SCOTUS Hurting Feelings

a reply to: quintessentone

One of the problems with social media is that a vocal minority is portrayed as a overwhelming majority and the MSM laps it up.

a reply to: EternalShadow

The challenges we face today all seem to have the same vulnerability; none of these knee-jerk reactions and many other trendy initiatives are durable. (not that we want some of them to be, mind you) In other words, they don't last. Here today, gone tomorrow. Consequently, any sorts of actual policy making lags well behind whatever the issue du-jour is today. It's like a never ending firehose of knee-jerking anymore.

You mention the "Guilt Trip" generation; LOL! Yeah, I don't disagree there, but I think I might characterize it more as the "Blame" generation. You know, like...

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: quintessentone

One of the problems with social media is that a vocal minority is portrayed as a overwhelming majority and the MSM laps it up.

BINGO!!

Winner-Winner! Chicken Dinner!!!!

a reply to: imitator

The scary part starts 20 years from now, when they are the SCOTUS...

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

My problem, and it is a problem too, is that I care, and this care extends further than 6" inches in front of my nose. In fact, my level of care/concern quite possibly extends beyond my time here on this blue orb.

I really feel ya there because I'm in the same boat. I care too. Very much. Not in the virtue-signalling way of "Yay for this label but to hell with that label!" If I'm not misremembering, we are both of an age where we have seen and known better, and we know that this current trajectory is a collision course with destruction. It's just not sustainable.

ETA - I feel that the political leadership in this country at the moment is completely disconnected from the people, and our government has gone wildly astray. What I can't seem to put my head around is the proper course to fix it.

I can't either and lordy how I've tried! But the people have been so bombarded with divide-and-conquer tactics, so convinced that our fellow countrymen are to blame for everything, while we all hope and wait for that one perfect candidate that will magically fix anything, that I also feel like the people are disconnected from the people. (I hope that makes sense!)

We've really made quite a mess of things. I expect things will have to get worse before they get better. But I hope we don't have to hit absolute rock bottom before it gets better.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
What is going on in this country?

Why am I not surprised to open up Fox news this morning and see a headline that "Law students offered therapy".

www.foxnews.com...

I know there are those that will condemn me for saying this but I am going to say it anyways;

If you are a law student, and you need therapy/counseling to help you "handle" a judgement passed by the SCOTUS, you should probably give up on law and go do something else with your life. If you are so emotionally distressed by a ruling on several things, I mostly agree with all of them, how are you going to be able to handle a case that you are dealing with in court when the opposition makes you look the fool?

if you are cognizant enough to seek professional services, i commend that choice, it is a mature and productive response to adversity

if you feel the urge to tell those people receiving services give up and f# off, you might be the adversarial type and i recommend professional services

a reply to: quintessentone

the issue on the stalking? that was 7-2 lead by Kagan is she uber conservative now? Tomas was the main dissenter with that one? www.washingtonpost.com...

the various election law ones? the one from GA and south Carolina? those rulings that pushed back against un fair disctrict maps? those were done by those pushing for a conservative agenda? www.politico.com... and www.nytimes.com... respectively

www.scotusblog.com... this is where i get all my scotus news that and Howe on the court

but the main issue is people getting bent out of shape with out actual knowlege of how it will effect things and only what they THINK it does take this cnn article

www.cnn.com...

What the ruling has not changed While colleges and universities will no longer be able to consider race as the sole factor, Sotomayor noted in her dissent that the ruling still allows colleges and universities to consider other factors to increase diversity on campus. Colleges can consider students who speak multiple languages or could be the first in their family to attend college, Sotomayor wrote. “Those factors are not ‘interchangeable’ with race,” she wrote. The Biden administration also announced several plans Thursday to help colleges continue their efforts to recruit diverse student bodies in light of the decision. Those steps include releasing a report on strategies for increasing diversity and educational opportunity and providing schools with guidance on what is and isn’t allowed, among other things. The impact will vary state-by-state, school-by-school Not all higher education institutions will be affected by the ruling. The decision allows US military service academies to continue to take race into consideration as a factor in admissions.

so while the left screamed the sky is falling (they tend to do this when ever a court case goes the way they dont think it should) it didnt really change much other then to have race have a far far lesser impact on who gets into colleges and in some cases changed nothing at all .


and if you actualy read the rulings,the dissents the concurrences etc you find that on a good deal of issues the court is pretty much on the same page but on others more partisan lines pop up .often leading to many cases having strange bedfellows .

