KillingtonZone.com

So the Supreme Court in a surprise move upheld the voting rights law and affirmed a lower court decision striking down Republican gerrymandered districts in Alabama. Judge Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the liberal majority.

A bright spot on this Court is that Kavanaugh is showing signs of being a moderate conservative instead of a far-right conservative. Roberts has always been a bit more moderate. Not like Sandra day O'Connor moderate, but far from Clarence Thomas conservative.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna64476

Another bright spot - SCOTUS upholds the Indian Child Welfare Act. Shame on the Texas Attorney General (Republican) for wasting taxpayer dollars on this litigation.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-suprem ... 023-06-15/

The only dissents on this 7-2 decision were of course Thomas and Alito, who are both cementing their positions as the far-right radicals on the Supreme Court.

Oh good. Another corrupt republican justice.

Alito took bribes in the form of private jet flights and luxury fishing trips from a billionaire hedge fund manager who had cases before the court.

The fact that there is no oversight on these people is appalling.

Alito was apparently so stung by these charges that he wrote an op-ed published in WSJ today:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica ... opin_pos_6

In sum, he doesn't really deny the reported facts, and admitted that he went on the trip, that it was paid for by this billionaire, and that the billionaire has connections to political issues that came before the court. Instead, he argues that he was not aware of the billionaire's connections, disclosure of this trip was not required by the rules, recusal was not required in these circumstances, and that he isn't really all that close with this person. All in all, I didn't find it terribly convincing.

Here is the original ProPublica story that made the allegations:
https://www.propublica.org/article/samu ... reme-court

SCOTUS declines another GOP bid to unfairly tilt elections in their favor - In Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court rejected the Independent State Legislature theory that would have allowed state legislatures unchecked power over elections.

Guess who the dissents were? Yep, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, the radical right bunch.

Decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 1_3f14.pdf


By the way, this case was appealed from the North Carolina Supreme Court, which happens to have a strong Republican majority. It was that court that found this was a partisan gerrymander, so there's not much question about what the GOP was trying to do, here.

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Jun 28th, '23, 06:58 SCOTUS declines another GOP bid to unfairly tilt elections in their favor - In Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court rejected the Independent State Legislature theory that would have allowed state legislatures unchecked power over elections.

Guess who the dissents were? Yep, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, the radical right bunch.

Decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 1_3f14.pdf


By the way, this case was appealed from the North Carolina Supreme Court, which happens to have a strong Republican majority. It was that court that found this was a partisan gerrymander, so there's not much question about what the GOP was trying to do, here.

I was under the impression that the original state Supreme Court decision was made by a more balanced court with the state legislature then appealing that decision to SCOTUS. The state court then became far more Republican and they reversed the first decision. The SCOTUS dissenters dissented on procedural grounds as a result of the reversal, not on the actual merits of the issue.

Sorry, you're right - the procedural history here is particularly convoluted. The original North Carolina Supreme Court decision was a 4-3 decision in 2022 where the 4 judges on the majority were all democrats. Apparently North Carolina Supreme Court judges are elected, and two Republicans got elected in 2023 that flipped the majority. There was subsequent litigation at both the trial and North Carolina Supreme Court, and the legislature changed the districting and made concessions. It bounced back and forth a couple of times before the North Carolina Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims with prejudice.

The dissent was based on the theory that the case was moot, but the majority disagreed with that, claiming there was still a live issue to be decided in the original appeal (whether the 2021 districting maps could be enjoined by the state Supreme Court).

After thinking about it a bit, I think the majority was clearly correct, because if SCOTUS decided the independent state legislature theory was valid, the legislature could have gone back to the 2021 districting maps and ignored all the subsequent litigation and decisions. It only looks like it's moot because SCOTUS agreed with the original North Carolina Supreme Court decision on that issue.

So I think what you're seeing in that dissent is a group of radical conservatives who wanted to keep independent state legislature theory alive. This also may have implications for the Trump election tampering case. If the independent state legislature theory were valid, it might be possible to claim that the legislature had every right to recall electors and substitute a new slate of them, and thus Trump's attempts to influence them to do so was not illegal or criminal.

So the Supreme Court voted 6-3 along party lines to end racial preferences in college admissions. This time, the opinion was written by Roberts, who took great pains to explain how the opinion of the court isn't breaking with precedent.

The controlling precedent, Grutter v. Bollinger, was a 2003 case that held that race could be considered as a factor in school admissions to correct to effects of discrimination in the past, but that such considerations should be strictly reviewed by the courts. The decision also said that one day the practice must end once the damage from the past has been abated (the decision itself said it would expect that within 25 years it would no longer be necessary).

Roberts' opinion argues that the admissions programs at issue do not meet the standards set out under the Grutter precedent because they result in using race as a stereotype or a "negative" and have no end point in sight. The decision says that since college admissions are zero-sum, any preference given to one race results in a negative to any other race. This reasoning is a little problematic, though, because Grutter never uses the term "negative" and in fact specifically says that using racial preference as a "plus" (as opposed to a quota system) is permissible.

I live in a suburb of Boston that is overwhelmingly white and wealthy. One mile down the road from me is a borough of Boston that is one of its poorest, and is overwhelmingly populated by minorities. Looking at this, and a lot of other things, I find it hard to agree with the Court that now is the appropriate time to end race as a factor in college admissions.

Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_hgdj.pdf

I don't think the color of your skin should be a determining factor in anything. Why should a more qualified student get admitted over a less qualified student because of their skin color? That is the definition of discrimination. I applaud the courts decision. There are poor people in every race. There are rich people in every race. Race shouldn't get you anything, poor white kids are at the same disadvantage getting into college as poor Hispanic kids.

It's a good point. The schools might be better served by giving preference to those of lower socio-economic class rather than certain races. The end result would probably be the same.

That's certainly better than it being race based.

So today's decisions I'm 1 for 2 on. I 100% agree with the student loan forgiveness decision but I can not get behind the free speech/lbgtq decision.

daytripper wrote: ↑Jun 29th, '23, 12:03 I don't think the color of your skin should be a determining factor in anything.

Spoken by someone who apparently has never experienced a disadvantage due to race, gender or sexual orientation.

Coydog wrote: ↑Jun 30th, '23, 14:09

daytripper wrote: ↑Jun 29th, '23, 12:03 I don't think the color of your skin should be a determining factor in anything.

Spoken by someone who apparently has never experienced a disadvantage due to race, gender or sexual orientation.

You don't know me or what I've been thru.