US Supreme Court (General Discussion)
Worth a thread, I think.
The court just ruled against affirmative action. Thoughts about this or other cases or the court in general?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rules-against-affirmative-action-c94b5a9c?mod=mhp
The court just ruled against affirmative action. Thoughts about this or other cases or the court in general?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rules-against-affirmative-action-c94b5a9c?mod=mhp
Comments (59)
The court's decision on affirmative action is as surprising as its decision on abortion. In both cases, the court delivered on the conservative agenda because the majority of justices are conservative. It would have been much more shocking if they had upheld either one. File under "Elections Have Consequences".
It wasn't only conservatives that have had quarrels with various kinds of affirmative action.
Will the decision make a difference? Not having access to higher education is harmful from several angles, but getting a BA degree is not the ticket to career success that it once was. The percentage of workers with bachelors degrees is already pretty high.
District of Columbia 63.0%
Massechusetts 46.6%
Colorado 44.4%
Vermont 44.4%
New Jersey 43.1%
Maryland 42.5%
Connecticut 42.1%
Virginia 41.8%
New Hampshire 40.2%
New York 39.9%
Getting an advanced degree isn't the ticket it used to be either. Depending on the person's family and community background, connections, and so forth, quite a few advanced degree people end up not getting into the career slots for which they had spent so much time and money.
If affirmative action is a gateway to a BA, MA, and PhD, a ton of debt, and a run-of-the-mill job (which it will be for some) the loss isn't as great as it might seem to be.
:up:
Instead of simply voting against the worst (Trump), people sat out. Now we have a major branch of government remaking America in the Federalist Societys image. How sad.
The Equal Protection Clause came into being after the Civil War and, when it isn't being ignored, has inspired an amount of litigation which easily rivals that inspired by the older dictates of our Constitution, which seems sometimes to have been drafted with that purpose in mind. There's a good argument, given the timing of its adoption, that it was adopted specifically to end racial discrimination, particularly against blacks. For a long time, though, it was ignored.
Then it wasn't. The Supremes began generating opinions which sanctioned legal measures which favored certain races and minorities in an effort to remediate the disfavor of them which continued regardless of the Clause. The policy behind those decisions was, I think, one which had its basis in the belief that in order to attain a society in which all would have equal protection it was necessary that the inequality which characterized the law and its enforcement be reduced by according an additional benefit to those victimized by that inequality.
The fact that the Equal Protection Law was adopted in an effort to end racial discrimination makes it rather difficult to contend that policies intended to limit or even eliminate such discrimination are in violation of it. But now the Supreme Court has revealed that racial discrimination no longer exists. So, if there ever was a basis on which desegregate schools, for example, or protect voting rights, or provide for greater access to higher education for some, there no longer is a need to do so. It follows that affirmative action instead of being supported by the Equal Protection Clause now violates it.
In fact, affirmative action has always been treated rather gingerly by the courts in light of the language of the Equal Protection Clause. The language of the Clause seems to admit of no exceptions. I think it's mistake to treat the Constitution as Holy Writ and believe we regularly find reasonable grounds on which exceptions to it may be and are made, myself. But ultimately I think that what this decision comes down to is the fact that a majority of the Supremes think, in effect, that everything's okay now; there's no discrimination anymore, or at least that discrimination is no longer a serious concern except in increasingly limited circumstances. The playing field has been leveled, saith the Supremes.
The court will be leaving wreckage in its wake, for sure, but affirmative action has been supported and attacked since John F, Kennedy's 1961 Executive Order 10925, which included a provision "that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." That was the first step, but legislative action followed in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Over time the principle was extended to other activities, like education, and at the state level, applied to more factors like 'sexual orientation'.
Yes isnt it great that racism is behind us?
This court is a joke. No one their credibility is in the toilet.
Sure but what is your point? Abortion has been supported and attacked as well. As has almost every other issue theyve ruled on this term.
The Court did not hold there is no more racism. It said race could not be considered a reason to permit or deny admission into college under the Constitution. Unless you can show their reasoning is flawed from an interpretive perspective, you're just arguing you're unhappy with the result.
Unless it's a military academy, in which case they can.
That was a partial joke but only partial. Yes, theyre not going to outright say it. But we shouldnt expect that. However, take a look at Shelby v Holder. Thats pretty damn close.
