|
drat, just came here to post that. I love how she corrects Katie right from the get-go "Uh, look here, bitch - I've been a big deal on the Internet for a while now."
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
alnilam posted:I'm curious how they arranged the justices. It definitely seems like the more left-leaning justices are on the left, etc, but "rank these 9 justices in order of liberalness" seems pretty subjective to me I'd guess they tried to order them by who votes with whom most often so their infographics wouldn't be all staccato looking with random blocks of yellow but more like a yellow continuum, for design purposes rather than any other purpose. Edit: citing Scalia's other Obamacare dissent in this opinion was gold. I know Roberts is a corporate fetishist but he's a pretty smart guy, this opinion is well-written, and I think it's really damning of the dissent that follows. The contrast in quality is just mind-blowing. Sub Par fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
alnilam posted:If I wanted to be pedantic, could I claim that "established by the state" could just as well mean the state as in the government, rather than the state as in one of the 50 states? Or is there a particular legal definition in play here? I know it doesn't matter as they found other reasons, I'm just curious. "State" was defined in the legislation as the 50 states and DC.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:No, you're absolutely correct. That's part of why this faux-issue wasn't raised earlier. From the opinion: quote:After all, the Definitely a drafting error. The opinion is actually an easy read for a layman (IANAL and I read it just fine), I think everyone should give it a read. Won't take more than 10 minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Axel Serenity posted:So, if they do plan to release the opinion for Obgerfell vs Hodges tomorrow, we want them to vacate and remand, correct? If they affirm in their opinion, it means they agree with Ohio's ban just as the 6th Circuit did? Trying to make sure I understand the terminology for the live blog in the morning. Correct. Vacating the 6th circuit's ruling will expand same sex marriage rights to at least some degree. Exactly what degree that is will require some reading beyond the headline.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Can someone give me a very brief summary of why Scalia's interpretation is BS? Is it just that's he being overly pedantic and he would absolutely flip his decision if this concerned a law he supported? Here's the gist, basically a Cliffsnotes of the opinion. Roberts describes the reasons that the ACA was enacted. As he sees it, there are three main pillars of the act: 1) Guaranteed Issue and Community Rating requirements, meaning insurers cannot deny coverage to anyone, and they cannot charge different rates to different people on the basis of their health. 2) Coverage Mandate, requiring nearly everyone to buy health insurance. 3) The pillar in question: A subsidy scheme, giving people who would not otherwise be able to afford insurance enough money to buy insurance in the form of a tax credit that's paid directly to the insurer and used to lower/eliminate the person's premium. He explains the history of healthcare reforms in various states since the early 1990s that have enacted one or two of these provisions, but not all of them, and describes why the failure to adopt all three led to the inevitable failure of the entire system. He then describes Massachusetts' program, which succeeded, and upon which the ACA was explicitly based. He notes that the law was specifically constructed to include all three provisions with a Congressional understanding that failing to include all three provisions will necessarily make the act unworkable and lead to its failure. He makes various citations to back up his arguments, one of which is the fact that all three of these provisions took effect on the same day. He reasons that Congress would not have designed the law in a way that would necessarily cause it to fail, and thus finds the strict textual interpretation to be without merit. Specifically undercutting the argument, he points out: 1) "oftentimes the “meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context.” So when deciding whether the language is plain, we must read the words “in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Our duty, after all, is “to construe statutes, not isolated provisions.” 2) In other places, the ACA says that if a State does not set up an exchange, the Federal Government will set up and operate "such exchange". Quoting: "In other words, State Exchanges and Federal Exchanges are equivalent—they must meet the same requirements, perform the same functions, and serve the same purposes. Although State and Federal Exchanges are established by different sovereigns, Sections 18031 and 18041 do not suggest that they differ in any meaningful way." 3) In other places, the ACA uses the term "Exchanges" to mean "Exchanges established under section 18031" which is the section that specifies "State" exchanges. He points out that if this strict interpretation is applied, literally none of "Exchange"-related portions of the legislation would apply to Federal Exchanges, even though Federal Exchanges were explicitly contemplated by and allowed for in the ACA. A strict reading turns the entire act into nonsense. These three things, among many other examples, establish that the phrase "established by the State" is ambiguous in the statute. Resolving this ambiguity requires deference to