they are most consistent in denying pardons and or extra legal measures for those all ready incarcerated , go party lines on guns and religious freedom(oddly Muslims and Sikhs made out better the Christians on the recent ruling btw) time.com... muslims make up less then 1% of local populations but account for 18% of title VII complaints on religious grounds so does that strike you as a far right view?

the court also overwhelmingly voted to keep tribal children in custody of tribes vs adopting them out to others while the navajo didnt get ruling they wanted Gorsuch(one of the ones the left likes to hate ) has overwhelmingly stood up from tribal sovereignty www.washingtonpost.com... -ba1fa29e9bec_story.html hes 10 for 10 sticking up for natives are they now key to "evil right wing slant?"

here is the actual ruling for the one you cite as "make it legal to discriminate" www.supremecourt.gov... i would counter with it makes it legal to not have to have ones rights violated by the state in context of there own deeply held personal beliefs ,and that is the argument they went with here its a 70 page ruling and in context explains it far better then inflammatory headlines and simple sound bites do

These cases illustrate that the First Amendment protects an indi- vidual’s right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible and well intentioned or deeply “mis- guided,” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574, and likely to cause “anguish” or “in- calculable grief,” Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 456. Generally, too, the government may not compel a person to speak its own preferred messages. See Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 505. Pp. 6–9.

and case law backs them on the ruling

a reply to: quintessentone

en.wikipedia.org... the court since probably before you were born(1942) has consistently and overwhelmingly protected "hate speech as free speech" so again how is this a NEW court problem?
relevent case law

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Virginia v. Black opinion penned by Sandra day O'conner a moderate and first woman on scotus

Snyder v. Phelps on the westbourgoh baptists 8-1


en.wikipedia.org... and probably the clearest

Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate". United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).[14]

which to use the modern parlance "rights trump feelings/emotions" although justice kennedy summed it up best and far more diplomatically and clearly

Justice Anthony Kennedy also wrote: A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.[14] Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.[14]

so yes in regards to case law of the supreme court of the united states there is no such thing as "hate speech" as far as the first amendment expressions goes

en.wikipedia.org... 1969 covered legit cross burning as free speech and oddly was same court that gave us the original roe v wade ruling,affirmative action en.wikipedia.org... covers cases during there time but sure its just those nasty conservatives protecting free speech right?

historically the court can shift to varying degrees to left or right usually in cycles (longer then presidential R v D trends) and as shown above some times its the conservative courts that give the left the rulings they treasured the most (roe v wade,affirmative action , usa vs nixon

originally posted by: PorkChop96
What is going on in this country?

Why am I not surprised to open up Fox news this morning and see a headline that "Law students offered therapy".

www.foxnews.com...

I know there are those that will condemn me for saying this but I am going to say it anyways;

If you are a law student, and you need therapy/counseling to help you "handle" a judgement passed by the SCOTUS, you should probably give up on law and go do something else with your life. If you are so emotionally distressed by a ruling on several things, I mostly agree with all of them, how are you going to be able to handle a case that you are dealing with in court when the opposition makes you look the fool?

If they are woke students then they probably need some support as they cannot have their feelings hurt. Is this what they've been learning in their entire lives?

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: quintessentone

the issue on the stalking? that was 7-2 lead by Kagan is she uber conservative now? Tomas was the main dissenter with that one? www.washingtonpost.com...

the various election law ones? the one from GA and south Carolina? those rulings that pushed back against un fair disctrict maps? those were done by those pushing for a conservative agenda? www.politico.com... and www.nytimes.com... respectively

www.scotusblog.com... this is where i get all my scotus news that and Howe on the court

but the main issue is people getting bent out of shape with out actual knowlege of how it will effect things and only what they THINK it does take this cnn article

www.cnn.com...