Quoting Hanover
Im not particularly unhappy with the result. I dont have a strong opinion about affirmative action. That doesnt negate the fact that this court is reactionary to the extreme. What theyre systematically doing to environmental regulations, gun control, and unions is far worse in my view.
It's plain enough. I passively support free access to abortion, but organized opposition against Roe Vs. Wade has been active since 1973. I think equal access to employment and education is a good thing; lots of people support it, but passively. Steady and widespread resistance has a long history and is likely to eventually have consequences, overcoming passive support.
Today's ruling just isn't a surprise. We've been heading toward this for some time.
Fair enough I suppose. True it shouldnt come as a surprise.
Nevertheless, this didn't work badly with one notable exception where moral misadventures ensued. When that individual came up for tenure, the hiring committee pressured the dean to deny tenure.
It doesn't seem this ruling affects hiring practices at universities.
Sounds more like a Fox News anecdote than reality. But so be it.
But it would likely affect the pool of qualified candidates in the future.
The point of affirmative action in education was to intervene early-ish in the employment and wealth pipeline, as a way to redress racial disparities that are the lingering result of our history.
It's a sensible plan, but it's not clear it's been successful -- but then, compared to what? Black Americans would probably be even further behind than they are without affirmative action. And of course there's been continual litigation since it began so programs have been continuously shifting their goals and methods.
Good point. But academic employment is dismal these days for many, including minorities. Adjunct professors is a way to milk the most out of individuals without providing benefits traditionally offered.
Think law school, medical school.
That was the idea for college admission, but not necessarily to supply diversity to elite professions (to whatever extent university teaching is still an elite type job).
Actually, there are too many "elite" being produced. There are not enough elite jobs to go around for the kind of jobs elite people like to occupy where they actually run things.
[quote=Sotomayor] Today is a sad day in American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBT people. The Supreme Court of the United States declares that a particular kind of business, though open to the public, has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. The Court does so for the first time in its history.
The immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status.
[/quote]
Its almost as if theres a pattern.
Supreme Court Rejects Bidens Debt Forgiveness Plan
How predictable.
Unions can be sued if their strikes cause any problems.
The EPA cant regulate water that isnt connected to other water somehow.
Racism is over. No need for affirmative action this isnt 1965.
Businesses can refuse service to gay people.
Students should stay in debt.
-
Nicely reflects the values of these Bush and Trump appointed lawyers.
Yes, I see they're at it again. I haven't read the latest opinions from On High, yet. I suspect they'll be additional examples of what I would call "Legal Scholasticism." Reasoning, sometimes intricate, based on fixed dogma which transcends precedent. I wonder how many of them were taught by Jesuits or Dominicans. Most of them are Catholics.
In fact, there are exceptions to the rule of stare decisis. There was a time when the Supremes were condemned as being activists, ignoring the rule with impunity. Now, they're reactionaries, doing just that as well.
A combination of legalese, precedent, and outright sophistry doesnt do much to disguise the point of it all, though, the question of whether race should be a qualification in any admissions. Dissenting justices even used the ugly history of race-based discrimination to defend contemporary race-based discrimination, proving that stretching the plain meaning of language in order to skirt ethical principle is the sine qua non of jurisprudence.
Hello Mikie,
Although helping the underprivileged is something we should all strive to do, I think that the use of someone's race or gender as a criteria or indicator of need is insufficient (to accomplish the goal of helping those in need), racist, "genderist", sexist, and immoral. If a college wants to allocate funds, admission slots, etc. for underprivileged candidates, then that is perfectly fine with me--but their race, for example, should have nothing to do with that decision.
It is insufficient to achieve the goal (of helping the underprivileged), because you can most certainly have children of all races that are in desperate (or moderate) need of help and, without it, will definitely not have the majority of opportunities they otherwise could have had; and usually it is of no fault of their own. If someone uses gender, sex, or race, they are going to inevitably include people that don't need the help and will exclude people that do need it. Better indicators are financial indications (e.g., how much does their family make? What jobs do they have?), family indications (e.g., do they have a family? Are they abusive?), etc.
It is racist, sexist, and "genderist" because no person should ever be punished or rewarded for merely the skin color, sex, or gender that they have: period. These are not indicators of merit, need, or otherwise.
