Recent SCOTUS Opinions

[Belsnickel]

So, we haven't had a whole lot of discussion about this stuff around these parts.

President Obama's actions on immigration were halted.

The use of race in college admissions was upheld.

Texas's laws on abortion clinics were invalidated.

Former Gov. McDonnell's conviction was thrown out, requiring a retrial, and they made it more difficult to prosecute bribery cases for public officials.

There were a few more as well, obviously, but I just wanted to bring this up and see if anyone else has been paying attention to this session.

[BmorePat87]

SCOTUS upheld an ruling in which two men from Maine who had prior domestic violence convictions were charged with possessing guns, a violation of federal law given their criminal past.

They argued that their convictions were based on reckless behavior, not intentional behavior. The majority opinion ruled that domestic violence is always the result of intentional behavior and they could be prevented from owning guns

This was the case where Thomas asked his first question in 10 years, asking if reckless behavior warrants losing a constitutional right for life

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2016, 02:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: SCOTUS upheld an ruling in which two men from Maine who had prior domestic violence convictions were charged with possessing guns, a violation of federal law given their criminal past.

They argued that their convictions were based on reckless behavior, not intentional behavior. The majority opinion ruled that domestic violence is always the result of intentional behavior and they could be prevented from owning guns

This was the case where Thomas asked his first question in 10 years, asking if reckless behavior warrants losing a constitutional right for life

Yeah, I saw that opinion. That case was full of oddities, not only did Thomas actually ask a question, but the strange bedfellows of Sotomayor and Thomas on the dissent were rather interesting.

[BmorePat87]

I was going to start two separate threads (gun and abortion decisions) when I was home and on my laptop. I really hate posting from my phone because I'm so bad at using the keyboard.

The abortion one was interesting but not surprising. Texas had basically found that they could close half of the abortion clinics in the state by forcing them to have the same requirements as surgical centers. This was done under the guise of a concern for safety, but many other procedures that are more dangerous than abortions didn't have the same requirements.

The law closed 22 of the 41 clinics and, had the decision gone the other way, would have closed 10 more, leaving only 9 in the state.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2016, 03:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I was going to start two separate threads (gun and abortion decisions) when I was home and on my laptop. I really hate posting from my phone because I'm so bad at using the keyboard.

The abortion one was interesting but not surprising. Texas had basically found that they could close half of the abortion clinics in the state by forcing them to have the same requirements as surgical centers. This was done under the guise of a concern for safety, but many other procedures that are more dangerous than abortions didn't have the same requirements.

The law closed 22 of the 41 clinics and, had the decision gone the other way, would have closed 10 more, leaving only 9 in the state.

I was, of course, very interested in the Gov. McDonnell case. I found it funny that Roberts called his actions "tawdry."

[*bfine32*]

I think the use of race for a college admissions is a clear case of discrimination. I read that the decent was 50 pages long. I see it as a "Two wrongs make a right" mentality.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-27-2016, 04:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the use of race for a college admissions is a clear case of discrimination. I read that the decent was 50 pages long. I see it as a "Two wrongs make a right" mentality.

Its 2016 and a race is getting preferential treatment over another. Tis bullshit i agree

[SunsetBengal]

(06-27-2016, 04:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the use of race for a college admissions is a clear case of discrimination. I read that the decent was 50 pages long. I see it as a "Two wrongs make a right" mentality.

Exactly, as long as race is being considered, where does merit fit in?

[BmorePat87]

From what I can gather, the fact that the school only uses race with the bottom 20% of applicants as a mans to achieve diversity and doesn't use a quota system was a reason why it was upheld. They also stated that diversity was critical in the university achieving its mission.

The idea of reverse discrimination is wrong, despite the good it can do. The funny thing about this case, though, is the fact that during the trial, it was revealed that the woman complaining had lower grades than all but 47 students admitted over her. Of those 47, 42 were white.

