Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Cigar Aficionado
Nov 1, 2004

"Patel"? Fuck you.

Joementum posted:

Quote of the night, "I miss having a shower on an airplane." ~ George W. Bush

If we are lucky enough to last that long as a species, in 100 years people are going to watch footage of W with their jaws on the floor.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012


Lipstick Apathy

Joementum posted:

Bonus quote of the day, "I have no respect for your ancestors. As far as your ancestors are concerned, I shouldn't be a law professor at Georgetown. I should be a slave. That's why they fought that war. I don't understand what it means to be proud of a legacy of terrorism and violence. Last week at this time, I was in Israel. The idea that a German would say, you know, that thing we did called the Holocaust, that was wrong, but I respect the courage of my Nazi ancestors. That wouldn't happen. The reason people can say what you said in the United States, is because, again, black life just doesn't matter to a lot of people." ~ Paul Butler, professor at Georgetown Law School.
I understand where he's coming from, but I think he's overlooking something.

One of the things I've noticed about people is that identity is important to them. "Heritage," a sense of place and meaning is important; basically, people want to be recognized. Regional identity, etc. A lot of conflicts around the world dovetail into these feelings.

The Confederate flag is part of that for a lot of white southerners. A lot of them are just plain racist. But for a lot of others it's just a symbol for who they are, and they feel like people want to take it away from them. (And unlike Germany, which remained a country with a flag and a symbol, there's nothing to replace it. They feel as if the South is going to lose its distinct identity -- something which does matter to a lot of Germans.)

If they had more empathy and put themselves into the shoes of a black person, they might have more understanding as to why. And in any case it's their own drat fault, so I can't say I have much sympathy.

FAUXTON
Jun 2, 2005

spero che tu stia bene

Their issue is that the confederacy updated their flag in 1865:

Proust Malone
Apr 4, 2008

Omi-Polari posted:

The Confederate flag is part of that for a lot of white southerners. A lot of them are just plain racist. But for a lot of others it's just a symbol for who they are, and they feel like people want to take it away from them.

The kicker is that the flag wasn't flown over say, the SC state house until the 60s. It was a direct gently caress you to the civil rights movement and a warning to black people in state to mind their place in society. If "who they are" is centered around white supremacy, then gently caress them.

sugar free jazz
Mar 5, 2008

Omi-Polari posted:

I understand where he's coming from, but I think he's overlooking something.

One of the things I've noticed about people is that identity is important to them. "Heritage," a sense of place and meaning is important; basically, people want to be recognized. Regional identity, etc. A lot of conflicts around the world dovetail into these feelings.

The Confederate flag is part of that for a lot of white southerners. A lot of them are just plain racist. But for a lot of others it's just a symbol for who they are, and they feel like people want to take it away from them. (And unlike Germany, which remained a country with a flag and a symbol, there's nothing to replace it. They feel as if the South is going to lose its distinct identity -- something which does matter to a lot of Germans.)

If they had more empathy and put themselves into the shoes of a black person, they might have more understanding as to why. And in any case it's their own drat fault, so I can't say I have much sympathy.


I understand you aren't defending confederate sympathizers, but I'm not sure what you mean by "a lot of conflicts dovetail into these feelings," it seems ambiguous and pseudo intellectual and wrong to me.


By incorporating a positive idea of confederate history or symbology into their identity they become racist. It's an inherently racist thing to do. Anyone who uses the confederate flag to build their identity in a positive way is just plain racist.


Germany did not remain a country with a flag and a symbol. They lost quite a bit of land, their military was dismantled, they had their power as a country completely destroyed, they were fractured into two separate countries, and they had their Nazi symbology all but completely erased. What exactly do you think happened after World War 2?

baw
Nov 5, 2008

RESIDENT: LAISSEZ FAIR-SNEZHNEVSKY INSTITUTE FOR FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY

zoux posted:

I don't really care either because I think she was trying to be inclusive and by saying all lives matter what she meant was black lives specifically. However, since #alllivesmatter was the obnoxious white people response to #blacklivesmatter it is a massive misstep and one you'd expect a veteran politician like Hillary to avoid.

It'd be like going to a American Jewish rally and referring to waning support for the state of Israel as "the Jewish problem".