What the ruling has not changed While colleges and universities will no longer be able to consider race as the sole factor, Sotomayor noted in her dissent that the ruling still allows colleges and universities to consider other factors to increase diversity on campus. Colleges can consider students who speak multiple languages or could be the first in their family to attend college, Sotomayor wrote. “Those factors are not ‘interchangeable’ with race,” she wrote. The Biden administration also announced several plans Thursday to help colleges continue their efforts to recruit diverse student bodies in light of the decision. Those steps include releasing a report on strategies for increasing diversity and educational opportunity and providing schools with guidance on what is and isn’t allowed, among other things. The impact will vary state-by-state, school-by-school Not all higher education institutions will be affected by the ruling. The decision allows US military service academies to continue to take race into consideration as a factor in admissions.

so while the left screamed the sky is falling (they tend to do this when ever a court case goes the way they dont think it should) it didnt really change much other then to have race have a far far lesser impact on who gets into colleges and in some cases changed nothing at all .


and if you actualy read the rulings,the dissents the concurrences etc you find that on a good deal of issues the court is pretty much on the same page but on others more partisan lines pop up .often leading to many cases having strange bedfellows .

they are most consistent in denying pardons and or extra legal measures for those all ready incarcerated , go party lines on guns and religious freedom(oddly Muslims and Sikhs made out better the Christians on the recent ruling btw) time.com... muslims make up less then 1% of local populations but account for 18% of title VII complaints on religious grounds so does that strike you as a far right view?

the court also overwhelmingly voted to keep tribal children in custody of tribes vs adopting them out to others while the navajo didnt get ruling they wanted Gorsuch(one of the ones the left likes to hate ) has overwhelmingly stood up from tribal sovereignty www.washingtonpost.com... -ba1fa29e9bec_story.html hes 10 for 10 sticking up for natives are they now key to "evil right wing slant?"

here is the actual ruling for the one you cite as "make it legal to discriminate" www.supremecourt.gov... i would counter with it makes it legal to not have to have ones rights violated by the state in context of there own deeply held personal beliefs ,and that is the argument they went with here its a 70 page ruling and in context explains it far better then inflammatory headlines and simple sound bites do

These cases illustrate that the First Amendment protects an indi- vidual’s right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible and well intentioned or deeply “mis- guided,” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574, and likely to cause “anguish” or “in- calculable grief,” Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 456. Generally, too, the government may not compel a person to speak its own preferred messages. See Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 505. Pp. 6–9.

and case law backs them on the ruling

Nice post!
'hate speech' is another meaningless term with no linguistic value. An Invention by the woke ideology to control speech, perceptions, behaviours. And to use it to attack and criminalise free speech.

a reply to: Boadicea

... We've really made quite a mess of things. I expect things will have to get worse before they get better. But I hope we don't have to hit absolute rock bottom before it gets better.

It's kind of interesting; I just got back from a trip back east and we went to several places, among them was Mt. Vernon (Washington's home and estate) and Colonial Williamsburg, VA (among others). I'm a big history buff, but to go there and actually see what life was like in those times of political turmoil was a strong reminder. People will only stand up and fight when they have nothing left to lose. So, in the context of 'getting worse before getting better' , and 'hitting absolute rock bottom', sadly, I think we've got a ways to go yet.

I was talking with a colonial gunsmith in Williamsburg (he was the real deal, not some actor, making custom period correct firearms). We were talking about barrel 'rifling' (most muskets of the day were not rifled). He told me an account of the types of people who had rifled barrels in the day. Most of them hunted for money, not for food; the food value was secondary to the money. They ate the food to survive so they could hunt for money. Anyway, the point was, there was about a regiment of these guys around the area, and as they all came in to trade they eagerly enlisted to fight in the Revolutionary War. General George Washington would later say these were the "freshest" troops he had fighting for him.

The concept of "fresh" troops is important here, and you'll see why in a moment. This regiment of men marched 600 miles from Williamsburg, and they did it in 30 days (an incredible average of 20 miles per day...and they did it on foot, not horseback). When they arrived they at Washington's command they were one of the most effective fighting units of the war (per Washington), and they were the 'freshest' (meaning, ready to fight) troops he'd ever seen. Now, imagine for a moment how 'fresh' you'd be after trekking 600 miles in 30 days, in the winter...and then compare that to the morale levels of the regular troops Washington had in his command. The level of desperation and committment to fight that war is so far beyond what we as a society can imagine today it is almost comical!

In fact, I'd be willing to bet good money, that you couldn't find one able bodied male in the USA today between the ages of 15 and 22 who was even physically able, let alone willing, to go do something like that!

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: quintessentone

Look, despite being a conservative myself, I am objective enough to be troubled by things like the overturning of Roe v. Wade. ...for no apparent reason. And, regardless of my position on the matter, the timing smacks of political douchebaggery...which is never a good thing in my book.