It is immoral because I believe that we should be striving towards a world with the maximal sovereignty of wills, and this entails disbanding from judging people on their race, sex, and gender.
I think we can salvage the good intention of affirmative action while disbanding from the bad: we can allow schools to shift their criteria to allocate help for the underprivileged that does not consider directly their race, sex, or gender.
I look forward to hearing from you,
Bob
Especially since the majority opinion did NOT rule out race as a factor in admissions, but rather qualified that experiences/character/life circumstances that have occurred BECAUSE of race are still allowable when occasioning the decision related to an individual's application. In other words, using one's experience with systemic racism as a touchstone related to one's fitness for application to university has been, and is still allowable (according to the majority).
Additionally, concurring opinion by Gorsuch makes it clear that the case in question ALSO violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
Love to hear from the great legal minds here how Asian American university applicants' rights have not been violated under the language in Title VI.
From a lawyer's perspective, concurring opinions are insignificant. It's the decision of the majority that's important. A concurring opinion joins in the holding of the majority, for reasons that are not stated in the majority decision. As a result, they state a rationale or argument that isn't supported by the majority. So, a concurring opinion doesn't constitute precedent. What Justice Gorsuch concludes regarding Title VI, in this case, is no more binding on a court (and of no more importance to me) than is the ass of a rattus rattus. Nonetheless, concurring opinions are cited sometimes in the hope that courts might find them persuasive on particular points, and particularly when a lawyer can't find any good authority on which to rely.
Also, I think you misunderstand the majority's decision if you think it doesn't rule out consideration of race as a factor in admissions. Let's look at that small portion of the decision you seem to latch onto:
At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicants discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. (citation omitted). But, despite the dissents assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissenting opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.) [W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows, and the prohibition against racial discrimination is levelled at the thing, not the name. (citation omitted). A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, [i]must be tied to that students courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that students unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individualnot on the basis of race.[/i]
The majority seems to be conjuring up a kind of being, or creature, whose race and or cultural heritage subjected him or her (or they, I don't know) to discriminated against in some fashion, but who was able to overcome this as an individual (in ways somehow not arising from the individual's race or which are apart from the individual's race) and contribute to the university. I have no idea how such a determination may be made But the statement that a person must not be treated on the basis of race seems rather clear.
What the majority prohibits is consideration of race as a factor in admissions, clearly enough. That consideration was allowed in the past under other case law which it was thought met the "strict scrutiny" standards which have to be met for governmental action to sanctioned though it is constitutionally questionable.
And then you go on to do the exact same thing.
Pretty easy to ignore.
does a good job explaining it though.
Hi Bob.
I see your point its a reasonable one. But Im not sure your characterization of AA is correct. Theres strong arguments in favor of it.
As I said elsewhere, Id be happy to engage with the details of the case and the holding but I cant in good conscience pretend that this isnt coming from a reactionary court who manages to find any reason to push forward their Federalist Society agenda. That makes me very suspicious of their justifications just as it did with Dobbs and todays ruling on student loans.
Its fairly predictable what they will rule. Even the independent legislature theory, which was ridiculous though they ruled against it, it is not completely dead. Thats telling.
Its clear what these judges want to do. Yes, we can pretend this case or that case was decided on principles and get into the weeds on each one, but first look at the overall trend.
The long-winded legal contortions and justifications and posturings dont truly merit much energy when one can do easily predict what the ruling will be beforehand as I did and anyone can.
Every one of these controversial cases are along party lines. When things are so predictable, you know its not a matter of a fair assessment of evidence its foregone.
Hello Mikie,
Could you elaborate on some of them? Otherwise, I am unsure as to what about my characterization is incorrect.
Everything you said along these lines is perfectly accurate: I am not trying to defend dogmatic political actions but, rather, I was just agreeing with their decision on AA (regardless of why they chose to decide such). I just happen to agree that AA is wrong, if that makes sense.
Bob
Fair enough. Like I said, I myself am open to god faith arguments about it and dont hold a staunch position.
And incidentally, you dont have to put Bob after every post we know its you! :grin:
My guess is they were elected elected by a board and shareholders based on their talent. Why do you think there are four black CEO's in the Fortune 500?