It's a dogwhistle strategy to appeal to white voters. Clinton was the first to deploy it when used an event hosted by Jesse Jackson to disparage Sistah Souljah. Jackson said "he was talking to the TV audience. He was not talking to the people who were there." Romney was doing it when he needled the NAACP in 2012. Charles Blow said that "the speech was not designed for the audience in the room, but for those in Republican living rooms." Even Obama would lecture black audiences about "taking responsibility."

Hillary is just continuing the tradition.

ErIog
Jul 11, 2001

:nsacloud:

sugar free jazz posted:

I understand you aren't defending confederate sympathizers, but I'm not sure what you mean by "a lot of conflicts dovetail into these feelings," it seems ambiguous and pseudo intellectual and wrong to me.


By incorporating a positive idea of confederate history or symbology into their identity they become racist. It's an inherently racist thing to do. Anyone who uses the confederate flag to build their identity in a positive way is just plain racist.


Germany did not remain a country with a flag and a symbol. They lost quite a bit of land, their military was dismantled, they had their power as a country completely destroyed, they were fractured into two separate countries, and they had their Nazi symbology all but completely erased. What exactly do you think happened after World War 2?

You're expecting people who have lived in the south their entire lives who have been fed the War of Northern Aggression view of history to magically be educated enough to understand that everything they've been taught about the Civil War for their entire lives is wrong. That's gonna take some education and some time. As a country we are finally having that conversation, and I expect a lot of non-racist southerners to come around on it once it's explained to them that nobody's gonna come take the flag off the wall of their grandfather's den.

These are the ramifications of reconstruction not happening properly. The comparison to Germany can't really be made. What happened in Germany didn't happen in the south after the civil war. So expecting the same results when the history is different just doesn't follow.

As someone that doesn't understand anything about the south it's easy to sit back and say, "well they're all racist and they should know the confederate flag is racist!" but the reality is quite different. Yeah, it would be nice if everyone were educated enough to realize why the confederate flag is patently and undeniably a racist symbol. In reality, that process actually does take time and sometimes people refuse to look at it unless a tragedy accidentally forces it into the conversation.

You can say the same about convincing people not to use the word "retarded" or "human being" or "negro." You can say the same about Zwarte Piet in the Netherlands. People express themselves certain ways for a variety of reasons that don't always mean they're filled with a seething hatred. Some people just really don't understand how the ways they express themselves are hurtful until it's explained to them in a way that's understandable.

ErIog fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Jun 25, 2015

sugar free jazz
Mar 5, 2008

ErIog posted:

You're expecting people who have lived in the south their entire lives who have been fed the War of Northern Aggression view of history to magically be educated enough to understand that everything they've been taught about the Civil War for their entire lives is wrong. That's gonna take some education and some time. As a country we are finally having that conversation, and I expect a lot of non-racist southerners to come around on it once it's explained to them that nobody's gonna come take the flag off the wall of their grandfather's den.

These are the ramifications of reconstruction not happening properly. The comparison to Germany can't really be made. What happened in Germany didn't happen in the south after the civil war. So expecting the same results when the history is different just doesn't follow.

As someone that doesn't understand anything about the south it's easy to sit back and say, "well they're all racist and they should know the confederate flag is racist!" but the reality is quite different. Yeah, it would be nice if everyone were educated enough to realize why the confederate flag is patently and undeniably a racist symbol. In reality, that process actually does take time.

You can say the same about convincing people not to use the word "retarded" or "human being" or "negro." You can say the same about zwarte piet in the Netherlands. People express themselves certain ways for a variety of reasons that don't always mean they're filled with a seething hatred.


What they've been fed is inherently racist. Being a racist usually isn't about seething hatred, and the idea that racism is only seething hatred is somewhat harmful. Hatred isn't necessary to think another group of humans is inferior.

That they don't understand their racism is important and changes the moral equation a bit, but in no way makes them not racist.

ErIog
Jul 11, 2001

:nsacloud:

sugar free jazz posted:

What they've been fed is inherently racist. Being a racist usually isn't about seething hatred, and the idea that racism is only seething hatred is somewhat harmful. Hatred isn't necessary to think another group of humans is inferior.

That they don't understand their racism is important and changes the moral equation a bit, but in no way makes them not racist.