this principle: “A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme . . . because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.” He ties this reasoning back to the opening - that without all three pillars, the entire ACA would fall - and reasons that the textual interpretation doesn't live up to this principle, as it would create the very problem the scheme was designed to prevent and thereby lead to the failure of the entire act. I know that wasn't brief, but it's a good summary I think. Sub Par fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Sotomayor's dissent in Glossip is a work of art. She just takes apart the District Court's finding of fact piece by piece and then hands it to the majority on their (strange) reliance on Baze (plurality) throughout the opinion. Just a thorough demolishing of the majority. And she has a quick hat-tip to the Breyer/Ginsburg dissent, so maybe there are 2.5 votes there or at the very least she's open to being convinced.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:The death penalty is constitutional, full stop. In this particular case, that was assumed from the jump (except for Breyer and RBG, I guess), and then you proceed to evaluating whether midazolam is cruel and unusual. It's cruel and unusual because the use of midazolam is likely to succeed at rendering the inmate unconscious but fail at keeping them unconscious after the administration of the next two drugs. The second drug paralyzes the inmate, leaving them unable to indicate that they are no longer under sedation, and the third drug causes searing pain throughout the body for several minutes before inducing death. It's not a requirement that the method of execution be painless, and nobody seriously suggests that it must be. But it can't be unduly painful which this method clearly risks being, especially when compared to other methods that are proven to not suffer from this problem. That the state can't or won't get their hands on the appropriate drugs/methods is plainly not the inmates problem. If a state wants to implement a death penalty system, its is their burden to operate that system in a way that isn't unreasonably cruel. And anyway, this case wasn't even about whether it was cruel per se, it was about whether there was a sufficient finding of fact that it may be unconstitutionally cruel for injunctive relief. They didn't even have to say "it's unconstitutional", just that they had a decent chance to prevail on the merits at trial, which, when you read about the scientific evidence introduced in the District Court, it seems they had a pretty good chance imo. Edit: It's critical to note that the court has previously found that the use of drugs number 2 and 3 on their own without drug number 1 is on its face unconstitutionally cruel. So what we're trying to show here is that using midazolam is tantamout to risking not using drug number 1 at all, rendering the method unconstitutional. Quoting from Sotomayor's dissent: quote:In Baze, it was undisputed that absent a “proper dose of Sub Par fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Javid posted:So are the drugs that companies are refusing to provide known to be actually painless, and the lovely stuff we're stuck with now just isn't? If that's the case, there should be legislative solutions. Basically, yes. The other drugs were specifically created to render a person unconscious and unable to sense pain (and, critically, unconscious enough that they would not regain consciousness in response to extreme stimuli), in the same state that is achieved for medical surgery. The drug in question was not designed for that purpose, and evidence exists that the use of the drug as planned will fail to keep someone unconscious upon the administration of the powerful toxic agents that are actually used to kill the person. To me, it seems the state should produce the drugs on their own if they want to kill someone and they can't buy them on the open market. It will cost a lot of money, which is why they won't do it, but again, I don't see how that's the inmate's problem. Sub Par fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
The opposition to N2-induced hypoxia is pretty much: 1) It hasn't been tested and so doing it constitutes testing on humans. I think that's a pretty lovely argument. And 2) it is a PR problem (  Goodwin ) to associate ourselves with a "gas chamber", even though this would be nothing like a true "gas chamber". I believe the death penalty should be abolished, but in the event that it cannot be, I think N2-induced hypoxia is probably the best method to implement. Sub Par fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:Not knowing anything about medicine, why can you not simply drastically up the dosage of Midazolam to increase the state of unconcsiousness? The medical evidence presented shows that midazolam is subject to a "ceiling effect" whereby additional dosage does not produce increased clinical effects. It is not known exactly where this maximum effective dosage lies and what level of unconsciousness it brings, which is one of the arguments that the inmates make - it's cruel to proceed knowing that there's a maximum effective dosage but without knowing if they are getting that maximum dosage and what medical impact the dosage will have. Northjayhawk posted:In this case the justices spent quite a bit of time during arguments flat-out saying that they are not going to ignore the fact that the anti-death penalty activists were trying to make it difficult to get more effective drugs and pretend that better drugs are