|
No he didn't, like the part that forbids the federal government from interfering with the slave trade until 1808, the constitution bends over backwards to never explicitly acknowledge it's talking about slavery.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No he didn't, like the part that forbids the federal government from interfering with the slave trade until 1808, the constitution bends over backwards to never explicitly acknowledge it's talking about slavery. The reason for that was that the South were shitlords as much then as they ever were and were unwilling to hop on board with ratification if anyone touched their peculiar institution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
I think I remember they at least sang a song about slavery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Many of the framers held slaves but didn't like slavery, and were really hoping by 1808 the next generation of leaders would get around to abolishing slavery (so they didn't have to deal with the hassle). That did not happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
OTOH, many of the framers owned slaves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
So I was just reading Foster v. Chatman and what are y'all's thoughts on this? The fact that cert was granted seems pretty promising to me, in theory, considering the Georgia courts looked at evidence where the prosecutors essentially left a paper trail saying "NOPE NO BLACKS ON THE JURY THAT WOULD BE BAD" and said there was no racial motivation in striking potential jurors anyway. But I can't help but wonder "is SCOTUS a bad enough court to gut Batson?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:So I was just reading Foster v. Chatman and what are y'all's thoughts on this? The fact that cert was granted seems pretty promising to me, in theory, considering the Georgia courts looked at evidence where the prosecutors essentially left a paper trail saying "NOPE NO BLACKS ON THE JURY THAT WOULD BE BAD" and said there was no racial motivation in striking potential jurors anyway. But I can't help but wonder "is SCOTUS a bad enough court to gut Batson?" They haven't handed down a "tock" in a while so perhaps they are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
What's a tock?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
I'm guessing it's like a clock, and Tick is a good ruling, so we've built up a few Ticks that unfortunately need to be balanced out by a few Tocks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:I'm guessing it's like a clock, and Tick is a good ruling, so we've built up a few Ticks that unfortunately need to be balanced out by a few Tocks. That's correct. I don't think it's so much considered this way in the eyes of Roberts, but more of a legacy thing for him - both the broader positive societal aspects and the specific negative dystopian ones. Uphold the PPACA, begin CPR on Jim Crow with Shelby. The marriage decision was kind of foregone, but Citizens wasn't. Glossip in exchange for Rodriguez, etc. Hell, there's a lot of poo poo in Williams-Yulee that can be construed as apology for Citizens, even if it's framed as a narrow view regarding the perception of corruptibility with judicial elections.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Did you forget the whole '3/5 of a person' thing? Wasn't this because the alternative was slave states wanted slaves to count as a full person for congressional seating purposes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:22
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Wasn't this because the alternative was slave states wanted slaves to count as a full person for congressional seating purposes? Right, which the northern states objected to it as logically inconsistent. If they weren't citizens, or even human (as the southern states claimed), then they shouldn't count at all. The 3/5 compromise was just that, a way to break the deadlock and get on with the rest, leaving it for others to sort out later.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Alito, Breyer, Kagan, Scalia, and Thomas skip papal address to Congress
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
ZenVulgarity posted:Alito, Breyer, Kagan, Scalia, and Thomas skip papal address to Congress It's really only Alito, Scalia, and Thomas that surprised me. I figured they'd attend even if he is a bleeding heart Jesuit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:It's really only Alito, Scalia, and Thomas that surprised me. I figured they'd attend even if he is a bleeding heart Jesuit. Yeah sure whoops he hates the DP I ain't going
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:It's really only Alito, Scalia, and Thomas that surprised me. I figured they'd attend even if he is a bleeding heart Jesuit. Hasn't Scalia made remarks in the past that indicate he may be a sedevacantist?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:I'm guessing it's like a clock, and Tick is a good ruling, so we've built up a few Ticks that unfortunately need to be balanced out by a few Tocks. Between the CRA being gutted (and future cases are going to finish destroying it) and Citizens United we're still owed a few ticks because those two cases alone have likely causes some severe long term damage. Alternately: We can hope that the constant poo poo-heaping the right wing is doing to Roberts over the ACA and SSM rulings will make him snap and drive him towards the center-right. Probably won't happen (especially with anything CRA related) but one can hope. Seeing Roberts end up as even a Kennedy-grade judge would be huge since we've got awhile before and conservative justices are replaced due to vacancies by natural causes or phylactery destruction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
When was the CRA gutted? The VRA got gut shot, but I don't recall Alito saying that Whites Only restaurants were permissible again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:When was the CRA gutted? The VRA got gut shot, but I don't recall Alito saying that Whites Only restaurants were permissible again. I don't recall any test cases being stovepiped by blood money but you never know which bucolic fry pit is gonna claim they were harmed by having to treat black people like human beings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Wasn't this because the alternative was slave states wanted slaves to count as a full person for congressional seating purposes? Yes, it's about the dumbest possible argument because you can rightly counter with "Northerners didn't even think blacks were people".