What did you mean by "they become racist" if you didn't mean that they have a hatred for black people?

I'm really not sure what constructive point you're trying to make. Nobody here is trying to say that confederate symbols aren't racist or that they aren't often used by racists.

Edit: I'm aware of what racism is. I wasn't sure what sugar free jazz meant by it, though, because it sounded a lot like the ordinary beating up on southerners in general for being racist that happens pretty often.

ErIog fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Jun 25, 2015

baw
Nov 5, 2008

RESIDENT: LAISSEZ FAIR-SNEZHNEVSKY INSTITUTE FOR FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY

ErIog posted:

What did you mean by "they become racist" if you didn't mean that they have a hatred for black people?

Hatred implies malice, when a lot of modern racists do not feel malice towards black people.

Pirate Radar
Apr 18, 2008

You're not my Ruthie!
You're not my Debbie!
You're not my Sherry!

sugar free jazz posted:

What they've been fed is inherently racist. Being a racist usually isn't about seething hatred, and the idea that racism is only seething hatred is somewhat harmful. Hatred isn't necessary to think another group of humans is inferior.

That they don't understand their racism is important and changes the moral equation a bit, but in no way makes them not racist.

Yes... I don't see where you're disagreeing with him.

fits my needs
Jan 1, 2011

Grimey Drawer

Grouchio posted:

Thanks. I seem to be overreacting stupidly to things alot this week. Must be summer exams. :shepicide:

Is your school autism handler on standby?

Grundulum
Feb 28, 2006

ErIog posted:

You're expecting people who have lived in the south their entire lives who have been fed the War of Northern Aggression view of history to magically be educated enough to understand that everything they've been taught about the Civil War for their entire lives is wrong. That's gonna take some education and some time. As a country we are finally having that conversation, and I expect a lot of non-racist southerners to come around on it once it's explained to them that nobody's gonna come take the flag off the wall of their grandfather's den.

These are the ramifications of reconstruction not happening properly. The comparison to Germany can't really be made. What happened in Germany didn't happen in the south after the civil war. So expecting the same results when the history is different just doesn't follow.

As someone that doesn't understand anything about the south it's easy to sit back and say, "well they're all racist and they should know the confederate flag is racist!" but the reality is quite different. Yeah, it would be nice if everyone were educated enough to realize why the confederate flag is patently and undeniably a racist symbol. In reality, that process actually does take time and sometimes people refuse to look at it unless a tragedy accidentally forces it into the conversation.

You can say the same about convincing people not to use the word "retarded" or "human being" or "negro." You can say the same about Zwarte Piet in the Netherlands. People express themselves certain ways for a variety of reasons that don't always mean they're filled with a seething hatred. Some people just really don't understand how the ways they express themselves are hurtful until it's explained to them in a way that's understandable.

To add to this, both sides claim the intellectual high ground. A friend of mine lamented that I wasn't more well-read on the heritage arguments, and suggested that if I would read those articles (which they promised to send but haven't yet) I would surely come around to their way of thinking.

I can almost see the merits of a death-of-the-author style argument. Even if the origin of the flag is mired in racism, couldn't good-hearted people claim it back? I don't think so myself, but I can see the appeal for those who don't think of themselves as racist but do identify as Southern.

JT Jag
Aug 30, 2009

#1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

baw posted:

Hatred implies malice, when a lot of modern racists do not feel malice towards black people.
I'd argue that the root of racial/religious/etc superiority thought isn't necessarily active malice so much as disrespect. You don't have to shout from the hills that you wanna lynch someone to be a racist, all it requires is to take people of a specific origin or creed for granted.

KomradeX
Oct 29, 2011

Fitzy Fitz posted:

I'd miss the monuments if they were torn down. I love a good monument.

I wonder if anyone's going to complain about Stone Mountain. What would you even do about that? Drape a giant curtain over it?

Dynamite it smooth.

Better option after that carve Sherman's face on the mountain.

richardfun
Aug 10, 2008

Twenty years? It's no wonder I'm so hungry. Do you have anything to eat?

Joementum posted:

I would like to empanel a permanent House Select Committee to investigate whether Trey Gowdy is stoned at the Congressional Womens' Softball Game.




