Recent Supreme Court Rulings
 

There were three pretty big cases that were ruled on recently and I wanted to get everyone's thoughts on them.

One of them covered a case about a young white woman that was upset that she didn't get into UT in Austin. She didn't have the grad requirements to get in in the first place but she claims that affirmative action was used against her to hold her back from getting in.

Q&A: Supreme Court's affirmative action case | Politics | The Seattle Times

Tomorrow, they will decide on the gay marriage case.
They will ultimately decide the fate of California's Proposition 8 and a 1996 federal ban on benefits for same-sex couples.

U.S. Supreme Court to decide gay marriage cases Wednesday - San Jose Mercury News

This one confuses me a bit. They struck down a part of the voting rights act of 1965 in 9 southern states. I hear that if they start requiring tests for black people in the south to vote then they can still be sued and have a case brought up against them. I guess the point may be that black people can't afford to lawyer up and sue. I know most of those southern states will enact the Voter ID laws to further disenfranchise blacks in the south but those states are always won by republicans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us...ling.html?_r=0


There was also a custody case over a little girl that was taken from her adoptive parents by her birth father and he was trying to use an old ruling on the book that says that Native Americans can't be separated from their children but the court struck that down in the best interests of the child. So the little girl will go back to the adoptive parents.

Those are all very interesting indeed, Deej. As I cannot be bothered to keep up with US politics (enough shit going on here in the Middle East/Europe as it is), I appreciate the informative update.

That native American girl one is especially interesting. How old was she?

I believe she is 3 or 4.

Here is an article about that case.

Baby Veronica ruling: Supreme Court rules Native American girl does NOT have to go back to biological father | Mail Online

I seriously disagree with affirmative action too, by the way. In high school, two students in my biology class applied to Boston College with basically the same credentials -- both overachievers, class rank 7th and 8th, extra-curricular activities, and work experience, etc -- and the 1st-generation America dude (parents moved to Maine from Albania) got accepted over the fourth-generation girl. We all knew why.

You know how many opportunities that the 4th generation girl is already entitled to just because she's white in her life overall? I'm sure her not getting accepted one time in her life isn't going to kill her when she can get into so many other places. Unless you believe that white privilege isn't a thing.

Also in the case above the girl couldn't even get in on her own grades when UT usually lets in so many people.

I mean, the guy was also caucasian. Albanian doesn't mean black...or brown...or any other color...

He was born in America and looks/acts/behaves like any "white guy" I've ever met. The point is he could use his ethnicity and family as an added point to get him in. I believe she deserved it more, just knowing the two personally.

You believe she deserved it more but they both had pretty much the same credentials?

Personally, he was an ******* and a binge drinker. I don't know why you're trying to spin what I'm saying; on paper, they were the same. If he wasn't also Albanian, and affirmative action-like policies weren't in place, I bet they would have at least called her for an interview and subsequently accepted her as well as or instead of him.

One misuse of the policy and you want the whole thing to be done away with and don't see any importance in having it?

I'm not trying to spin anything. I was just curious why you felt she deserved it more than he did and you told me because he was an ******* in your eyes.

I mean that was the premise of my whole example -- the policy exists, and people who may not have otherwise gotten in to a school are preferred simply based on their backgrounds, which has nothing to do with their character. The plan assumes that certain people get extra points for something beyond their control. It's a different kind of discrimination that I don't think should exist in America. Everyone is fighting to get into schools, there are equally disadvantaged people from every background in the country, and they all deserve a fair shot at going to the college of their choice.

And everyone, and I mean everyone who knew that guy blamed affirmative action for his acceptance. It was obvious, and even one of the teachers brought up affirmative action in class after. The guy proceeded to be a dick by bragging about how all he needed to do was "be a foreigner" and the schools were begging him to come there on full scholarships. Complete jerk.

But hey, even I got in to my college on a sort of affirmative-action policy for being from an "underrepresented state." I think those kinds of rules are just not fair.

One thing that stuck in my head from my Econ teacher in high school is that "Life isn't fair and when you remove the word from your vocab then you'll understand"

Also, if their backgrounds were the same they would still have gotten in but the reason the policy actually exists is to help give ethnic groups that under represented at different schools a chance to succeed. It's also secondary to their academic achievements. If they were the majority's race they would have gotten in but since they aren't without affirmative action in place they would be overlooked.

Could be, but then you're assuming that the schools they are applying to are inherently racist. Who would want to go to a racist school, anyway? ;)

Under represented doesn't not equal racist :rofl:



It looks like the Supreme Court has an axe to grind against minorities with the results of these rulings lately.

Here is another case dealing with racial discrimination and sexual harassment at work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/bu...nted=all&_r=1&

Dude don't get me started in regard to that new link. I worked with a guy (Steve) who had our whole bakery/café sued because my boss jokingly wrote "steve is gay" on a cupcake and gave it to him.

