SCOTUS and whatnot

[pfife]

a really wonderful side effect of the student loan case is getting to hear all of these boomer boostrap legends

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, pfife said:

a really wonderful side effect of the student loan case is getting to hear all of these boomer boostrap legends

LOL - The ratio of typical summer job income to tuition and R&B costs at UM between 1970 and today as dropped from about 1:1 to about 0.25:1 or maybe even less.

[Tigeraholic1]

.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Tigeraholic1

[Tigeraholic1]

11 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I wonder if this isn't a result Biden is happy to live with. He gets the props from the progressive wing, doesn't have to live with the results, which could be questionable. And he can further energize young voters on Supreme Court oppostion.

It was deemed unconstitutional from the get go. Great political strategy from his team in the sense of nothing to lose.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Tigeraholic1

[pfife]

1 hour ago, pfife said:

I've heard from several different commentators that the web designer and gay couple aren't even real people, it was all fake/hypothetical.   Like the supreme court deciding on an Esweig thread.  WTAF

ok, what it sounds like is they're real people but the person they say requested the gay wedding website didn't request a gay wedding website and is straight married.

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

LOL - The ratio of typical summer job income to tuition and R&B costs at UM between 1970 and today as dropped from about 1:1 to about 0.25:1 or maybe even less.

Exactly.

Certainly not oblivious to the arguments about the regressive aspects to the Biden policy announcement. But at the same time, the deeper structural problems with the cost of higher ed seem hard to tackle when the animating issues of our time in Congress, particularly on the GOP side, is culture war crap.

[jz68]

While college has certainly become much more expensive over the years, most kids don't do themselves any favors by choosing to attend much more expensive schools on the other side of the country rather than staying home, attending community college and then transferring to an in state school to finish up their studies.  

[romad1]

28 minutes ago, jz68 said:

While college has certainly become much more expensive over the years, most kids don't do themselves any favors by choosing to attend much more expensive schools on the other side of the country rather than staying home, attending community college and then transferring to an in state school to finish up their studies.  

Screw those dreamers who want to achieve something through the meritocracy. 

[mtutiger]

31 minutes ago, jz68 said:

While college has certainly become much more expensive over the years, most kids don't do themselves any favors by choosing to attend much more expensive schools on the other side of the country rather than staying home, attending community college and then transferring to an in state school to finish up their studies.  

I do agree with that.

This conversation never seems too nuanced regardless... certainly the tendency to push kids toward college (which was widespread around when I was going through K-12) was misguided, there are good careers in the trades, sometimes better even than ones you can obtain via college.

But at the same time, success in this arena shouldn't simply be about pushing kids toward career paths that don't require capital expenditure to further education, it should be about helping kids find a career that align with their strengths as human beings. And I do worry that the increased cost of college education, even at the state level, will further box out kids whose skills do align with, say, engineering or the sciences but who do not necessarily have the means to pay for it all on their own.

I just think that gets lost in all of this discussion... ideally you need a mix of kids interested in both trades or higher ed. Not one or the other, which seems to be how a lot of politicians who demagogue against higher ed (who ironically all have Ivy League degrees; think Josh Hawley or JD Vance) seem to argue these days

[gehringer_2]

3 hours ago, pfife said:

ok, what it sounds like is they're real people but the person they say requested the gay wedding website didn't request a gay wedding website and is straight married.

The case was  certainly manufactured but it  also turned on a fairly narrow point -- the  definition of what 'expression' is vs what commerce is. The ruling further carves out an exception sort of along the same lines that while baker can't refuse to sell a cake to anyone that walks in the door, they can refuse to decorate a cake with a piece of text they find objectionable - the theory sort of being along the same lines that you can't force an author to write a book that says what you want said instead of what he wants to say. It hinges on finding the crossover point between ordinary tasks and tasks that 'express speech.'  I think anyone would agree with the principle in the limiting case - i.e. Probably everyone would agree Steven King should be allowed to refuse to write a screen play for Mein Kampf. Whether Scotus found the correct reasonable scope to the principle is debatable. Since as I understand, the 'web site' in question never existed, It's pretty hard to say whether the commerical request demanded 'speech' by the web builder - unless you are a conservative Judge and just stipulate it did.

Edited July 1, 2023 by gehringer_2

[romad1]

2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

I do agree with that.

This conversation never seems too nuanced regardless... certainly the tendency to push kids toward college (which was widespread around when I was going through K-12) was misguided, there are good careers in the trades, sometimes better even than ones you can obtain via college.

But at the same time, success in this arena shouldn't simply be about pushing kids toward career paths that don't require capital expenditure to further education, it should be about helping kids find a career that align with their strengths as human beings. And I do worry that the increased cost of college education, even at the state level, will further box out kids whose skills do align with, say, engineering or the sciences but who do not necessarily have the means to pay for it all on their own.

I just think that gets lost in all of this discussion... ideally you need a mix of kids interested in both trades or higher ed. Not one or the other, which seems to be how a lot of politicians who demagogue against higher ed (who ironically all have Ivy League degrees; think Josh Hawley or JD Vance) seem to argue these days

If only K-12 did what the university education is supposed to do by rounding people into good citizens.  

[Mr.TaterSalad]

I wonder how right wing Christians would feel being refused service at a business simply on the basis of being right wing Christian? The ever aggrieved white, Christian right wins again thanks to their blatantly partisan Supreme Court legislating from the bench against laws and rulings they personally don't like. From affirmative action to bodily autonomy to student loans to LGBTQ+ rights to environmental protections, they are striking down things not on the basis of interpreting constitutionality, but because things do or don't align with their own personal agenda.

