120
Anti-affirmative action group, emboldened by US Supreme Court, targets scholarships
(www.reuters.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
120 points (96.9% liked)
politics
19104 readers
3094 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Money is speech according to the supreme court. These groups cannot dictate how private organizations hand out money.
The idea that Supreme Court justices -- ESPECIALLY conservative Supreme Court justices -- even pretend to have ideological consistency is absurd. They never have and the aren't going to start any time soon.
Never forget about how the known segregationist Rehnquist invented the Major Questions Doctrine purely in order to ignore the laws passed by Congress and replace the legislature with the bench just because he felt like it. And the same people that will endlessly call for states rights or declare inconvenient political questions strictly the purview of Congress will happily invoke it again and again any time their own political preferences are being ignored. Like Roberts just making the fuck up that Congress's authorization to regulate pollution doesn't allow the EPA to regulate pollution on a fully moot case they had no business even granting cert to, much less ruling on.
Fuck, I wish people understood just how utterly depraved and corrupt the SCOTUS is. There is zero reason to expect ANY legitimate rulings out of it. It does not and nearly never has cared about the law or civil rights.
A good book on this is A People's History of the Supreme Court. People think it had legitimacy because they tend to remember the few good rulings that helped Civil rights (Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade), but a lot of it's decisions have been pretty terrible for the people in the US, from their decisions on slavery, segregation (before Brown), the Bush/Gore election results, every decisions they have made lately, etc.
People don't seem to grasp just how fucked that EPA case, and it's consequences are. Chevron deference is out the window. Defeats the entire purpose of having regulatory agencies staffed by experts in their respective fields.
Which, of course, is their intention. Dismantling the "administrative state." The fact that so many poor and middle class people have been fooled into fervently supporting these ghouls is so fucked up.
naah its only speech when evil corporations are lining the pockets of corrupt politicians. Here there is probably some reason as to why giving money to help disadvntaged kids get an education is not speech because these kids cannot influence politics directly or some bs.
That would be true if they cared about consistency and weren't massive hypocrites.