[Bengalzona]

(06-27-2016, 04:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the use of race for a college admissions is a clear case of discrimination. I read that the decent was 50 pages long. I see it as a "Two wrongs make a right" mentality.

I heard that the school in question used a two phase admission process: the first phase being totally on merit and the second phase filling in racial or other quotas. This is was what the Army used in promotion boards back when I was in. I didn't like it then, but I sort of understood a need for it. That said, I'm not sure there is as much need today. At some point minorites and others have to be weaned from this. Apparently, the Supremes decided that today is not that day. 

[BmorePat87]

(06-28-2016, 02:41 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I heard that the school in question used a two phase admission process: the first phase being totally on merit and the second phase filling in racial or other quotas. This is was what the Army used in promotion boards back when I was in. I didn't like it then, but I sort of understood a need for it. That said, I'm not sure there is as much need today. At some point minorites and others have to be weaned from this. Apparently, the Supremes decided that today is not that day. 

Economics still determine college enrollment. Some minorities still, on average, struggle more economically than other groups of people. While we have eliminated a lot of legal discrimination, that hasn't shown a dramatic shift in the economic well being of minorities. 

[Rotobeast]

(06-28-2016, 09:39 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Economics still determine college enrollment. Some minorities still, on average, struggle more economically than other groups of people. While we have eliminated a lot of legal discrimination, that hasn't shown a dramatic shift in the economic well being of minorities. 

And unfortunately, a lot of that is due to peer pressure.
That is where I am totally sad for minority children (mainly African-American).
At an age where they are entering college preparatory education, they are being pressured to be a part of a less than desirable culture.
They are being told not to sell out and to not "act white".
The turmoil they face in these situations has to be one of the biggest burdens I could imagine for a youth.
Have you ever personally experienced/overheard this playing out, Pat ?

[GMDino]

(06-27-2016, 12:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, we haven't had a whole lot of discussion about this stuff around these parts.

President Obama's actions on immigration were halted.

The use of race in college admissions was upheld.

Texas's laws on abortion clinics were invalidated.

Former Gov. McDonnell's conviction was thrown out, requiring a retrial, and they made it more difficult to prosecute bribery cases for public officials.

There were a few more as well, obviously, but I just wanted to bring this up and see if anyone else has been paying attention to this session.

Really only surprised by the McDonnell verdict.

Maybe there really is honor among thieves?  

[BmorePat87]

(06-28-2016, 11:13 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: And unfortunately, a lot of that is due to peer pressure.
That is where I am totally sad for minority children (mainly African-American).
At an age where they are entering college preparatory education, they are being pressured to be a part of a less than desirable culture.
They are being told not to sell out and to not "act white".
The turmoil they face in these situations has to be one of the biggest burdens I could imagine for a youth.
Have you ever personally experienced/overheard this playing out, Pat ?

No, the students I have of color who struggle are struggling due to a lack of support at home, deficits in skills/knowledge that have built up over the years, and a general apathetic attitude towards education. Things you see with populations living in poverty.

Being told that doing well in school is "acting white" isn't anything I have ever seen and trying to live on the streets isn't a goal of most of these kids. 

[Rotobeast]

(06-28-2016, 12:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, the students I have of color who struggle are struggling due to a lack of support at home, deficits in skills/knowledge that have built up over the years, and a general apathetic attitude towards education. Things you see with populations living in poverty.

Being told that doing well in school is "acting white" isn't anything I have ever seen and trying to live on the streets isn't a goal of most of these kids. 

Thank God !
This was something that a friend of mine from Detroit had told me about.
He immigrated from Nigeria and got a lot of flack.
I suppose it could have been more about being an immigrant.

[*bfine32*]

I can tell you that allowing public universities to select a person of color over a more qualified white person, simply because of the color of their skin is racists. There will become a point when we no longer enable those of color to be considered a victim; however, this movement is still a ways off.

I can tell you there are numerous opportunities (unfair and fair) that allow people of color to obtain a college education and about the only thing that is required id desire. It is the same thing that is required of any youth wanting to advance.