Because there are still black people alive who remember when de jure discrimination existed (separate but equal). Racism is still alive and well in 2023. Your explanation that of a lack of talent causes black people to be underrepresented in the Fortune 500 by an order of magnitude is absurd, and I think you know that.
I never said a lack of talent caused black people to be underrepresented. I said those CEOs were probably hired due to their talent. I think you know that.
If you prove one CEO wasnt hired solely due to his race, then thats all youve proven. Assuming you can do that, which you havent, it is absurd to make the same assumption to every other case. But these are the sorts of fallacies required to uphold any racist view, for instance the idea that a group is misrepresented due to the fact of their skin color, and no other measure.
Yeah, the same reason women film directors are so rare: just not talented enough. Its all merit based. Remember: racism and sexism have been declared over in America.
So 4 black CEOs? Has nothing to do with racism. There just happens to not be enough black people that boards of old white guys find talented enough. Nothing to see here.
The part of the decision you cited lays out EXACTLY how that determination is made.
They use the passage you quoted to EXPLICITlY clarify that experiences stemming from race, whether they be racial injustices personally experienced (which could include systemic racism), racial identity as a means to empowerment, or otherwise are valid forms of acceptance metrics. Just that race in-and-of itself is not. A prospective student is free to explain how their racial identity forms their worldview, ethics, etc... but the selection committee must look at the individual's experiences, rather than their stated race to make the final decision. That much is clear from the passage you cited, so your confusion about determinations is puzzling.
Perhaps if you had read the very next sentence it would have been hammered home even further:
Racial inequities faced in life can be "challenges bested", overcoming systemic racism can be a skill, and racial/cultural/socioeconomic differences can lead to important lessons about diversity or the lack thereof, and all are EXPLICITLY valid according to this BINDING opinion.
Quoting Ciceronianus
Of course it's not binding, nowhere did I say it was. The fact that you immediately dismiss concurring (and I assume, dissenting) opinions even in terms of their usefulness and veracity is a sad state of affairs. Unless I've mistaken your affinity towards rats?
Well, try to understand I've never before been asked to render a legal opinion on what a court didn't say in deciding a case, or about a holding it didn't make. It's not something that's come up in my practice. I assumed you were trying to address the actual decision in question.
And yes, concurring opinions and dissents are generally unimportant in the actual practice of law. I don't advise clients they have a good chance of success based on a dissent or a concurring opinion which differs from the rationale of the majority.
Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individuals identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice. (majority decision)
I suspect that the musings made in the closing paragraphs of the majority opinion will come to be reqarded as dicta, depending on the spin it's desired to make.
Regardless, consider. An applicant may submit an essay regarding the wrongs experienced due to racial discrimination. So, the applicants race may be mentioned in the application process. A person reading the essay will, without much effort, rightly infer the applicant to be a member of the race discriminated against. So, the applicant's race will be known by those making the admission decision.
According to the majority, those making the admission decision may consider the impacts of discrimination against the applicant because of race (e.g. because the applicant is black) in coming to a decision. But, the admission decision cannot be made because the applicant is black, despite the fact that there would have been no discrimination, the impacts of which may be considered, had the applicant not been black.
Where does the black go? Applicant X should be admitted because of characteristics and abilities arising from discrimination against the applicant because the applicant is black (characteristics and abilities which presumably would not have arisen but for the racial discrimination), but that doesn't mean the fact the applicant is black figured in the decision to admit? It doesn't work, I'm afraid.
An actual decision is useful for more than just it's legal impact. Even concurring and dissenting opinions are valuable barometers for where the legal establishment may be on an issue, as has been evidenced many times in history via famous dissents like Dred Scott, Korematsu, and even Plessy v Ferguson. To dismiss those dissents (as well as concurring opinions), because they have little current use in the courtroom is to miss the point of the dissents/concurrences altogether. They are not written for the courtroom, they are written on and for the issue. Otherwise why write them, if they have no value?
Correct.
Do you treat all black people the same? Because all black people are black? Or do you treat them differently based on their personal characteristics, many of which are directly derived from their racial/cultural experiences of being black in a world of systemic racism?
This is a facetious question. It stays in the equation, it's just not the sum total at the end.