I'm old enough to remember when Republicans and the Christian right supposedly were against activist judges, making laws and legislating from the bench.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Mr.TaterSalad

[Mr.TaterSalad]

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

The Supreme Court should be like NASCAR, with all their sponsors and billionaire giftgivers listed. I wonder if Coke would be willing to sponsor Clarence Thomas?

[gehringer_2]

The worse decision this week might have been that the Post Office couldn't fire a worker for refusing to work on Sunday. TBF, the Post Office could still previail because the court sent the case back to be reconsidered under different criteria.

I think as a general principle Americans would say if your religion conflicts with the job I'm offering - go look for another job.

[Motor City Sonics]

42 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

The Supreme Court should be like NASCAR, with all their sponsors and billionaire giftgivers listed. I wonder if Coke would be willing to sponsor Clarence Thomas?

Only us old guys know what the Coke reference even means, but it's a good one 

[Motor City Sonics]

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

The worse decision this week might have been that the Post Office couldn't fire a worker for refusing to work on Sunday. TBF, the Post Office could still previail because the court sent the case back to be reconsidered under different criteria.

I think as a general principle Americans would say if your religion conflicts with the job I'm offering - go look for another job.

yeah.  First of all - a postal carrier on Sunday?    Um, they don't really deliver on Sunday, do they?    Oh, yeah, they deliver packages, but I am sure they can get someone to work it since they get time and a half I believe.     Maybe they work Newbies on Sunday.  Well, guess what, if you want to move up, then you'll have to pay some dues and work some crappy shifts.   I think most of us did at various jobs.  I sure as hell did.     You know those canopies that are used at outdoor fairs, the metal ones that are collapsible with with the adjustable holes and pegs?   I am the Program Director now and I don't have to touch them.  I don't have to get my hands and fingers pinched in those goddamned things.   I paid those dues - I paid 'em a lot.  

And SCOTUS just opened the door to anyone refusing to do a job or part of a job based on religion.   All you'll have to do is find some religion that forbids certain behaviors - or just make up your own.    This is a bunch of B.S.      I don't know, folks, have you had to work when you had other things going on?     For me, it would be in the hundreds. 

 

 

  

 

All right kid, you wanna be in radio, you gotta deal with this the next few years.     "But my religion forbids me from having to touch tent poles of any kind."

 

Disenchanter (July 14)  from Park County

[Motor City Sonics]

It's interesting that, for the most part, the countries with the happiest population are also the least publicly religious.  

They have religion in Denmark.   They just keep it to themselves. 

[Motor City Sonics]

And I don't like ANY religion.  I think they are all organized grifts. 

[chasfh]

17 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I wonder how right wing Christians would feel being refused service at a business simply on the basis of being right wing Christian?

I’d love to see a plaintiff try this, but the Court will strike it down lightning quick because the claim will be religion is protected by the Constitution, and gay is not, and gay should never be assumed to be protected by the Constitution, because a bunch of dudes a quarter millennium ago.

Edited July 2, 2023 by chasfh

[chasfh]

21 hours ago, mtutiger said:

But at the same time, success in this arena shouldn't simply be about pushing kids toward career paths that don't require capital expenditure to further education, it should be about helping kids find a career that align with their strengths as human beings.

How would kids know what their so-called “strengths” are? They’re just kids! All these little boys thinking they’re girls … they don’t know anything about themselves or the world! If there’s one thing Parkland taught me

[Motor City Sonics]

40 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I’d love to see a plaintiff try this, but the Court will strike it down lightning quick because the claim will be religion is protected by the Constitution, and gay is not, and gay should never be assumed to be protected by the Constitution, because a bunch of dudes a quarter millennium ago.

I have the perfect solution.   Maybe LGBTQ a religion.   Just come up with something.   Scientology did it, so why not?  

[chasfh]

8 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

I have the perfect solution.   Maybe LGBTQ a religion.   Just come up with something.   Scientology did it, so why not?  

Talking about expanding idea of religion beyond people's limited imaginations, I have long thought—and actually argued on the old board to this effect—that the pro-choice people could fight against abortion restrictions not on the basis of 14th Amendment equal protection of the right to privacy, which I don't even get how that works, but on the basis of First Amendment protections against the respecting an establishment of religion, because the obvious basis for pro-lifers' efforts is what they imagined Jesus might have said about abortion in the Bible. Their opposition to it certainly not based on any scientific or medical reasons—in fact, it goes counter to medical reasons when they practically force a woman to almost die in childbirth before they would even consider terminating the dangerous pregnancy.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Talking about expanding idea of religion beyond people's limited imaginations, I have long thought—and actually argued on the old board to this effect—that the pro-choice people could fight against abortion restrictions not on the basis of 14th Amendment equal protection of the right to privacy, which I don't even get how that works, but on the basis of First Amendment protections against the respecting an establishment of religion,

This is already happening but from the direction of people claiming that some abortions - particularly to save the mother, are mandated by their religious beliefs . 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/28/health/abortion-religious-freedom.html?searchResultPosition=1

Edited July 2, 2023 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

This is already happening but from the direction of people claiming that some abortions - particularly to save the mother, are mandated by their religious beliefs . 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/28/health/abortion-religious-freedom.html?searchResultPosition=1

I agree, the use of religion is already happening, although I've seen it only as you indicate, as an argument for exceptions to abortion bans based on a specific religion's specific tenets, and not as an argument that the entire point of the anti-choice opposition is to impose the principles of a certain religion on the rest of the country. That's what I want to see.