Those are not the eyes of a man who just smoked a joint. Look at the size of those pupils. Our ole' buddy Trey took some xtc or MDMA.

Now I want to go to the Congressional Womens' Softball game...

E: The guy in the orange shirt however...

richardfun fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Jun 25, 2015

Mc Do Well
Aug 2, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

Dilkington posted:

"chattel slavery vs wage slavery"

This has been at the core of my argument - since the goal now should be a public reconciliation with our history. Where have we been? Where are we going?

'You're lucky I give you food and shelter, a robot can do your job!'

esto es malo
Aug 3, 2006

Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

richardfun posted:


E: The guy in the orange shirt however...

Is Mr gowdy himself

richardfun
Aug 10, 2008

Twenty years? It's no wonder I'm so hungry. Do you have anything to eat?

joeburz posted:

Is Mr gowdy himself

Wait, really? I thought he was the guy in the black polo shirt. Who's that then?

Edit: Meanwhile, some news (from yesterday) that might shock the Americans in this thread. While you're debating the existence of anthropogenic climate change, this is what a few judges in my country said yesterday. Apologies if the formatting/paragraphs are a bit off.

quote:

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) _ A Dutch court ordered the government Wednesday to slash greenhouse gas emissions to help fight global warming, a landmark ruling in a case brought by hundreds of concerned citizens that could pave the way for similar legal battles around the world.

Climate activists in a packed courtroom in The Hague erupted into cheers as Presiding Judge Hans Hofhuis told Dutch authorities to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 percent by 2020 from benchmark 1990 levels.

The country currently is on track for a 17-percent reduction and it is not clear how it can achieve the further cut.

Environmentalists hailed the ruling as a victory in efforts to push governments to take more action to tackle global warming against a backdrop of slow-moving international negotiations aimed at forging a global agreement.

"The verdict is a milestone in the history of climate legislation, because it is the first time that a government was ordered to raise its climate ambition by a court," said Wendel Trio, Director of Climate Action Network Europe. "We hope this kind of legal action will be replicated in Europe and around the world."

Greenpeace called the Dutch ruling "a game-changer in the fight against climate change." The Dutch case may have already helped spur environmentalists in other countries into legal action. Activists say a similar case is coming in Belgium and in Norway, a coalition of non-government groups is working on a case challenging their government's licensing of new oil blocks in the Arctic, saying it violates the constitutional obligation to protect the climate.

"This is a great victory. The judge said exactly what we wanted and had the courage and wisdom to say to the government `you have a duty of care toward your citizens,'" said Marjan Minnesma, the director of Urgenda, the non-government group that brought the civil case on behalf of some 900 Dutch citizens.

Minnesma said Urgenda is ready to share details of its case with activists in other countries, saving them time and money in preparing the legal arguments. The ruling came in the same month that Pope Francis released a massive encyclical on the environment urging nations to quickly overhaul their economies to cut emissions and save the Earth. France will also host a key U.N. conference later this year in Paris where it's hoped that a worldwide accord to fight global warming will be signed.

The Dutch plaintiffs argued _ and the court agreed _ that the government has a legal obligation to protect its people against looming dangers, including the effects of climate change on this low-lying country. Large swaths of the Netherlands are below sea level and vulnerable to rising sea levels blamed on global warming.

The Dutch government, which can appeal, said it was studying the ruling. Environment Minister Wilma Mansveld said the government and Urgenda "share the same goal. We just hold different opinions regarding the manner in which to attain this goal." Mansveld said the Dutch are working toward European Union greenhouse targets _ cutting emissions by at least 20 percent by 2020, from 1990 levels. "Preventing climate change is the most successful when as many countries as possible join forces," Mansveld said.

But judges said they want more action from the minister. "The state must do more to avert the imminent danger caused by climate change, also in view of its duty of care to protect and improve the living environment," read a statement from the court. To avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change, which is caused by heat-trapping carbon dioxide being released by burning fossil fuels, countries around the world have agreed that global temperatures should stay below a 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) rise compared to pre-industrial times.

A U.N. climate science panel has stated that to have a two-thirds chance of staying below that mark the world must cut emissions by some 40 to 70 percent by 2050.

