Sure, the point is the Constitution needs updating. Right now it's a death pact based on the interpretation 6 people have based on their reading of circumstances over two centuries ago. Meaning it's not perfect and not meant to be wielded against any modicum of societal change the way that is happening at the moment.
Should colleges give preferential treatment to athletes?
- Thread starter Morrischiano2
- Start date
- Status
Sure, the point is the Constitution needs updating. Right now it's a death pact based on the interpretation 6 people have based on their reading of circumstances over two centuries ago. Meaning it's not perfect and not meant to be wielded against any modicum of societal change the way that is happening at the moment.
Isn't it amazing how this Supreme Court keeps ruling in a way that aligns perfectly with the GOP platform? What a coincidence!
I'm not sure this is true. It's very likely that some abolitionists in the north said "as long as you have these people as slaves, even after a war for freedom and equality, then you shouldn't get representation" partly as a way to force the end of slavery. Moderates brokered a compromise to keep the convention from falling apart. There were abolitionists at the convention; they were pushing for an end to the slave trade, which is why that shows up in the document.
Except on the elections and when it comes to that they're "compromised" lmao. But when it's a fake couple, they're brilliant!
Some of us saw this coming a long time ago....just didn't think it would be the casino-bankrupter who would be facilitating it.
It is also amazing how the three Democratic appointees continue to vote as a block and align perfectly with the DNC platform, coincidence? Of course not, the Court has always been a political body, anybody who told you differently sold you a defective bill of goods. The difference now is that the pendulum has swung to the GOP, that is the outrage, and that is why some Democrats want to add more justices. Does anybody believe they want to add independent minded justices? Laughable.
Those three appointees have been largely voting conservative, however, upholding prior decisions--which is how most Supreme Court justices rule--while the other 6 have been routinely overturning decades-old decisions, across a wide array of areas of the law. In the 50s the Warren Court overturned a lot of stuff relating mostly to segregation; this Court overturns decisions on guns, the environment, abortion, affirmative action, business law, on and on. All those prior justices got all those things wrong! Thank God we have Alito to tell all of us the right way! He knows better. If nothing else, they're the opposite of conservative. That's a radical agenda to undo 100 years of Court decisions like we've never seen.
Somebody is going to have to explain to me how that Louisiana redistricting case got decided last week the way it did perfectly aligned with the Republican platform. And there were other cases, including a 9-0 decision that went against the "Democrat" preference.
Judicial philosophies differ and people will be upset. But it could be worse. Once court packing begins the whole thing will come apart and in 50 years there will be more sitting Supreme Court justices than members of the House of Representatives.
Including one affirmative action Harvard lawyer who couldn't define what a woman is despite being one. She's actually nice and from an Army family but its clear she was never up to SCOTUS duty.
Apparently knowing what boys and girls are is a vast RW conspiracy - along with secure borders, parental rights, energy independence, non-weaponized agencies, functional military and police - all the common sense things deemed conspiracies.
People have to realize we are not stuck in a political situation - we have a mental health crisis - people are becoming unhinged from reality. The further they fall the crazier the normal seem to them.
Man, some of these racists sure hate when they can't be racist anymore. The SC really outed them.
See a lot of people at stage 3.
Urban Dictionary offers up this handy definition: “Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a mental condition in which a person has been driven effectively insane due to their dislike of Donald Trump, to the point at which they will abandon all logic and reason.”
Justin Raimondo, the editorial director of Antiwar.com, wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times in 2016 that broke TDS down into three distinct phases or stages:
- “In the first stage of the disease, victims lose all sense of proportion. The president-elect’s every tweet provokes a firestorm, as if 140 characters were all it took to change the world.”
- “The mid-level stages of TDS have a profound effect on the victim’s vocabulary: Sufferers speak a distinctive language consisting solely of hyperbole.”
- “As TDS progresses, the afflicted lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality.”
You are correct. Neither the states or Congress prohibited from outlawing legacy admissions. They are free to do so.
The problem is, legacy admissions are not prohibited in the constitution, but racial discrimination is, hence the ruling.
You are arguing against a point that was not being made.
Last edited:
There is already a method to do that. If you want to update the constitution, simply complete the amendment process.
Libs can't update it because the majority of people don't believe in their brand racism. They are outliers.
This is kind of illustrative of the problem. You are looking and this from a different scope than I am.
When I say morality wasn't a factor, what I mean is, the 3/5ths number was itself was not meant to be a moral judgement on worthiness of a slave as a soul or being. It was mean as a compromise over the amount of power the slave states derived from their enslaved population.
Now, if you want to make an argument as to WHY the north wanted to restrict the power of the south, you could certainly argue it was based in morality. However, again, that argument is beyond the scope of the actual function of the 3/5ths number itself.
73% of American's don't believe race should be factor in admissions. Said another way, 73% of American's are against racism. Some of the 28% is apparently on this board.
I personally oppose discrimination in all forms, which means no affirmative action or cake decorators or web designers discriminating either. Can't say it's OK for some and not for others, which the SC just did.
I wonder if there is a 10th amendment issue on a federal ban on legacy admissions. That wouldn't exist at the state level.
But they don't like the process, probably because it would never happen, particularly for something like legacy admissions. So they say screw the legalities and just do it. Similar to Trump on immigration from Arabic countries back in '17 or Biden on student loan forgiveness.,
No there isn't. The first amendment does not let you treat someone else differently under the law. If so, then all discrimination is now legal, including affirmative action.
If a guy couple goes into a bakery, they cannot be refused service. If they want to buy a pre-made cake, they can't be refused service.
In addition to that, the Supreme Court ruling on college admissions was based on the 14th amendment specifically banning discrimination based on race.
The prior justices were political animals. The left has had its way with the court system for decades so of course the 3 current Democrats sitting on the court are going to vote to preserve the liberal gains over those years. They aren't being conservative, they are trying to protect the prior liberal case holdings, plain and simple.
Lots of those decisions were made by conservative and moderate justices, and supported by majorities of Americans. Sorry if the far right didn't approve but there wasn't much in there that was terribly extreme.
Did you miss the topic of the thread and the claim that bc legacy isn't mentioned in the Constitution it's not actionable?
Will do. Will be a lot easier once PR and DC become states in 2025 and the sex abuser hands the former Confederacy their final L next year.
Lol no. When you're in business you do the same service for anyone willing to pay for it. Nothing more, nothing less. That's equality. A cake maker is not being asked to do anything but make a cake, web designer is just being asked to design a (fictional apparently) web site. What is it about conservatives that they so desperately still want to discriminate against people? What do they hate about equality?
It's not really about wanting to discriminate. It's also not about hating equality.
For most conservatives, the problem is the make-it-up-as-you-go legal approach that is favored by some on the left.
For example your statement:
"When you're in business you do the same service for anyone willing to pay for it."
isn't exactly true. There are a variety of reasons whereby you may choose to not perform a service for someone who is willing to pay it, and this would be completely legal
Did you miss the tattoo parlor in TN that posted the sign he would not take work from Trump voters and conservatives? There have been quite a few other examples as well. At the end of the day I think those are outliers on both sides so not fair to label one side or the other.
Yeah, perfectly aligned like the Louisiana gerrymandering case. Oops. Or the NC state legislative theory case. Double oops.
Think before you post. Thanks!
Great poll. 73% of Americans are right and the rest are crazy libs. LOL!
As I've said before, never let facts get in the way of a good rant.
- Status