I don't wanna hear anymore crying over our BI-PARTISAN SC!

It is not the place of the USSC to represent the American people. That is the function of the House of (wait for it...) Representatives, to a lesser degree, the US Senate, and to a lesser degree even still, the President. Rather their function is to represent and interpret the Constitution, and to determine what it says, what it means, and why. Their role is NOT to rule in favor of what they wish it said, nor what they think would poll better, even if it would be 99-1, rather it is their function to, in sports parlance, call balls and strikes without concern about which team is pitching and which is batting, even if one of those teams was (and still is) their favorite baseball team of all time!

I understand that most people really don't understand that, but someone who spends time here absolutely should, or turn in your debate card, because if you don't, yer too dumb for this hobby.

 

Who says he's 'competing with a rich, white kid from the affluent suburbs for college admissions'. One of the many reasons we have these morally and legally flawed laws, is that the Democratic Party creates them via some sob story or some other that has no basis on the on-the-grounds reality in the US. From your prospective for example, the top 1% owns 40% of the wealth. Okay, given this there aren't that many 'rich white kids' to begin with, to compete with the suburbs.

In fact, there should be more poorer kids period, regardless of race or color than rich white kids, going by this prospective.

That's for one thing. For another thing, AA is completely unnecessary if that's the objective here. We can look to the European Union for inspiration. I know that conservatives have pushed against student debt reform, but that's only on the idea of paying for debts already incurred. I honestly think, even if there's opposition to a free public university education system like the EU, over time, the people will see the benefits as there are in fact, poor conservatives(shocker, I know.)

We need not embrace the policy of racism, to close generational gaps and to accomplish pluralism and meritocracy in America. The destruction of AA was a wonderful day in America.

And as far as a 'minority of Americans'? https://news.yahoo.com/affirmative-...light-on-where-americans-stand-175858320.html

There was a NYT poll where the majority disapproved, and in this poll, at best it's splintered.

Because it strikes at the heart and soul of everything we believe., To counter racism with race. Not in this time, not in our time.

 

What about poor white kids living under identical circumstances as poor black or Latino kids? Unless you’re implying CERTAIN poor POC are less able to do well compared to poor Asians or white kids?

Why RACE? Why does it matter? Why not just financial bracket?

With AA, rich black kids get space before poor white kids? You think that’s OK? A rich black kid has infinitely more opportunity and privilege than any poor white kid. Not very equitable of you

 

"democratic election fraud"?

You know they can't find any, right?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...was-stolen-anyway-poll-finds/?sh=7d75e99228ec

Republican fraud, on the other hand...

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...nghold-leads-another-light-sentence-rcna68366

 

No, you couldn't. You'd be hard pressed to find more than one or two examples and those would be very small potatoes at best.

 

LAMO!!!

Dude actually cited Gateway Pundit!

 

Dude, at least keep it up to the Faux niwz level. I don't post **** from Palmer Report do I?

 

The real test will be the student loan case. If they are even remotely consistent with even their own rulings, they will have to toss the challenges on standing and give Joe the win. If they reach around/ignore the standing issue to get to the Administrative Procedure Act claim, they are just playing politics. I mean I support student loan relief and think Biden went the worst possible way to try to get to what I think is pretty token forgiveness, but legally, I don't see that the plaintiffs in the two cases have anything even remotely resembling standing to challenge it. I said even at the time that I didn't see how anybody but a student loan servicer could have standing and that is the real issue the court should have to deal with now.

 

This comment did not age well, and once again, the USSC got it right. The House, not the Presidency, is the branch of the Federal Government that controls the checkbook. This is not new, this not unknown, it's been that way since 1791, and...

EVERYBODY, INCLUDING CREEPY JOE AND HIS STAFF, KNEW IT. EVEN NANCY PELOSI SAID THAT!!!

So... Bwhahahaha, the Supreme Court is doing their job in interpreting the Constitution as written, and in the process, showing publicly just how much contempt the left has for it. Deny, ignore, disparage, and try to get around it, but... You can't!

 

Democrats are paying a steep price for naming the worst possible candidate for the Presidency in 2016.

Hillary Clinton had an enormous amount of unwanted baggage from her marriage to Bill Clinton, her involvement in the Clinton administration and impeachment, her unpopularity, and, finally, an FBI investigation of her use of a private server containing classified information while she was President Obama's secretary of state. The FBI investigation of her continued throughout most of the 2016 Presidential campaign.

Note: Despite her unpopularity, Clinton still won the popular vote over Donald Trump.

As President, Trump, vowing to overturn Roe vs. Wade, was able to name three conservative Supreme Court Justices. The three Supreme Court justices he appointed – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – are the most by any President since Ronald Reagan (who appointed four) and the most by any one-term President since Herbert Hoover.

On June 24, 2022, In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), which guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion, creating consternation and flag-waving protests from coast to coast and turning the "red tide" election to become red stain on the Republican Party.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a divided ruling on affirmative action policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The court ruled against the programs, and the majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Today, the Supreme Court issued two monumental 6-3 decisions on the final day of its current term. The conservative court blocked President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program and limited LGBTQ protections in which the justices ruled in favor of a Christian web designer in Colorado, who refused to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings out of religious objections. The ruling represents the latest victory for religious conservatives at the high court and encourages discrimination based on religion, race, and ethnicity.

These rulings with more to follow from Trump's court are devastating to the liberal cause, and it is all because -- in an election they should have won over the scandal-ridden, indecisive Trump -- Democrats chose a highly vulnerable and undesirable candidate that lost.

The fact that Trump's popularity is growing with each criminal indictment and is the leading Republican candidate for President tells one a great deal about the Republican base that chose our President in 2016.

As is their custom, these same Republicans will remain silent on the issues.

 

I don't. I support preferential treatment for military veteran's because they have earned it.

Earned is a term liberals obviously do not understand.

 

Sure I can "get around it". You truncated what I posted to try to pretend I said something different. What I said was "
The real test will be the student loan case. If they are even remotely consistent with even their own rulings, they will have to toss the challenges on standing and give Joe the win. If they reach around/ignore the standing issue to get to the Administrative Procedure Act claim, they are just playing politics. I mean I support student loan relief and think Biden went the worst possible way to try to get to what I think is pretty token forgiveness, but legally, I don't see that the plaintiffs in the two cases have anything even remotely resembling standing to challenge it. I said even at the time that I didn't see how anybody but a student loan servicer could have standing and that is the real issue the court should have to deal with now."

I stand by what I posted. They did exactly what I said they would have to do to get to the merits of the case---completely ignore the standing issue on the case with the states as plaintiffs.

 

And look what happened today.

 

The conservative SCOTUS decided to play politics. Hardly a shocker. The last two Presidents and the current one love them some partisan hacks. Maybe some day we will get a POTUS again who will nominate people with some gravitas to the bench. In the mean time, the reality is that the payment pause plus the coming changes combined will save many borrowers far more money than the dippy $10K/$20K thing would have. It won't come without a hidden cost though. Unless they are in the PSLF program, people getting discharges after 2026 are going to to drown in taxes as the new rules will put those upside down even deeper in the hole. Won't help grad school and older borrowers one bit though so Biden really is toying with fire politically himself.