That guy a) could not take a joke b) was not gay c) was trying to get money and d) had used "fag" to describe my boss multiple times. He also still works there.

The definition of "sexual harassment" is so loose that I agree something has to be done about that, too.

The sexual harassment they are describing in that link is more about placing a heavy burden of proof on the plaintiff against the employer for ignoring unprofessional behavior going on between two employees but in your situation. Your boss was being unprofessional and it doesn't matter that he was joking or that the guy says fag all the time. Your co-worker should have been reprimanded for constantly using slurs in the workplace like that but your employer let it slide so too bad.

Heh, heh. I guess they both probably crossed the line, but I still believe it's something small enough to be handled without people suing each other. I mean, in that workplace, we were all madly guilty of so-called sexual harassment. So what's to be done, fire the lot of us and close the place down? :) Teenagers + college-aged supervisors = definitely non-kosher activity going on.

No, I'm not saying that.

When I heard about the ruling , I mostly thought about how hard it will be for females in general to prove the shady sexual harassment going on at their workplaces and how it's a step back for women's rights.

I hope that doesn't happen. :(

Update on the Prop 8 appeal and the benefits for same sex couples

The Supreme Court struck down part of DOMA and dismisses the appeal.
So same sex marriages in California can now continue to happen.
Supreme Court strikes down part of DOMA, dismisses Prop. 8 appeal – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

Voter ID laws were not enacted to disenfranchise any particular group. They were enacted to help ensure that only people who are legally allowed to vote are the ones doing the voting.

Regarding the underlined, hoorah for conspiratorial nonsense.

This Jezebel post says pretty much what I feel about that affirmative action case.
The plaintiff here, went on to a great school and landed a great job even though she didn't get into her "dream" school. Yeah, **** happens. She did not meet the automatic grad requirements, but neither did the about 50 others that applied with her. Her grades were better, but UT takes a lot of different things into account: test scores, community service, etc. And only, if my memory serves me correctly here, only 4-5 out of the other 50 were not white. But for some reason Texas pushed this on up...Anyway, I like the point made in the following article:
An Open Letter to Affirmative Action Reject Abigail Fisher

Oh yeah, and I'm super pumped about the court's decision on DOMA and prop 8. 37 states to go!

Of course, they weren't enacted to do that but that's exactly what happens. Minorities especially in the South that ARE eligible to vote but don't have a government issued photo ID for one reason or another is the main issue. It's not even a small percentage of minorities. Republicans love those laws because they target democratic voters and those voters are turned away for not having proper identification at the polls. The whole what if scenario with the tests was just an example I over heard on a news program. I won't say which because I was at the gym watching it and didn't bother to have the channel changed.

I can't make heads or tails of this - you're upset that people who can't provide a government issued photo id can't vote?

It's not just the fact that they can't provide it but the fact that they still pay taxes and possibly can't afford to order a birth certificate to get a photo ID or they are elderly and haven't needed to obtain a photo ID but used to be able to vote and now they can't.

So the answer is to just leave the gates wide open for fraud?
I think the smarter answer is to use some of those tax dollars the government wastes on useless programs and government waste/abuse to allow those groups you're talking about to obtain the necessary identification so they can vote legally, while simultaneously preventing fraud.

It astounds me how this is always argued from a single position. Would better management of our tax dollars be beneficial? Yes. Could we then address the problems you're talking about without simply saying "If you can breathe, you can vote"? Of course.
Why that's not on the table first and foremost is disgusting. And I'm not making any allegations, but it seems reasonable to me that the left stands to lose a few votes if we're required to prove we're citizens. Just like the right would gain a few if actual citizens couldn't afford to prove it. Which is why you make a few sacrifices and meet in the middle.

The states that easily win by a large landslide and go to the Republican party seem to be the main culprits that push so hard for Voter ID laws. I'm not saying open the flood gates completely but there has to be a half way point as you suggest. It should be acceptable bring in say a paystub with your name on it showing you pay taxes, whatever id you have and a bill from your residence. There are people there when you vote to check on things like that to help prevent fraud if need be.

How on earth can you be too poor to afford a birth certificate and simultaneously pay taxes of any meaning? Are you forgetting half the people in this country don't even owe federal taxes?



Oh great, more conspiratorial nonsense about how preventing voter fraud is really some super-duper-complicated plot by Republicans to prevent "minorities" (whatever that means) from voting.

Great, great. Let us sit back and ask ourselves why Leftists are so eager to make the ID requirements for voting so minimal that it'd allow tens of millions of illegals to participate. FFS....

I'm not saying one side has more to gain or lose than the other, and it shouldn't even be about that. I'm saying that regardless of who would gain, voting is a right afforded to citizens. When you can't verify that, it's simply a right afforded to whoever, left or right, which doesn't do much for the integrity of our system.