While the Netherlands is known as a land of windmills, it is also a country with vast natural gas reserves that are used to power millions of households. It lags behind many of its European neighbors in the amount of energy it consumes from clean, renewable sources like wind or solar power.

According to the EU statistics agency Eurostat, only 4.5 percent of Dutch energy consumption came from renewables in 2013, compared to an EU average of 15 percent. Sweden led the way with just over 52 percent. Renewable energy accounted for about 10 percent of total U.S. energy consumption in 2014, according to the country's Energy Information Agency. The Dutch court said it was difficult to judge the economic impact of its ruling on Dutch companies but said "climate policy can have a negative effect for one sector, but a positive effect for another." Dutch business organization VNO-NCW did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the ruling's possible effects on its members. Bill Hare, senior scientist at Climate Analytics, a nonprofit organization based in Berlin, said the Dutch ruling's impact could be massive.
"(This) has the potential to become a precedent whose effect will ultimately flow through to undermining the markets for coal, oil and gas," he said.

richardfun fucked around with this message at 12:07 on Jun 25, 2015

Joementum
May 23, 2004

jesus christ

richardfun posted:

Wait, really? I thought he was the guy in the black polo shirt. Who's that then?

Black polo is Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

richardfun
Aug 10, 2008

Twenty years? It's no wonder I'm so hungry. Do you have anything to eat?

Joementum posted:

Black polo is Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

Ah, my mistake. I remembered Gowdy having a grey head of hair and went from there.

Guess McCarthy is the one to call when you're in the mood for a Congressional rave then. Gowdy is the go-to-guy for Coachella.

bird food bathtub
Aug 9, 2003

College Slice

richardfun posted:

Wait, really? I thought he was the guy in the black polo shirt. Who's that then?

Edit: Meanwhile, some news (from yesterday) that might shock the Americans in this thread. While you're debating the existence of anthropogenic climate change, this is what a few judges in my country said yesterday. Apologies if the formatting/paragraphs are a bit off.

I guess dutch courts are not as thoroughly corrupted as the US courts? Would never happen here. Would probably never even make it to court as the monied interests would pull out every dirty trick in the book to keep it out. Assuming it does get to court, and I get an ice cream making unicorn, it would be shopped around for a judge deep enough in someone's pocket to make the outcome a foregone conclusion, the trial would be dragged out for as many years as possible to bankrupt he opponents, and thenif I can have three unicorns and it was a successful trial it would be appealed into irrelevance and somehow a counter-suit would come out of it while every politician with a camera would lie about factual truths and FOX Entertainment and Limbaugh would make poo poo up about their mother's dog.

Doctor Butts
May 21, 2002

richardfun posted:

Those are not the eyes of a man who just smoked a joint. Look at the size of those pupils. Our ole' buddy Trey took some xtc or MDMA.

Now I want to go to the Congressional Womens' Softball game...

E: The guy in the orange shirt however...

Those are also the eyes of someone who doesn't get a lot of sleep.

Bizarro Kanyon
Jan 3, 2007

Something Awful, so easy even a spaceman can do it!


Bizarro Kanyon posted:

Fox News will use the video and not mention what the heckler was mad about but they will focus on the "you're in my house" as Barack being a dictator.

I am quoting myself because I just saw this on Fox News' website:

You're In My House: Obama Scolds Heckler at White House gay pride reception posted:


WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama took on a heckler head-on at a gay pride month reception at the White House Wednesday, scolding the protester for being disrespectful in "my house."

The heckler had interrupted Obama's remarks by protesting the detention and deportation of gay, lesbian and transgender immigrants.

The president responded, "Hold on a second." When the heckler persisted, Obama, flashing an exasperated look, countered, "OK, you know what?" Wagging his finger and shaking his head, Obama said, "No, no, no, no, no," repeating the word more than a dozen times.

As the heckler continued to talk over him, Obama took it up a notch.

"Hey. Listen. You're in my house," he said to laughter and woos from the crowd. "You know what? It's not respectful when you get invited to somebody. You're not going to get a good response from me by interrupting me like this. I'm sorry. I'm sorry ... Shame on you, you shouldn't be doing this."

In his remarks, Obama said that regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in an upcoming decision on gay marriage, there has been an undeniable shift in attitudes across the country. He said he's closely watching the decisions the high court will announce in the coming days, which include a case that could affirm the right of gay couples nationwide to marry.

