turns away House GOP lawmakersā appeal over mask rule violations
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to revive a lawsuit from three House Republicans after their pay was docked for not complying with a pandemic-era mask requirement on the chamber floor.
In a brief order without any noted dissents, the court let stand a lower ruling that tossed the constitutional challenge filed by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Ralph Norman (R-S.C.).
The three conservative lawmakers were fined $500 in May 2021 after flouting the House floor mask mandate that was put in place amid the COVID-19 pandemic, kicking off a years-long attempt by the trio of lawmakers to get the penalties lifted.
Apparently those three dip shits are āafraidā of flogging.
āThe House Rules, under this Doctrine, could impose physical punishment, flogging, or even more medieval forms of punishment, upon members and, under the D.C. Circuitās precedent, no judicial remedy would be available, the Eighth Amendment notwithstanding,ā
Poor babies.
āJustice Alito takes aim at marriage equality again, warning that Obergefell means āAmericans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conductā are being ālabeled as bigots and treated as suchāā
Mr. Alito, what do you claim gives you the right to enshrine your particular religious beliefs in the law, effectively establishing your religion in violation of the text of the First Amendment?
You can believe whatever you want. You donāt have the authority to force others to believe what you believe.
Heās a fascist in a position of power, the constitution means whatever he wants it to mean
Some good news for schools that want to keep diversity-driven admission policies, especially after the courtās recent decision curtailing affirmative action for admissions to Ivy League universities.
The problem is that, in fact, he does have that authority, and clearly intends to use it. His dream of a theocratic, chistofascist nation is on the verge of reality. He knows that with demographic shifts occurring, if it doesnāt happen now, it never will. I fear we have only seen glimmers of how desperate they have become. Buckle up, itās gonna be a rough ride.
Wellā¦thatās actually true of all Supreme Court justices and always has been. The difference is that non-originalists like Kagan, Sotomayor, KBJ, and especially RBG admit that. They believe the Constitution is a living document that can, and should, be reinterpreted as the nation and the world change. The āoriginalistsā believe this too, theyāre just not honest about it. A perfect example of this is the recent Alabama Supreme Court decision, which relied on a ālong standingā 11 year old interpretation of a law well over 100 years old, and they cherry picked one definition of āchildā out of the dictionary, ignoring all the other definitions, to make it sound like their opinion was inarguably true. Thomas does this kind of thing aaaaaalllll the time. Heāll pull out a definition of a word from a dictionary published around the time the Constitution was written, arguing that that must be what the framers intended that word to mean, while completely ignoring the discussion of that word in the Federalist Papers, which shows the framers meant something completely different. And again, thereās not really anything wrong with doing that (wellā¦thereās something slightly wrong with itā¦what he should do is present both definitions, correctly pointing out that the conflicting meanings means we donāt really know for sure what the framers intended, and then use his own judgment). The wrong part is claiming that you arenāt doing that, and hiding behind āoriginalismā which doesnāt actually exist. Itās the same ideology behind religious fundamentalism, and itās no coincidence that Christian fundamentalists claim the Bible is literally true in everything it says, when thatās not actually possible.
And then simply ignoring the parts they donāt like. Exactly like the āoriginalists.ā The inbreeding in these groups is obvious.
Iām curious how heāll assert the Founding Fathersā view of the Internet but, in any case, I donāt guess heāll be pulling that out of his dictionary.
Ken Paxton provides a clue by invoking the telegraph (&/or by using āyoreā), though even the telegraph misses the Founding Fathers by a few decades
āLike the telegraph companies of yore, the social media giants of today use their control over the mechanics of this āmodern public square,ā to direct ā and often stifle ā public discourse,ā Paxton wrote in his brief.
I wouldnāt put anything past him. Heāll probably pull out some old ass Latin dictionary definition of āinterā and ānetā and then invoke St. Paul.
here you go ( saint matt though )
Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth
and thatās why hate speech canāt be moderated. itās the job of literal angels /s
Clarence Thomas hires clerk accused of sending racist texts
Her hiring comes more than five years after The New Yorker in 2017 obtained and published screenshots of text messages allegedly sent by Clanton, a former Turning Point USA staffer, to another staffer.
āI HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fāāā them all ā¦ I hate blacks. End of story,ā Clanton wrote, according to The New Yorker.
Months later in 2018, Clanton was hired by Thomasās wife, Virginia Thomas, to assist her with right-wing media projects. Virginia Thomas spent multiple years as a special correspondent for The Daily Caller and was serving on Turning Point USAās advisory board at the time of Clantonās hiring
The Thomasās are such lovely trash-people.
Takeaways from the Supreme Courtās arguments on Texas and Floridaās social media laws and the First Amendment
The Supreme Court expressed skepticism Monday about state laws in Texas and Florida designed to stop social media giants from throttling conservative views but also suggested that whatever decision emerges may not be the courtās final word on the significant First Amendment questions raised by the case.
This is so fucking stupid and wrong. Thereās no open legal question for the Court to be considering, which can only mean that Thomas and Alito were arguing that Trump has immunity. Such bullshit.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/politics/trump-supreme-court-immunity/index.html
it also seems to further cement the idea that nothing involving conservative hobby horses can be meaningfully decided by anyone other than the supreme court
they kept reaching in to the decision process where they arenāt warranted. making them, and not law, the final decider. it feels like it makes the existence of lower court decisions superfluous