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Right, which the northern states objected to it as logically inconsistent. If they weren't citizens, or even human (as the southern states claimed), then they shouldn't count at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Wasn't this because the alternative was slave states wanted slaves to count as a full person for congressional seating purposes? Not quite the whole story. The Southern states wanted slaves to count as 0/5 of a person when direct taxes were apportioned among the states, because slaves were property not people. The North said that didn't make sense, either they were property and shouldn't count for representation or they were people and should be taxed but you can't have it both ways, so they settled on 3/5 for both questions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:When was the CRA gutted? The VRA got gut shot, but I don't recall Alito saying that Whites Only restaurants were permissible again. I meant the VRA (thought IIRC Roberts isn't a fan of the CRA either).
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Anyone want to make a new thread for this session? Phone posting here so kinda hard otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Resurrecting the thread to say: gently caress Scalia. That is all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Can we talk about what a sad human being Abigail Fisher is? Christ.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Resurrecting the thread to say: He got half way there by pointing out some people contend, but just didn't stick the landing. He'd really got to get back with his Fox News coach so he can properly get that question mark in there and make it clear he's just asking questions here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Can we talk about what a sad human being Abigail Fisher is? Christ. Of course, she's a spoiled child. She's never been told no and now she's throwing a tantrum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Can we talk about what a sad human being Abigail Fisher is? Christ. On The Media had a whole show on SCOTUS and one of the features is how clients go shopping around for the most favorable case and face for their cause. Fisher is no-poo poo focus group tested to be the perfect face for their argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:On The Media had a whole show on SCOTUS and one of the features is how clients go shopping around for the most favorable case and face for their cause. Fisher is no-poo poo focus group tested to be the perfect face for their argument. They didn't focus group her very well since her high school GPA and SAT scores were poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:They didn't focus group her very well since her high school GPA and SAT scores were poo poo. they focus-grouped the face
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:On The Media had a whole show on SCOTUS and one of the features is how clients go shopping around for the most favorable case and face for their cause. Fisher is no-poo poo focus group tested to be the perfect face for their argument. A homely, uncompelling, academically mediocre ginger? I wonder why that's the winning combination
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
This is how Google previews the Court's official transcript of the Fisher v. UT oral arguments. Seems appropiate
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:they focus-grouped the face Badger of Basra posted:They didn't focus group her very well
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:A homely, uncompelling, academically mediocre ginger? I wonder why that's the winning combination Homely so people sort of assume that she's studious, reasonably attractive girl so public figures/the other side/the judge hesitate to attack her personally. Not really hard to think through what the motivations would be there. There is a reason the fact she's actually unqualified has never really gotten traction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Fisher, who is white, applied to the University of Texas at Austin under a program where all seniors in the top 10 percent of their class were automatically admitted. But she wasn't in the top 10 percent, so her application was considered with the rest in a holistic review process that accounted for academic achievements and extracurricular activities as well as race. Fisher wasn't accepted, though she claimed some of her minority peers with lower scores were. She sued on the grounds that the university policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and a district court ruled in favor of the school. She appealed, and the circuit court upheld the decision, Slate reported. Then she appealed to the Supreme Court. However, the university argued that Ms. Fisher's application would not have had a different verdict in any case. "Although one African-American and four Latino applicants with lower combined academic and personal achievement scores than Ms. Fisher’s were provisionally admitted, so were 42 white applicants whose scores were identical to or lower than hers. Similarly, 168 black and Latino students with academic and personal achievement profiles that were as good as, or better than, Ms. Fisher’s were also denied, according to the university," Elise Boddie, a law professor at Rutgers, wrote in the New York Times this week.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Oh, my Godquote:During oral arguments on a case that may eliminate race conscious affirmative action, Justice Antonin Scalia said that “most of the black scientists in this country do not come from the most advanced schools” and added that black students do better in a “slower track.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
A nice little rebuttal to that (thanks The Warszawa for alerting me): quote:“Reagan had asked me whether Scalia was of Italian extraction. I think he used the word ‘extraction,’ and I said, ‘Yes, he’s of Italian extraction.’ Reagan said, ‘That’s the man I want to nominate, so I want to meet him...’ The president met Scalia, and he offered Scalia the job right on the spot, in about 15 minutes, very little ceremony here. Scalia accepted on the spot.” Wallison recounted. http://theslot.jezebel.com/crazy-how-anti-affirmative-action-justice-scalia-was-an-1747308628
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:A nice little rebuttal to that (thanks The Warszawa for alerting me): Or, you know, the APA brief that systematically tears apart this thinly veiled racism with over eighty empirical papers demonstrating that the opposite is true. Maybe Scalia forgot that one. I think UTs minority graduation rate is like 90th percentile or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:However, the university argued that Ms. Fisher's application would not have had a different verdict in any case. "Although one African-American and four Latino applicants with lower combined academic and personal achievement scores than Ms. Fisher’s were provisionally admitted, so were 42 white applicants whose scores were identical to or lower than hers. Similarly, 168 black and Latino students with academic and personal achievement profiles that were as good as, or better than, Ms. Fisher’s were also denied, according to the university," Elise Boddie, a law professor at Rutgers, wrote in the New York Times this week. Ruling Fisher wouldn't have been admitted anyway is a bit like going after the standing of the people suing the NSA. Surely someone was affected, and the court ruling on the standing instead of the arguments is basically refusing to make a hard decision and letting the status quo win by default.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:13
|
|