available when they effectively aren't. I understand that, but I think this is a terrible line of reasoning. The 8th doesn't require that a punishment be "the least cruel of all available methods", it requires that it not be cruel, period. As Sotomayor notes, this prohibition is categorical: quote:Simply stated, the “Eighth Further, the court does not engage in a fair analysis of other methods of execution that may well be less cruel and unusual. As Sotomayor notes (discussing primarily a firing squad): quote:At least from a Sub Par fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Am I reading correctly that the standard for "cruel" is not based on any general standard of pain or harm, but is instead based on whether the method is less painful/gruesome than other methods available? It just seems odd from a layman's perspective that something which may inflict terrible pain is not cruel by virtue of it being better than being burned or stoned to death. That's what this case turned on. Up to today, the Court mostly looked at an individual punishment and decided if it was cruel and unusual on its own. Today, the Court decided that, with respect to lethal injection at least, the inmate must show that a given method is more cruel than another available method. This represents a big change and is basically a direct response to the success anti-death penalty advocates have had making lethal injection drugs hard to come by. The same Justices who on Friday castigated LGBT advocates for turning to the courts rather than work to convince "the people" have now turned around and told inmates that they must die a cruel death because of their very success in convincing "the people". Odd indeed. Sub Par fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench. And it's a great one.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I think Kagan is setting them up as best she can, but even still she's got 5 against her. SCOTUSblog folks say that may not mean anything - Kennedy joining that concurrence would make 5 which would make the overall ruling weird and ambiguous. It's extremely clear why she wrote it the way she did, and I think having 3 others along with her is a good (though expected) sign.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Zeeman posted:Particularly because the law specifically says that if there is an injunction that is later struck down or stayed, conduct that happens while the injunction is in place is still subject to bounties after the fact I read the opinion and there are statements that run contrary to this from abortion providers in Texas. Multiple providers testified that an injunction would be all they need to begin operating again. The court also briefly discussed (but did not rule on) the fact that the provision you're talking about is also likely unconstitutional. Here's hoping that at least some of the providers in Texas are able to get back up and running, and quickly. The bigger bummer to me is that my read of the situation is that Texas will appeal to the 5th (and God only knows what they will do), and one of two things happens: 1) 5th upholds the injunction and SCOTUS denies cert, for the appeal, or 2) 5th reverses, SCOTUS likely steps in and upholds the injunction Either way, the reversal of Roe is coming in the Spring so I'm feeling pretty doomer about the entire situation.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I know Trump isn't the cause of all of this, but it's hilarious that the biggest idiot alive solidified a Republican SCOTUS for the next 40 years. I think the "credit" here goes to Mitch McConnell, not Donald Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:It's time to call a continental congress to unwind the union. It's better to do it on purpose than slouch into it like we are doing now. This is an actual (and scary) goal of the right: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/584835-conservatives-prepare-new-push-for-constitutional-convention
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2021 04:54
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:Right, on legal grounds this is decided correctly. The dissenting liberal judges probably even know it too, hence talking about gun death stats on suicide, mass shootings etc, when this case was about CCW, not gun ownership. Alito actually rightfully calls it out. Breyer makes clear in the dissent that he believes means-end scrutiny is correct and the harms of gun violence and the state interest in preventing them are important things to consider when balancing those interests. He cites examples where the court does this in other areas (1st amendment, for example). All of section IIIA of the dissent. You can say you disagree with this reasoning, sure absolutely. But the credulous "he's objectively wrong and just wasting paper on emotional arguments" stuff is crap. Sub Par fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Jun 23, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:The state can have an interest against constitutional rights, I don't disagree with that, but a citizen having to have a 'special need' to be allowed to have a constitutional right is ridiculous and entirely inconsistent with how rights are supposed to work. The main issue in this case is whether everyone has rights or just the select people the state says are allowed to have rights. i.e. the good ol boys club, rich and well connected people. I understand and disagree with this but the main point to make is that this case isn't just about CCW. It's about the types of restrictions government can place on gun ownership and use generally and which tests should be used to determine whether those restrictions are valid. CCW is the context of this particular case, but the whole point here is to abstract out some principles. That's why the stats Breyer is quoting are germane to his argument.