As I understand R v. W wasn't overturned for "no apparent reason." The reason was that since the Constitution neither prohibited nor endorsed abortion "rights," the Federal Government has no say in the matter and it is up to the individual states to decide what the laws regarding such are in each state. The Feds are out of the abortion business despite being erroneously in it for about 50 years.

a reply to: pteridine

Fair enough. I don't want this discussion to get distracted into a debate about Roe v. Wade, as I really only used that as one example of many (one people would recognize). Further, I didn't mean to imply the decision was without reason, but rather the timing was very...ummm...curious (and I'll just leave it at that).

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: pteridine

Fair enough. I don't want this discussion to get distracted into a debate about Roe v. Wade, as I really only used that as one example of many (one people would recognize). Further, I didn't mean to imply the decision was without reason, but rather the timing was very...ummm...curious (and I'll just leave it at that).

But here we have the example of what SCOTUS is supposed to do, as you pointed out earlier. The activist court of the 70's overstepped their authority. If people want a Federal abortion mandate, they should convene a Constitutional convention and go through the process of adding an amendment that would address such.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It's kind of interesting; I just got back from a trip back east and we went to several places, among them was Mt. Vernon (Washington's home and estate) and Colonial Williamsburg, VA (among others).

What a great vacation! Fascinating... and so much more.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet good money, that you couldn't find one able bodied male in the USA today between the ages of 15 and 22 who was even physically able, let alone willing, to go do something like that!

That is a sobering thought. Worse than sobering if I let myself think too far.

I suppose though that the Pentagon and their new war technology doesn't see any need for strong able-bodied "fresh" soldiers. I suppose they'll learn too late that only hindsight is 20/20.

originally posted by: PorkChop96

I know there are those that will condemn me for saying this but I am going to say it anyways;

If you are a law student, and you need therapy/counseling to help you "handle" a judgement passed by the SCOTUS, you should probably give up on law and go do something else with your life. If you are so emotionally distressed by a ruling on several things, I mostly agree with all of them, how are you going to be able to handle a case that you are dealing with in court when the opposition makes you look the fool?

Democrats Devastated As Supreme Court Bans Racism

Yes, it's the Bee... but still more real than the enimedia.

U.S. — Democrats are in mourning today after the Supreme Court ruled that racial discrimination in college admissions is unconstitutional. Left-wing experts say this will greatly hinder their God-given right to fight racism by being racist.

"By banning racism, the extremist right-wing Supreme Court has banned anti-racism," said Congresswoman AOC. "This will greatly hinder our ability to tinker with human behavior until everything looks like like we think it should in our infinitely wise minds. Minorities are NOTHING without us! How will they survive? This is a tragic day for America."

Experts say that this move will allow people to go to college based on their hard work and merit, rather than their skin color, finally realizing MLK's dream. They also estimated that by 2025 all college students in the country will be Asian.

a reply to: pteridine

But here we have the example of what SCOTUS is supposed to do, as you pointed out earlier. The activist court of the 70's overstepped their authority. If people want a Federal abortion mandate, they should convene a Constitutional convention and go through the process of adding an amendment that would address such.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see another challenge reach the Supreme Court. Although, this time it would address a law criminalizing abortion rather than legalizing abortion. And I'm good with that.

If there are challenges to be made, let them be made, heard, and decided.

a reply to: Boadicea

this time it would address a law criminalizing abortion rather than legalizing abortion. And I'm good with that.

Maybe. But I think a storm is brewing in Texas to invoke the 2nd Amendment and self-defense in a case for constitutional rights to abortion.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Maybe. But I think a storm is brewing in Texas to invoke the 2nd Amendment and self-defense in a case for constitutional rights to abortion.

Interesting. I've wondered if/how a case could be made for the mother's right-to-life. The 2nd will be an interesting way to argue for it.

I would think the 9th would be easier to argue, basically that at the time of the ratification abortion-until-quickening was non-criminal in the states, therefore the people (women) can assume the same as a right. Of course, I would expect a counter argument of the 10th.

Any argument will be interesting to hear though.

a reply to: SigmaXSquared

I am sooooo sorry that I am expecting those that are going to be making their living making choices like this to have some sort of mental fortitude.

Forgive me for expecting them to not lose their damn minds and go crying to a shrink when something doesn't go the way they want it to. If my JOB was going to be making big decisions that will change peoples' lives, I would have the common sense to say "Hey, if I can't handle the SCOTUs making a decision, doing their JOB, then maybe this profession aint for me.".

If you need mental help, by all means get it. But if that is your go to when anything happens that doesn't have the outcome that you want, maybe being a lawyer isn't for you.