If you don't understand what I mean there's probably not much I can do to help you.
Affirmative Action Struck Down By SCOTUS
- Thread starter MrFedEx
- Start date
If you don't understand what I mean there's probably not much I can do to help you.
RetiredDriver
Retired
I’m sorry, young man, but the supreme court is not bound by any ethics code. Every other judge in the country is but not the Supreme Court.
While there is an ethics code for lower level federal judges there is none for SCOTUS. I think there soon will be one.
Let's see what they have to say now that this got out. If they are so stringent in their demands that loans be paid back they why haven't they lived by their own rules?
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
Have you scheduled you weekly anal-craniotomy?
Couple of interesting events. Gorsuch who today wrote the majority opinion on Creative LLC vs.. Elenis Eight years ago wrote the majority opinion Obergefell vs. Hodges which upheld the Civil Rights Act which banned discrimination against LGBTQ individuals and paved the way toward gay marriage. So which way is it Neil?
As for Thomas he stated publicly his desire to revisit Loving vs. Virginia which struck down the ban on interracial marriages. And he's married to a white woman. So how would he vote if Loving vs Virginia was revisited?
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
Is it in the college/university's best interest to forego the prospect of endowments from alumni whose children have been admitted?
Which of us are you referring to?
Not familiar. When did he say that?
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
The one on the government dole.
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
Well, my point was to refute bacha's post, so I assumed the reader would know I meant him.
This is probably what he's talking about. Thomas wants to revisit 14th amendment due process cases but didn't include Loving v Virginia in his concurring opinion wish list last year.
Obergefell, the plaintiff in the SCOTUS same-sex marriage ruling, said it's 'quite telling' Clarence Thomas omitted the case that legalized interracial marriage after saying the courts should go after other right to privacy cases
Following the SCOTUS ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, Thomas said the court should consider rulings on same-sex marriage but not interracial relationships.
www.businessinsider.com
"In a concurring opinion following the ruling, Thomas wrote that "we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."
These cases protect the right to contraceptive access, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage, respectively.
Loving v. Virginia, which protects the right to interracial marriage and also concerns the due process clause of the 14th amendment, was not a part of Thomas' list."
newolddude
Well-Known Member
Very clever trolling going on there.
Since his desire to revisit due process decisions based on the 14th it opens the door and is not limited to only the cases he publicly mentioned and Loving is among those cases based on the 14th. He's just one vote among 6 conservative judges who could vote to expand the revisit . Does anyone believe that he simply forgot about Loving or was he simply cherry picking the cases he wants to overturn?This is probably what he's talking about. Thomas wants to revisit 14th amendment due process cases but didn't include Loving v Virginia in his concurring opinion wish list last year.
Obergefell, the plaintiff in the SCOTUS same-sex marriage ruling, said it's 'quite telling' Clarence Thomas omitted the case that legalized interracial marriage after saying the courts should go after other right to privacy cases
Following the SCOTUS ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, Thomas said the court should consider rulings on same-sex marriage but not interracial relationships.
"In a concurring opinion following the ruling, Thomas wrote that "we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."
These cases protect the right to contraceptive access, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage, respectively.
Loving v. Virginia, which protects the right to interracial marriage and also concerns the due process clause of the 14th amendment, was not a part of Thomas' list."
I wonder why? Given that there's currently a very conservative 6 vote majority I wonder how Thomas would vote if the court decides to revisit Loving? Did he simply forget that Loving is part of the due process/14 Amendment rulings or is he cherry picking those parts he wants to overturn including those that would not affect him personally?This is probably what he's talking about. Thomas wants to revisit 14th amendment due process cases but didn't include Loving v Virginia in his concurring opinion wish list last year.
Obergefell, the plaintiff in the SCOTUS same-sex marriage ruling, said it's 'quite telling' Clarence Thomas omitted the case that legalized interracial marriage after saying the courts should go after other right to privacy cases
Following the SCOTUS ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, Thomas said the court should consider rulings on same-sex marriage but not interracial relationships.
"In a concurring opinion following the ruling, Thomas wrote that "we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."
These cases protect the right to contraceptive access, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage, respectively.
Loving v. Virginia, which protects the right to interracial marriage and also concerns the due process clause of the 14th amendment, was not a part of Thomas' list."
sailfish
Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
Graduated HS with a 4.125 GPA and was admitted to Carnegie Mellon University where I ultimately quit only because it was too expensive.
Now that that disclaimer is out of the way since apparently muh education is what qualifies me the privilege of having an opinion on this or not, I will say this:
Affirmative action, quotas, legacy, and nepotism admissions are and always have been bull
and this ruling is a step in the right direction.
Now that that disclaimer is out of the way since apparently muh education is what qualifies me the privilege of having an opinion on this or not, I will say this:
Affirmative action, quotas, legacy, and nepotism admissions are and always have been bull
and this ruling is a step in the right direction.RetiredDriver
Retired
Clever and Trump do not go in the same sentence