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:The state can still put requirements on CCW, but it just has to be fairly applied to everyone so that all citizens have rights. If this case was about the state trying to ban AR-15s or all handguns then maybe Breyer's stats on gun violence would be relevant, but not here. I'm going to try one more time but to be honest I don't feel like you're meaningfully engaging with the opinion or the dissent. The most important part of this opinion, and the thing that pretty much everyone else in this thread is talking about (and what Breyer was talking about) relates to the lens through which the court will analyze whether restrictions on gun ownership and use are constitutional in relation to the text of the second amendment. That is why roughly half of the holding is about "firearm regulation", not CCW specifically. The entire (a) subpoint of the holding is about how the court will decide this (and future) gun regulation cases: Thomas posted:(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context This is the argument that's being had in these opinions, and this is the argument that's being had in this thread. What's important here is that, as Breyer points out, this "test" of looking at historical facts and regulations instead of or without reference to any kind of interest balancing (the "two-step" framework) is completely new and pretty different from the holding in Heller. It's also different from how we consider regulations that bear on other Constitutional rights. This case is about CCW, but this holding is much, much more broad. Sub Par fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Jun 23, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I think the bigger issue at play here in the NY decision was that NY was being extremely subjective in their issuance of concealed carry permits. It was almost impossible to get one, unless you were really rich, famous or both. Normal citizens would never be issued a CC permit, but elites would. I mean, that's not really what they said. They said "because there were no such restrictions in place in 1791, there can be none now". If several states had such a scheme in the late 18th century and NY had this law now, under this holding, the law would be upheld despite its potential for arbitrary application. I mean I know they would just have used different motivated reasoning to get rid of the law, but I'm saying this based on what Thomas actually wrote today. Edit: Jaxyon posted:No, it doesn't say guns. It doesn't say "small arms", it doesn't say "large arms". While I agree I guess with where you're going here, I'm not sure I'd like this same level of pedantry applied to say, the first amendment. "It says press not server."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
Piell posted:lol speaking of that, this is in the ruling https://twitter.com/MarkFrassetto/status/1539996546514784256 Yeah. I mean this ruling is trash. It's hilarious to see pro-CCW folks running around talking about how "the state simply can't be so arbitrary, that's what Thomas is saying!" when in reality he's being at least as arbitrary to do away with the law.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
I'm not gonna pretend that Thomas couldn't find some reason to want to overturn Loving, but his listing in that concurrence is about cases decided on substantive due process grounds. Loving was decided on equal protection grounds which is why it's not on his target list.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
It's actually worse than all of that. Gorsuch arbitrarily decides to begin his inquiry with only the last three instances of the coach praying after games (when there's existing precedent that the full context should be required in religion clause cases). In those three instances, it is true that the coach prayed without any of his team joining him and he did so on the quieter side. However: 1. For years leading up to this, he has been leading public, demonstrative, Christian prayer at these school functions. 2. He was still on the job - his duties had not ended just because the game was over. He remained responsible for players until they went home, and he had official team duties to perform in addition (leading post-game talk, gathering equipment, etc.) 3. He was only in position to pray as he did because of his function as a public school employee. He was not praying privately in a public place - he was praying publicly in a private place. The field is off limits to the general public. 