The X-man cometh posted:

That America is built on a system of white supremacy and that we need major structural changes, not just affirmative action at highly ranked colleges like Harvard and UNC and Michigan and Berkeley

OddObserver posted:

Aren't you normally not supposed to be able to sue based on a hypothetical?

Upgrade posted:

in some cultures SPAM is more regularly consumed so people like it, yes. It’s very salty pork.

BeAuMaN posted:

For federal cases, yes. You generally need an injury in fact afaik. For state cases, this isn't always the case. I'm not going to dig into this case, but if the case started and continued in federal courts then they would have had a claim of some injury in fact.

OddObserver posted:

Aren't you normally not supposed to be able to sue based on a hypothetical?

Petey posted:

You’re acting like this Court cares about standing, though. It’s a fiction in both 303 Creative and student loan case. The fact that the webmaster ask in 303 creative was purely hypothetical was acknowledged in the oral arguments! Everyone has known it this entire time! It was the very first question!

“Clarence Thomas
Counsel, would you spend just a few minutes on whether or not this -- your case is ripe?”

Petey posted:

It will absolutely be a factor although this is in *some* respects on the company side, and the product of 1) limited recruiting and 2) the broader withdrawal of on-the-job training. See e.g. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/97992, a study of tech industry hiring practices that shows while Blacks and Hispanics are *overrepresented* in majoring in technical fields, they tend to do so at colleges that tech companies do not generally recruit from.

This was exacerbated by Prop 209 in California: the Bleemer study I linked above shows that similarly qualified Black students “cascaded” from Berkeley and UCLA to Riverside and Merced after the ban, and recruiters historically did not frequent those colleges as much.

The fundamental insight that Thomas does have is that affirmative action has allowed certain institutions and communities to feel diverse and be blind to broader structural inequalities. However, I am not optimistic that this ruling will force a confrontation with that reality; after all, it hasn’t in the many states. And Thomas isn’t even interested in that reform as much as a return to self-determination (as it were).

quote:

In this paper we have analyzed how black and white educational outcomes at an elite university
vary over time. We have focused on two outcomes: grades and choice of major. An argument in
favor of affirmative action in college admissions is that it identifies students with much potential
but weak preparation, suggesting recipients should catch up to their more-prepared counterparts
over time. While at first blush there appears to be evidence of this as the differences in grades
between blacks and whites diminishes over their college careers, we show that this is not due to
differential learning. Rather, it results from both changes in how the grade distribution is used over
time (the grading distribution is more censored in later years) and changes in course selection.
Changes in course selection result from black and white students having very different persistence rates in the natural sciences, engineering, and economics. While conditional on sex black
students have stronger initial preferences than whites for majoring in the natural sciences, engineering, or economics, they are significantly less likely to choose one of these majors for their final
major. We show that these differences in persistence rates are fully explained by differences in
academic background. Courses in the natural sciences, engineering, and economics are rated more
difficult, are associated with higher study times, and have harsher grade distributions than those in the humanities and social sciences. The differences in difficulty levels across course types then
works to dissuade individuals with relatively worse academic backgrounds from persisting in natural
science, engineering, or economics majors.

The lack of minority representation in the sciences is of national interest and much money has
been spent on encouraging minorities to enter the sciences. Seymour and Hewitt (2000) point out
that the National Science Foundation alone has spent more than $1.5 billion to increase participation of minorities in the sciences, and two programs at the National Institute of Health have
invested $675 million in the same endeavor. It is possible, however, that affirmative action, is
working against these goals. Namely, affirmative action primarily affects where minorities enroll in
college, not whether they enroll, pushing students up through the school quality distribution (Arcidiacono, Khan, and Vigdor 2011). With the difference in course difficulty and grading standards
between the natural sciences, engineering, and economics and their humanities and social sciences
counterparts naturally leading the (relatively) least prepared students away from the sciences, affirmative action may be working to increase the number of non-science majors at top schools at the
expense of science majors at less-selective schools. That is, minority students would be higher up in
the preparation distribution at a less-selective school, potentially resulting in a higher probability
of persisting in a science major. However, more work is needed on a larger set of schools in order to
assess the counterfactual of how persistence rates in the sciences would change absent affirmative
action

Mister Fister posted:

the majority of people (POC or not) shouldn't even go to college, it's becoming a complete scam, even if you do graduate.

Nitrousoxide posted:

Trump's theories on how he could overturn an election have all pretty much been swatted down in the courts right with this one? This would have theoretically allowed a state legislature to ignore the state constitution on how to apportion electors and let them override the will of the people. With this ruling they can't do that either.

ulmont posted:

Cool, so the minority can require a college degree and completely weed out THOSE people, just like the good old days.

Mister Fister posted:

They can require tradesmen to have college degrees? There's a reason why fewer men are going to college, especially in this particular economic environment: they're getting good paying jobs that don't require one. They're not even going to trade school to do it. College degrees are being handed out like candy, at some point, it'll be worth less than toilet paper, especially at the rate that we're lowering standards so more people can graduate.

quote:

The Court holds that the First Amendment bars Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.

Gorsuch decision: "Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance."

"As surely as Ms. Smith seeks to engage in protected First Amendment speech," Gorsuch writes, "Colorado seeks to compel speech Ms. Smith does not wish to provide."

Court says that the wedding websites Smith seeks to create "involve her speech."

From the Sotomayor dissent: "Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class."

Piell posted:

Good loving luck getting literally anything that can be argued as related to speech if you're not straight and cis in any red area, now. anything that involves any sort of design element (decorating, flower arrangements, loving websites) is going to get refused

quote:

The key snippet on standing, which rests on MOHELA as we discussed before opinions started: "By law and function, MOHELA is an instrumentality of Missouri: It was created by the State to further a public purpose, is governed by state officials and state appointees, reports to the STate, and may be dissolved by the State. The [debt forgiveness] plan will cut MOHELA's revenues, impairing its efforts to aid Missouri college students. This acknowledged harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself."

Mister Fister posted:

https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1674789562722430978

Hahahahahahaha

Dr. VooDoo posted:

It’s a very weird ruling because they narrowly defined free speech as print, including on a website, but things like decorating and cake making are not free speech, per their ruling, so they still have to bake cakes etc. so I guess as a gay person I’ll just be sure to request they don’t print anything on my decorations or cakes and they can’t do poo poo about it?

If I didn’t know any better I’d say this court has no idea what it’s loving doing anymore and you’d get more consistent rulings by spinning a wheel

Thom12255 posted:

Pook Good Mook posted:

Nice of Nancy Pelosi to provide a soundbite against cancellation that Roberts could use in his majority opinion. Democrats are loving worthless.

socialsecurity posted:

Yeah that was the tipping point too, if she hadn't said that there would be no student debt right now.

socialsecurity posted:

Yeah that was the tipping point too, if she hadn't said that there would be no student debt right now.

Big Bowie Bonanza posted:

The 14th amendment really do be all over the place

haveblue posted:

The second student loan case is 6-3 so you can guess the ruling

socialsecurity posted:

Yeah that was the tipping point too, if she hadn't said that there would be no student debt right now.

Evil Fluffy posted:

Imagine if Biden didn't suck and just issued a statement to the effect of "debt forgiveness is moving forward, gently caress the illegitimate majority and their opinions."

Tatsuta Age posted:

drat yeah that would definitely work