As for it being acceptable to bring in a paystub showing you pay taxes... how is that going to help people that don't work at all and are on disability or welfare, or whose only source of income is SSI? They don't pay anything but sales tax. Do you expect them to bring in receipts for a year's worth of purchases? An illegal could do that too.
I realize that these people are likely to be citizens, but it's not helping them to need paystubs or tax forms. And it's not providing further security against fraud to also include "some form of ID" along with a bill, since undocumented individuals DO live in the country, and they are paying bills SOMEHOW. (Cash maybe?)

If we were to actually implement your solution, we'd have to disregard the tax part based on the whole concept alone. Then we'd be left with the other parts that defeat the whole purpose of your ill-conceived plan to prevent fraud while making it easier for the disenfranchised to vote.

And still, you've not even considered the idea that maybe we can require proper ID, and simply spend some of our government-abused tax dollars for getting this identification to individuals that cannot afford it with just their welfare checks alone?

I don't see how this is so inconceivable.

They may not owe federal taxes at the end of the year but they still have it coming out of their paycheck every week.

It's not inconceivable but it's way too logical for the government to enact. It makes too much sense.

What word "Life" or "fair?" If I never speak of "life/fair" how would I understand life is unfair? Either way I don't see how it works that you will all of a sudden metaphysical understanding of life if you censor yourself, and remove the word "life" or "fair" from your vocabulary.

I thought if a person stop pointing fingers at persons, and groups of people and say they have it oh so easy, and just listen to people (tell their story) they would understand life is unfair because everyone has it hard.

"Fair", it was an anecdotal story that he tells his son whenever he whines about something not being fair. He tells him to take the word fair out of his vocabulary because life isn't fair. I paraphrased it incorrectly. I don't think he said anything about understanding.

Since the Court's decision to gut the Voting Rights Act yesterday, North Carolina, Alabama, Texas, South Carolina and Mississippi--all previously covered districts--have already initiated plans to enact discriminatory Voter ID laws.

Say whatever you want HHBH but there are still people in southern communities that were born @ home due rural and/or racist circumstances. Birth records are not available. Expand your thinking outside of one experience. Those states that were so quick to enact the Voter ID laws that were found unconstitutional are imposing many obstacles to securing IDs as well. This ruling has many negative implications.

Who the **** was born at home recently due to "racist circumstances" and what the **** does that even mean? Seriously, and you - the guy who lives in New York - is trying to tell me about "rural" circumstances causing kids to be born at home (and this somehow causing birth certificates impossible to get? What?). Guy, I live in Montana and was born in South Dakota and I never in my life met someone who born at home.

Its a bull**** tactic that's going to lead to repressing people from voting. You know, its the same reason you hate Obamacare. No problem with medicine, you just "know the government is corrupt."

Yes, because only your experiences in life is what matters. I'm talking about people in rural southern areas where these Voter ID laws are being set up. Also believe it or not New York is a big fucking state and has tons of rural areas/farms.

Well, your first point is just using the slippery slope argument, which is nonsense. The only people this is "repressing" is those without the proper identification. Oh lordy, what a terrible crime.

Then kindly elaborate as to why "rural circumstances" are leading to people being born at home, because, as someone who has spent his life in rural circumstances, I find this mind boggling.

You may have no experienced it but these accounts mostly pertain to elderly voters from the South before you were born that were either born at home for lack of transportation or some sort racial circumstance. It's not easy for people like that to get a hold of their birth certificate. The price to get an ID might not be much but the other documents associated with getting one are more costly. If the person lost their naturalization certificate? That'll be $345. If they don't have a birth certificate because they are black and were born in the segregated south? They have to go to court.

"Also Republican officials are making it harder to even get your ID in the first place. For example, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, signed a strict voter ID law and then made a move to start closing DMV offices in areas full of Democrats, while increasing office hours in areas full of Republicans—this in a state in which half of blacks and Hispanics are estimated to lack a driver's license and a quarter of its DMV offices are open less than one day per month. (Sauk City's is open a whopping four times a year.) Somehow I doubt that this is primarily about saving money."

It may only be around 11% of people that are eligible to vote that won't be able to because they don't have proper ID but the people that fit into that group are poor minorities, elderly people and the disabled that would vote Democratic and that's the only reason that Republicans push so hard for these Voter ID laws. Voter Fraud is rare and much of the problems associated with alleged fraud in elections relates to unintentional mistakes by voters or election administrators.

You do realize that your whole hypothesis is a conspiracy theory, right? You sound just as nutty as those goons clambering about "9/11 wuz an inside jobs".

I think it was designed to block the black vote - the problem is the House of Reps. is about to drop the ball on Immigration and send the Republican party the way of the Federalist/Whig party.

Suppressing the black vote won't matter when its eclipsed by the surging Latino vote.

It's like the immigration reform bill was designed to turn the minority vote into the majority vote.
The right is too stupid to see past their (extremely unlikely) potential for bringing the Latino vote to their side by supporting the bill in its current state. What idiots.