4. The school district attempted to work with him, offering him accommodation, asking him how he would like to bring his prayer into alignment with district policy and the 1st amendment. They offered that he could pray at the 50 yard line on the field after players had left, or elsewhere on campus. Or that he could pray privately and quietly before returning to his duties. He opted not to respond to any of these efforts and instead engaged in a media campaign, encouraging members of the public, elected officials, his players, and others to join him on the field. As Sotomayor rightly (in my view) points out, the question of coercion shouldn't even be reached. A public school employee in public school-branded clothing at a public school event on public school property performing a public, obviously and intentionally religious rite is an establishment clause violation on its face. Whether players would be coerced into joining is irrelevant - any reasonable observer with a full understanding of the facts and cultural context would identify this as a religious expression conducted with the approval of the public school. That's what County of Allegheny says. It's been so demoralizing seeing this "history and tradition" test being shoved down our throats these last few months. They're just... bad. They are shallow and designed to allow judges to hide their motivated reasoning behind smoke and mirrors. When they look back on this court in 75 years or whatever, this is going to look like a major, major turning point in how the court weighs constitutional claims. And not in a good way. It was also really frustrating to read where Sotomayor pointed out that all the poo poo the majority quotes attacking Lemon is just their own words from concurrences and dissents. They just packaged all that up and went "see, the court doesn't like Lemon!" The whole saying about "nothing has changed in the facts or the law, the only thing that has changed is the makeup of this court" rings so true. Lemon was freaking 8-1 for God's sake. Sub Par fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jun 27, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2022 20:58
|
|
|
Kagan's dissent going directly at the conservatives for making poo poo up as they go was "fun" to read. Sigh. It really feels like they want to toss Chevron but that Roberts et. al. figured out that it would be better to keep it and use this "eye of the beholder" test so they could keep conservative regulations they like and toss others that they don't like. I'm honestly not sure if that's worse than just getting rid of Chevron.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
I'm extremely pro certiorari before judgement. One of the most maddening things about the federal courts is how long it takes for cases that are time-sensitive in nature to work their way up to a place where there can be a final judgement. In this current insane environment where every loving thing is endlessly litigated and dragged out for years, it's refreshing to get a "relatively speedy" resolution to this extremely important issue in less than a year. I would love to see a huge restructuring of the courts, massive expansion of SCOTUS, expansion of mandatory original jurisdiction, and shortening of timelines for certain types of cases. The way the rich and powerful drag everything out endlessly is not good for the country. The way Trump has used the rules to run roughshod over every single attempt to hold him accountable for anything should be a wakeup call for how hosed up the courts are in general. Congress had absolutely clear statutory authority to get his tax returns, and it took more than TWO YEARS to get a judgement on that fact. It's totally hosed up. Sub Par fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Dec 3, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2022 00:27
|
|
|
Feels like pretty good work by ProPublica to drip this stuff out slowly. They got some flack from other journalism outlets for their previous reporting not breaking much new ground (just tying a lot of previously-known stuff together) but it makes a lot more sense now to put that out to get people talking and defending him and THEN publish this. Makes me wonder if they have more to come.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2023 15:16
|
|
|
Alito's dissent is cringeworthy. Whining about criticism the court has received in response to other stay applications and then trying to throw that logic back at folks for this one. Embarrassing imo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2023 02:14
|
|
|
I want to just go to sleep and wake up in a world where these Sotomayor dissents are opinions instead.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
IT BURNS posted:The one thing Scalia was good for - a good laugh. The best part of Kagan's dissent is where she quotes Scalia's book on textual interpretation back at the majority. What a lovely day.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 16:31
|
|
|
Oracle posted:This. Also you can be the best engineer that ever engineered or the most brilliant scientist on the planet but if you can't get your ideas across in an understandable way via either oral or written communication poo poo's not going to go well. It seems to me that we could include certain requirements that are tailored to the major that would provide some "rounding" without going the full on 120 credit hours study a bit of everything approach. In the engineering example, there could be like one course requirement that's like "communication for engineers" that focuses on the specific challenges inherent in communicating complex math/systems ideas to non-experts (both written and speaking) in lieu of like English 101 and Speech 101. Similarly, there could be "Math for the Social Sciences" that touches on some basics like algebra and whatnot but gives an overview of basic statistics and regression. Math for Artists that includes geometry and perspective. I think having a well-educated citizenry is super important and having people learn about history, literature, art, math, science, and biology is great and all things being equal is my preferred solution. But I just don't know if that really works. Maybe there's a distinction where you can get like a BA/BS in a subject that's 2 years and just basically all the major-required courses, and another option that's a 4-year BA/BS with some other name that indicates you did your studies and also got the "well rounded" college experience. Or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