It DOES mean the fact that the applicant is black figured into the decision. What you summarized there is EXACTLY HOW it DOES work. It was FACTORED IN (via the experiences an individual who is black ACTUALLY faced), it was not DETERMINED solely by racial group.
If that doesn't make sense to you, I'm not sure we have anywhere further to go, because the majority opinion devotes many words to explain exactly how that works IN PRACTICE going forward (and how it does NOT work). If you can't see the nuance of that position, then you're not going to be willing to see any other point either.
I suspect they may be written for a number of reasons. Perhaps they'll turn out to be useful, sometime. In the here and now, in which a lawyer practices--in which decisions are made, people are impacted, lives are led--the majority opinion determines the law. What the law may be or could be in other circumstances, or should be, is a matter of speculation, and sometimes wishful thinking.
Quoting Voyeur
Do you treat all people the same? Or do you acknowledge that some of them should be treated differently "based on their personal characteristics, many of which are directly derived from their racial/cultural experience of being black in a world of systemic racism?"
I think the majority contends that the Equal Protection Clause provides that all applicants must be treated the same. At the same time, however, they state that the Equal Protection Clause allows some of them to be treated differently due to "their racial/cultural experience of being black (for example) in a world of systemic racism." It would seem to me essential that one must be black to have the "racial/cultural experience of being black in a world of systemic racism."
Quoting Voyeur
Yes. Race is necessarily a factor, as those having the qualities the majority thinks merit consideration will have them because they're black. Now, though, it's necessary that in order for the race of an applicant to be considered, the applicant must establish that they have those qualities due to their race.
Affirmative Action may have presumed that discrimination takes place, and for that reason those discriminated against should be favored. The majority aren't brazen enough to claim that it has ceased entirely, though they seem to take the position it no longer creates a problem to be remedied and so no longer may be presumed. I think the majority tries to allow race to be considered while maintaining it can't be considered. It simply has made it more difficult for race to be considered, placing the burden on those who've been discriminated against to establish that the discrimination they suffered due to their race has rendered them worthy of consideration despite their race.
.
All feasible reforms applicable within the current American legal and fiscal system which, no doubt, would be violently opposed by (both Dems & GOP) plutocrats/oligarchs, their managerial class flunkies and the 24/7 media-triggered reactionary populist (e.g. patriarchal white supremacist) rabble. :brow:
Legacy preferences should certainly be prohibited. So, I believe, should so-called "development cases" where preference is given to the children of wealthy donors. Or perhaps they could write essays describing how being legacies or the children of rich parents has resulted in the development of the individual qualities the majority admires which would contribute to the institution in question, in which case....
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/03/us/harvard-college-legacy-admissions-lawsuit/index.html
As a non-lawyer I suspect that if this lawsuit rises to the level of SCOTUS review, the Supremes will vote 6-3 in favor of pro-"legacy preference", etc.
Just for perspective, if you don't insist on going to one of the very choosy, very expensive, very rich, very competitive schools, you have hundreds of good to excellent -- and much more affordable -- colleges to choose from. A degree from U of Nebraska or U Washington might not give a student the same entree as a degree from Harvard, Yale, or North Carolina, but if they choose majors which are likely to lead to employment, work hard for high grades, then they have a good chance of making a quite good living. They may not make it into the elite on the basis of their alma mater, but... tough bounce.
The large land-grant institutions (U of Michigan, U of Wisconsin, U of Minnesota, etc.) admit large shares of their applicants, so affirmative action is in many cases much less an issue. True enough, these institutions can afford to wash out a substantial number of first year students and still have large graduating classes. Some private colleges also practice relatively open admission--it isn't ONLY public colleges.
Informative article from NYT 7/3/23
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/03/opinion/for-most-college-students-affirmative-action-was-not-enough.html
Public confidence in the court as an impartial arbitrator of the law as opposed to just another political branch is at an all time low and not likely to recover soon.
I am beginning to think lifetime appointments are not a good idea and are giving us a court well out of touch with mainstream public opinion, the present and the likely future.
Packing the Court seems like a bad idea and one not likely to solve the problem
I have begun to think term limits (the 18 years and then revert to a lower federal court) which would allow and new justice to be appointed every two years (each session of congress) would help keep the court better in line with and more able to serve the society.