WTS, John Roberts is one of the more (most) open-minded Justices in the Court and he voted that this discrimination should be allowed and in the larger scheme it probably impacts very few.

[GMDino]

(06-28-2016, 01:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I can tell you that allowing public universities to select a person of color over a more qualified white person, simply because of the color of their skin is racists. There will become a point when we no longer enable those of color to be considered a victim; however, this movement is still a ways off.

I can tell you there are numerous opportunities (unfair and fair) that allow people of color to obtain a college education and about the only thing that is required id desire. It is the same thing that is required of any youth wanting to advance.

WTS, John Roberts is one of the more (most) open-minded Justices in the Court and he voted that this discrimination should be allowed and in the larger scheme it probably impacts very few.

Racist?  Or discriminatory?

I think using just grades is just as discriminatory.

I knew many kids who got so-so grades that excelled once they could focus on their major.

Many smart kids can't take tests well.  One of my best friends in high school scored 100's of points below me on the SAT's and I never took a course to prepare for them and almost slept in the day of the test.  But he is MUCH smarter than me to this day.  So if schools just looked at test results and nothing else it would discriminating against those who can do well in all other aspects of education.

If schools want to give those who are on the outside looking in a chance based on their race so be it.  If they are deliberately no allowing others in just to let those people in that would be more wrong in my book.

[Bengalzona]

(06-28-2016, 09:39 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Economics still determine college enrollment. Some minorities still, on average, struggle more economically than other groups of people. While we have eliminated a lot of legal discrimination, that hasn't shown a dramatic shift in the economic well being of minorities. 

And that is sort of my point. With quotas, we tell black, Hispanic, etc. students that they are different and require 'special assistance' because of their race, ethnicity, etc., when the root problem is (and always has been) economics. We segregate them in the admission process by saying essentially, "We have studies that show that you people struggle more economically." It is another way of telling people that "segregation is good as long as it works in your favor".  And we justify this by saying, "It's okay. We have statistics to prove that you people struggle more."

Maybe we just ought to say, "Quota systems, regardless of how we couch them in terminology, are just our way of making reparations to your race, religion, sex, ethnicity, etc. for past wrongs. We just don't want to admit that they are reparations."

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(06-27-2016, 12:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, we haven't had a whole lot of discussion about this stuff around these parts.

President Obama's actions on immigration were halted.

The use of race in college admissions was upheld.

Texas's laws on abortion clinics were invalidated.

Former Gov. McDonnell's conviction was thrown out, requiring a retrial, and they made it more difficult to prosecute bribery cases for public officials.

There were a few more as well, obviously, but I just wanted to bring this up and see if anyone else has been paying attention to this session.

I have paid attention to these as well.   Happy about the abortion ruling, and not happy about the immigration ruling.  I understand the affirmative action ruling, but also think maybe it's time has passed, personally I don't like the idea of basing any decision on race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.  However I understand this is a reality that we will unlikely escape anytime soon. 
I honestly don't know enough about the McDonnell's case to agree or disagree with the decision.  But I don't like the of holding public officials less accountable.

[BmorePat87]

(06-28-2016, 01:38 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: And that is sort of my point. With quotas, we tell black, Hispanic, etc. students that they are different and require 'special assistance' because of their race, ethnicity, etc., when the root problem is (and always has been) economics. We segregate them in the admission process by saying essentially, "We have studies that show that you people struggle more economically." It is another way of telling people that "segregation is good as long as it works in your favor".  And we justify this by saying, "It's okay. We have statistics to prove that you people struggle more."

Maybe we just ought to say, "Quota systems, regardless of how we couch them in terminology, are just our way of making reparations to your race, religion, sex, ethnicity, etc. for past wrongs. We just don't want to admit that they are reparations."

As far as I know, quotas are illegal. 

Would I be incorrect in thinking you'd agree with me if I said I would be okay with seeing preference given to low economic status but not race/ethnicity?