Oracle posted:'Math for Poets' classes have been around for at least 25 years (at least in Big Ten schools). And its kind of insulting that you think one course requirement is going to magically make people who are functionally innumerate/illiterate into capable writers/communicators or proficient in geometry or perspective (why do we need perspective?) or algebra or calculating interest or what have you. Math for Artists was an example, I am not an educator and don't develop curriculum which seems obvious from my post. My wife studied art in college and she took an actual class called "Math for Artists" in which angles and perspective were some of the things studied. I don't get why that is confusing. It was helpful for her. quote:These classes are important for a functioning citizenry who are expected to make informed choices in their leadership, such as those living in a democracy. Its not just a 'nice to have but it wastes time and money that could be better spent making another million for shareholders.' You don't know what a swastika is you might think that guy running for office calling himself a National Socialist and promising all that free health care has some good ideas. You might listen to some anti-vaxxer telling you about how dangerous they are and cause autism. You might think statements like 'kids can't catch covid' sounds perfectly reasonable and is a valid justification for sending them back into schools with poor ventilation. If you've never heard of a Potemkin village you're going to clueless when someone makes reference to one in a political debate. Someone promises you their 7/7/7 plan will cut your taxes while raising money and you're not familiar with how percentages work you're going to think that idea has merit and sounds good. And on and on and on. quote:Its called an Associates Degree Not really, an associate's degree mostly develops the broad based skills that are treated at 4 year universities as "core requirements" and does not focus on developing a specialty. There are not advanced classes in any field offered at community colleges. My idea was to basically flip the two, so that what we currently think of as community college actually provides 2 years of in-depth training in a field while the longer degree is that plus the "well-rounded" stuff. Basically, trade schools majors. I'm not saying this is the best idea or the one I would dream up or advocate for. Main Paineframe posted:Should we start ripping reading and art out of high school so we can squeeze in more job training time? I agree 100% but it doesn't seem like solutions on this front are forthcoming. I was responding to a specific criticism of speciality-focused education and tossing out an idea. Sub Par fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Jul 5, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
AtraMorS posted:The idea itself is hostile to a university education. I don't mean angry-hostile; I mean, it cuts at the entire idea of what a university is.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2023 03:26
|
|
|
AtraMorS posted:A better approach might be to start from the premise of building out a vocational program instead of stripping away from a universal one. Get halfway between by building up instead of cutting away. It'd be more honest too, because in the end you still want it to be job training, and that's just not what universities are supposed to do. The focused study you want can't just be flipped; they depend on the core courses at the bottom. I mean maybe I'm just not explaining what I'm talking about well, so my fault, but what I'm talking about is exactly building out a vocational program. If it helps to think of it as "start with vocational training and then add in enough universal education/liberal arts stuff to satisfy reasonable needs for the workforce" rather than "provide a university-lite option" then fine, think of it that way. The end result is the same: ~2 years of education focused on a specific type of vocation plus a few courses needed to round that education out in terms of writing/communication (or math, or whatever is "missing" from the core curriculum for a given vocation). And I don't see the problem with flipping the focused study. "They depend on the core courses at the bottom" doesn't ring true to me. I did not use anything from biology 101, geology 101, music appreciation, etc. in my Econ 4XX classes. Obviously within a given course of study there will still need to be a progression. For example, since you need calculus as an engineer, you'd still need to take the variety of math courses that prepare you for calculus. And anyway, in modern universities, the core curriculum already isn't required to be completed before enrolling in advanced major-specific courses. You don't have to take Speech 101 before you take Chemistry 300 or whatever. Anyway, I think I've explained the idea enough, if folks think it's a bad one, cool. I'm not in charge of schools and do not want to be.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2023 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
The thing I don't like about ACB and Kavanaugh's opinion is that (combined with Sotomayor's footnote) they effectively said to the 5th circuit, "we will let you get away with this tactic for up to a month, every time." And they absolutely will.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 02:57
|
|