The affirmative action decision actually has majority public support but only because the history and present reality of systemic and institutional racism are something not experience or understood by the majority but lets not talk about teach or examine critical race theory (especially in Florida).
I thought this decision would spawn litigation, but this is pretty fast work on the part of plaintiffs' lawyers. Of course, the decision will also have the result that those involved in admissions decisions will be bombarded with essays of the kind the majority so blithely referenced at the conclusion of their opinion. But I think the decision will create all sorts of legal advocacy.
A court which held, previously, that spending money is speech in Citizens United and is now composed of even more justices with a similar mindset isn't likely to find any problem with a "legacy preference" or with preference being given to the children of large donors to an institution of higher education.
Still, it will be interesting, and revealing, how this litigation proceeds.
Quoting Ciceronianus
Exactly. This is the point I made previously, glad we can agree.
Quoting Ciceronianus
You clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of the opinion that no amount of discussion will help you understand. Your quote above is NOT what the majority opinion is saying. Not all applicants must be treated the same because then there would be no basis on which to accept/reject any applicants. And before you claim to have meant "criteria", it is totally within the law to have different criteria for different applicants (such as the elderly and people from different geographical regions).
Quoting Ciceronianus
Quoting Ciceronianus
Exactly wrong. The applicant must establish that they have certain qualities based on their experience. Now, their experiences can absolutely be impacted by their racial/cultural identity, and they are free to elaborate on that, but qualities are not determinable by race, says the majority. Assuming someone has certain characteristics/qualities based on their race is the classical definition of racism, by the way. Your wording isn't clear on whether you believe this (though it is a declarative statement), but if you believe some people have certain qualities (non-biological but rather personal/social) BECAUSE of their race, I find that incredibly problematic.
Quoting Ciceronianus
Couldn't have said it better myself. This is exactly the question to the majority is asking to Harvard/UNC, and they have found that the answer is that they DO treat people differently, not only because of their personal characteristics, but also because of their race in general (i.e. assuming that people of different races by definition have different qualities).
Quoting Ciceronianus
Exactly (leaving aside the idea of someone who is trans-racial or racially fluid, which I don't have enough knowledge to speak about).
You are there in the end, the above quote is how it works, and the key idea you need to understand is that a causal chain can have many links. According to the Supreme Court, being black in and of itself does not CAUSE you to have certain qualities, but it CAN cause you to experience circumstances that (by means of your response to those circumstances) creates those certain qualities.
I'm unable to make the distinction you seem to make along with the majority, which you describe as follows:
Quoting Voyeur
So, being black can cause you to have certain experiences. You have them because you're black. You wouldn't have them, then, if you weren't black.
The experiences you have which are caused by the fact you're black can cause you to have certain qualities, but you don't have them because you're black. Yes?
But if they're caused by experiences resulting from the fact you're black, must it not be the case that you have them because you're black? You wouldn't have had those experiences but for the fact you're black. You wouldn't have had them if you were white, for example.
The major Supreme Court cases of 2022-2023:
Not surprising, most were terrible.
From Balls & Strikes:
Spot on.
LegalFly
Train on previous court cases and evidence then upload all the evidence submitted and fire away any questions you have.
In the netherlands, by the way, a judge told a company to go fuck itself and provide a 25 page summary of the evidence they were submitting in support of their argument and he simply refused to review it. Companies here have a tendency to swamp the opposition (and courts) with much more paperwork than needed, causing a barrier for natural persons to sue companies. Judges here don't like it and his decision was widely applauded and will likely act as precedent.
:up:
But yeah, throwing away votes in protest back in 2016 was definitely worth the temporary feeling of moral righteousness.
Also gotta blame RBG too for being foolish enough to stay on the court despite being in her 80s and having multiple bouts of cancer. Unfortunately it seems like the Democrats haven't learnt their lesson given what's happening with Biden and Feinstein recently. It really feels like they're gambling the interests of future generations on the selfishness of a few incredibly stubborn old people.
Yes. And look what they did to Bernie twice. Theyd rather lose the election than give it to someone that isnt part of the Obama-Clinton DNC machine.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/supreme-court-pares-back-federal-regulatory-power-954a101c?mod=mhp
Ny Times