Student loan rebate program blocked.
1 Like
About time. Even Pelosi and Biden admitted before POTUS had no authority to do so. Just a political stunt to get votes in 2020.
Also another big win for those not wanting to be forced into providing services…
2 Likes
Here’s the fun thing. The ruling seems to recognoze the benefit of diversity in college admissions… just not going to enforce it for most of us - but military academies, yep, they can proceed as before, because it’s important to have diverse leadership in the military. Apparently not in civilian society though. Ha.
The military shouldn’t be held to the same standards. The UCMJ decides, as it should, for those serving.
1 Like
Trump’s strategic choices just keep on giving! Hoorah.
My messaging to post-colonial studies grads–Starbucks is always hiring if they need to pay it back. Can they make me a latte real quickly? I’ll leave a $1 tip if they are fast.
1 Like
“As then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi explained: ‘People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not,’” Roberts quoted Pelosi’s July 28, 2021, press conference. "‘He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress.’
1 Like
Not suprising. She must know that the voters are easy to forget, but moreso underinformed, due to the lack of concern in matters of importance.
It’s a politician’s job to lie.
I disagree. Their job is to fake it in order to prove to the common people that the system works. When they lie, the system needs to shut them down or take them down.
Back to the Supremes.
This is a big one. I can see this being the precedent for not having to say she when she is clearly a he. Or a they. Just because someone chooses the hard road, doesn’t mean everyone has to throw flowers at their feet.
I kind of feel sorry for the indebted arts grads.
Believe it or not, I value an arts education and think the ruling classes in US and Canada should have an Oxford Philosophy, Politics and Economics equivalent. They don’t because they prefer money-grubbing arrivistes/johnny hayseeds like the Clintoons, that prefer MBAs, law, accounting etc.
That being said, if people want to follow the road less travelled and not pursue purely utilitarian degrees, some need to learn the barista ropes cuz it may not be profitable, at least in the short term.
1 Like
Choices and decisions. When my lad did his undergrad double major commerce and international relations he was never thinking of becoming a lawyer. We were on vacation together after he completed his undergrad discussing his options and I said hey you got good results why not do a JD Law degree. My lads response, well hey dad I have no interest in being a lawyer working 60 hours a week. He got five law school offers in a week but decided to stay at the same university he did his undergrad degree.
Then we chatted more and I said you know some of my clients, they work in firms that have their own legal counsel, they only work 40 hours a week, same as for those working for airlines financial institutions insurance companies tech firms etc etc.
So now he’s a lawyer doing quite well. Was legal counsel for CBA in Australia then moved to one of the law firms the bank uses. He is enjoying his legal career.
3 Likes
So we all agree that this case shouldn’t have been taken up by the court due to lack of standing (at the very least, to be charitable, it clearly wasn’t ripe), and the Roberts court is explicitly undermining that and engaging in judicial activism, right?
I don’t have an opinion on that. SCOTUS decides what cases to take or not.
I see it more as following well-established precedent in that free speech and association infringements don’t need to be ripe for the Court to step in:
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/897/chilling-effect#:~:text=Chilling%20effect%20is%20the%20concept,that%20appear%20to%20target%20expression.
Chilling effect is the concept of deterring free speech and association rights protected by the First Amendment as a result of government laws or actions that appear to target expression.
It is closely related to the overbreadth doctrine, which prohibits the government from casting too wide a net when regulating activities related to speech and expression.
Supreme Court uses chilling effect doctrine to protect First Amendment freedoms
The Supreme Court developed and explained the chilling effect doctrine in several opinions issued during the McCarthy era involving legislation and regulations aimed at suspected communists and so-called subversives.
Although not strictly related was Larry Flints SCOTUS ruling
18
"[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection.
19
For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas." Id., at 745-746, 98 S.Ct., at 3038.
20
See also Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 592, 89 S.Ct. 1354, 1366, 22 L.Ed.2d 572 (1969) (“It is firmly settled that . . . the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers”).
1 Like
Release the piranha and they all get bit.
SCOTUS is fucked up. They need to get on board with a real ethics program.
That said, the book buying (while being fucked), is relatively small potatoes compared to the real and perceived conflicts of big dollars and benefits going directly to the justices. Much more problematic, imo, is that her publisher had matters before the court that she didn’t recuse herself from (but why would she, given how lax the court is?! so fucked.).