The president singled out discrimination facing transgender Americans as an area where more progress needs to be made.

Dogstoyevsky
Oct 9, 2012

If there is no Dog, everything is permitted

Joementum posted:

I would like to empanel a permanent House Select Committee to investigate whether Trey Gowdy is stoned at the Congressional Womens' Softball Game.




Counterpoint: he looks stoned in his own official Congressional portrait--

Fried Chicken
Jan 9, 2011

Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!
Expecting 1+ opinion from the court today starting at 10 am eastern.

I'm betting it will be the Mercury ruling

GlyphGryph
Jun 23, 2013

Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.
sugar free jazz has a point, I think.

Identity is important to a lot of people, and a big part of changing minds and making progress is giving people better alternatives to identify with.

I think a lot of progress could be made in the South by introducing a powerful competing narrative for people to identify with and feel proud of that isn't based around racism. Talking to people who fly the flag, I do feel that many of them simply wish to appropriate it because they've got nothing better.

It's not even about the flag, directly. It's about having pride in where you're from, and a lot of Southerners don't really know the story's worth having pride in, or can't see themselves in the ones they do, and so they latch onto what's available and then try to rewrite those stories in such a way that they can have pride in them.

Abolishing institutions tend to work better when you've got a place you can point people to go and say "and if you're looking for the same sort of thing this provided you but without the bad bits, you can head on over to that over there and get it".

Pirate Radar
Apr 18, 2008

You're not my Ruthie!
You're not my Debbie!
You're not my Sherry!
Well yeah, the thing with people's feelings is that just saying "your feelings are bad" doesn't make them stop feeling that way--give them new emotional ground to occupy instead and they'll switch over quickly. And then they'll never admit to having occupied the previous position, which is how you know it worked.

Mc Do Well
Aug 2, 2008

by FactsAreUseless
You aren't just Black, you're American

You aren't just Muslim, you're American

You aren't just German, you're American

You aren't just a Southerner, you're American

You aren't just Texan, you're American

We live on a shrinking globe.

No separatist hate flags. E Pluribus Unum.

Lancelot
May 23, 2006

Fun Shoe

Fried Chicken posted:

Expecting 1+ opinion from the court today starting at 10 am eastern.

I'm betting it will be the Mercury ruling

2 boxes of opinions so likely quite a few!

Edit: SCOTUS upholds the disparate interest test under the Fair Housing Act.

Lancelot fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Jun 25, 2015

emdash
Oct 19, 2003

and?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_m64o.pdf Fair Housing opinion

Grouchio
Aug 31, 2014

fits my needs posted:

Is your school autism handler on standby?
That was four years ago in high school, shut the hell up.

Fried Chicken
Jan 9, 2011

Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!
Health care up

Fried Chicken
Jan 9, 2011

Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!
Health care 6-3 4th court affirmed

emdash
Oct 19, 2003

and?
4th circuit upheld, subsidies are available

Fried Chicken
Jan 9, 2011

Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!
Obama wins, subsidies upheld, which really means the GOP dodged a hell of a bullet.

I am very happy to be wrong in my prediction

baw
Nov 5, 2008

RESIDENT: LAISSEZ FAIR-SNEZHNEVSKY INSTITUTE FOR FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY
I guess Kennedy and Roberts both decided not to be assholes :unsmith:

turn it up TURN ME ON
Mar 19, 2012

In the Grim Darkness of the Future, there is only war.

...and delicious ice cream.

Fried Chicken posted:

Obama wins, subsidies upheld, which really means the GOP dodged a hell of a bullet.

I am very happy to be wrong in my prediction

Whew. I wonder how many people know how close they came to losing any/all subsidies, and healthcare costs skyrocketing.

Joementum
May 23, 2004

jesus christ
Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan for the majority. Scalia, Alito, Thomas dissent.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Fried Chicken
Jan 9, 2011

Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!

Lancelot posted:

2 boxes of opinions so likely quite a few!

Edit: SCOTUS upholds the disparate interest test under the Fair Housing Act.

They are adding some restrictions to it though (eg statistical disparity is not enough). and add cautions suggesting openness to further imposing in it

  • Locked thread