The legal basis was always a little shaky. The majority opinion actually coyly cites Pelosi stating that actual cancellation would require an act of Congress. The standing issue seems pretty severe and will likely have some messy ramifications going forward.
The (very) sight silver lining is that this is itself deflationary, not that that's much solace.
The legal standing was not as shaky as news media keeps telling people. The Secretary of Education has the right to modify or waive loans. Roberts acknowledged this right, but claimed that partial loan forgiveness is neither of these things, when it's kind of both.
I think this quote sums up how batshit this scotus is via David S. Bernstein:
A little weird tho that a private business CAN choose to DENY a customer because he/she is a member of a protected class, but a private university CANNOT choose to ACCEPT a customer because he/she is a member of a protected class.
I think the most interesting portion of this article shows how nonreligious are a key portion of the democratic base but how little politicians target them. Its a very interesting since it shows both the diversity of those who are nonreligious in both demographics and opinions.
Religion has always been used as a sales tactic in politics. All you have to do is say "I'm a devote Christian" and you've got an instant base. Politicians have been preying on this for decades. The problem with non-religious people is that you have no instant base with them. You are judged by your actions and your record, rather than your affiliation with some belief system. That is much harder. Politicians go after the low hanging fruit, always. If they want to target the non-religious demographic they're going to have to actually work for it. I'm not holding my breath.
equally important, they don't even have to persuade the masses. many religious folk will vote for candidate because their preacher tells them to. while it's far from every religious person, there's a very large group of religious people who will do just about anything because a guy in a suit told them god said to.
Including voting for trump. a few years ago, i was visiting my grandmother for the 4th- in Missouri, and ended up walking out of the sanctuary when they started the advertisements during the offering. Specifically advertising local businesses that were congregants (who also made a nice donation...) and politicians (who also made a nice donation...) but ran an advertisent saying trump was the only godly choice.
now, I'm an atheist, so far be it from me to tell someone they're ungodly...but I grew up in the church and... what we no publicly of him... he's as far from godly as you can get. One of the deacons walked out- mostly polite old man, at least until I wouldn't just accept assertions- to talk with me.
I said I find hard to believe that a christian church would call Trump godly. he blinked a bit and asked what I meant. I think I started with how his immigration policy was predicated on hurting people so they wouldn't come here, and how christ himself was a refugee. Then moved on to how his politics hurts the poor and destitute, while protecting and further-enriching the rich; despite christ being very opposed to the rich, and very much in support of the poor. then I mentioned the whole stormy daniels thing, and that he's had numerous affairs, and that he's a known misogynist... and just went on from there... it was very bullet-point format.
They had no real answer for it. except they did expect me to accept their assertions he was still godly all the same, and the democrats were worse. (he was, in point of fact, foaming at the mouth. might have just needed a glass of water, though.)
The point to that, however, is that there's a lot of people that will listen to preachers/religious leaders. Even if that leader really doesn't deserve it
Maybe. I might be convinced to vote in a democratic primary for the person who said, "I'm an atheist and I'm here to take our government back from the cults."
Though, I suppose I'm bolstering your point given my own hedging words.
If you are considering race as part of a college admissions, then you are NECESSARILY racist. You’re not picking the best applicants, you’re picking the best applications of a race mix you want.
Now, I’ll be the first to say that certain minorities are under-represented in colleges. But that’s not necessarily the fault of the admissions process. If the admissions process truly is race-blind, as it should be, then we should be asking why fewer people of whatever race are showing up as competitive candidates. And that brings us to the REAL problems- that a lot of minority applicants come from poor neighborhoods with bad primary education, crap high schools full of gangs and drugs, and few resources like books and computers and other opportunities to excel. And THAT is the problem we should be fixing.
I think that's basically the argument that just puts blinders on and assumes everything is perfect and why pretend otherwise. A comment I've read that I think has some merit is that they didn't put an end to legacy admissions, bias for donors, employee families, and other special recommendations. These are all systems that favor class and are predominantly white. So why did the justices pretend that admissions are all based around merit and achievement when they are not?
If more were being done about the systemic causes, then I think there would be less frustration with this decision. Since we clearly have quite a long way to go on the systemic issues, this ruling is pretty naive in my view.
Oh good, they finally legally mandated color blindness. Historic and pervasive systemic racism is solved once and for all thanks to the Supreme Court issuing an edict that it shouldn't exist. Huzzah!
They should legally mandate the nonexistence of poverty next. They can solve all the problems America has in a few weeks this way.
Clarence Thomas is one of the more startling examples of the "fuck you, I got mine" generation. How do you go from being in the black panthers to this?
I love this, as soon as the black guy makes an opinion that differs from what you liberals agree he's suddenly not a good black dude, what a bunch of hypocrites
If you intentionally choose to completely misinterpret and misrepresent things then fuck off buddy, on the other hand if you truly can't see then I feel sorry for you friend...
Training and prepping. Historically, there's only been one way to stop fascist conservatism, and it's not something we are allowed to talk openly about until we're doing it.
Did the 6th of January insurrectionists do the right thing, given they believed they were fighting against an authoritarian government? Or should they have accepted the result of the democratic process even though they disagreed with it?
Correct. Misleading wording like this is how they manage to trick ignorant people into supporting hateful laws like this one - assuming they're not supporting these laws precisely because they're hateful.
The LGBTQ+ community (including drag queens) absolutely and unequivocally does NOT support pedophilia in any form. This includes exposing children to pornographic material. That's fucking canon and you can quote me on that shit.
There’s some videos floating around of drag shows with sensual dancing with children present. I’m not saying all Drag presentations are like this, but maybe the law should’ve been more specific to these kinds of situations.
Her breasts are tremendous. What could be the issue here? So I had sex with my daughter? I don't see a problem in this free country. #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
For actually real, it's always ^ex- , EVERY. SINGLE. TIME someone speaks up about whatever shit was going on it is ^ex- this ex-staffer can get fucked just as much as agent orange himself
OK? You can just call attention to the migrant boat tragedy without making everyone feel bad for finding this story weirdly compelling.
Statements like these always somehow act like an entire group of people all took a vote and decided to focus on one thing over another. I don’t have control over what other people think is interesting, so what is he trying to tell me, personally?
I believe the point here is that a lot of media attention was directed to the titanic story with a lot of discussion how to rescue the victims. All while in the last couple of years there have been multiple cases of ships with refugees drowning in the Mediterranean Sea with next to no media coverage.
Millionaires doing wacky shit just seems to be way more interesting then refugees drowning.
Politics
Hot