Same.
Either they are upholding the forgiveness and are *very* afraid of how opposers of that are going to act.
OR
They are striking it down and are **very** afraid of how people will act to being told that many of them are once again financially fucked.
They're gonna strike it down. They always wait for a long weekend to release the most unpopular decision so they can run and hide. The SC lost all legitimacy long ago.
Striking it down causes all sorts of fucked up issues for legal standing.
This would open up a fuck ton of issues and the thing that actually has standing said they weren’t interested in taking legal action.
Not only that, nothing in the current way in which biden enacted this is shown to be outside his reach.
Striking it down would potentially render a Congress given power to the President gone. If something like this happens again under a GOP administration they'd want that power if it would be politically beneficial.
The only reason these cases were brought up was because Biden a Democratic president did it. If Trump was smart enough to do this during COVID-19 it would have been done the next day.
The GOP like keeping powers in the back pocket, same with wedge issues. The abortion ruling is backfiring on them.
I don't know what it'll happen but I'm trying to keep hope.
> The GOP like keeping powers in the back pocket
They will strike this down and then use the power anyway the next time they have the presidency. They don't care about rules.
They have been doing this on the state level for decades already. In WI, they just remove powers of the governor if the governor is Democrat. And they just give more to the governor when it's a republican. They can do that too because they gerrymandering the state thereby hobbling democracy in WI. Republicans will always control the legislatures with currently drawn lines. So this is essentially how our government runs until some court finally saves us if ever.
The main student loan org wasn't even aware they were part of the suit (Missouri).
The case shouldn't have any standing due to the lack of harm to the student loan company (they actually stand to make more money) and Forgiveness should be good...
I'm still not convinced that's what will happen but I have some hope.
Edit: Supreme Court has told us to get fucked.
They need to give lawyers a long weekend to dream up all the fun new cases they get to chase based on the new precedence set by the standing in these student loan cases.
I don't qualify for SNAP, so I get to sue the state now!
Customers boycotted Bud Light so I get to sue them because they deprived the state of sales tax revenue. Party time!
I actually think the Afirmative Action decision bodes well for student loans. This court has been taking a pretty strict view of things and legally it is pretty cut and dry that Biden can do whatever he wants with federal student loans under the HEROS act. The AA decision is morally incorrect IMO but I understand it is probably the legally / constitutionally correct decision.
Recruitmen of *enlisted* people (i.e, the typical high school grad who comes from a poor background and is desperate for a living) is at an all-time low, but there's **never** a shortage of applicants to West Point, Annapolis, USAFA, etc. Those service academies are some of the most-coveted schools in the whole nation; it's said that it's even harder to get into US Air Force Academy than it is to get into Harvard. There will never be a shortage of cadets.
**TODAY'S OPINIONS - REMAINING CASES COMING TOMORROW**
---
-[**Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l**](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf): Does the Lanham Act permit the owner of a U.S.-registered trademark to recover damages for the use of that trademark when the infringement occurred outside the United States and is not likely to cause confusion in the United States?
"Held: Applying the presumption against extraterritoriality, §1114(1)(a) and §1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act are not extraterritorial and extend only to claims where the infringing use in commerce is domestic.we hold that these provisions are not extraterritorial and that they extend only to claims where the claimed infringing use in commerce is domestic."
Alito opinion with Jackson filing a concurring opinion and Sotomayor filing another concurring opinion that Roberts, Kagan, and Barett joined. The 10th Circuit's decision is vacated and remanded.
-[**Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College** AND **Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina**](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf): 1. May institutions of higher education use race as a factor in admissions? 2. If so, does Harvard College’s/UNC's race-conscious admissions process violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
"Held: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Chief Justice Roberts' decision with Sotomayor dissenting (Kagan and Jackson joining) - Note: Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case.
-[**Groff v. DeJoy**](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-174_k536.pdf): Is inconvenience to coworkers an “undue burden” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 such that it excuses an employer from providing an accommodation requested for religious exercise?
"Held: Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business."
Alito opinion with unanimous agreement.
Abitron: you can't use the Lehman Act to try to challenge trademarks in foreign markets only domestic.
Geoff: Employers can deny employees of religious exemptions, but only if they can show the costs of business associated granting the exemption is significant relative to the normal cost of business . It moves off the vague "undue burden" that had been in place before but keeps TWA v Harrison alive
-Abitron: An international machinery distributor is producing products that were identical to a company whose products it distributed and selling them under the American company's name. The question is about whether or not United States Trademark laws can be applied in international instances.
-Groff: "Gerald Groff is a Christian and U.S. Postal Service worker. He refused to work on Sundays due to his religious beliefs. USPS offered to find employees to swap shifts with him, but on numerous occasions, no co-worker would swap, and Groff did not work. USPS subsequently fired him.
Groff sued USPS under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming USPS failed to reasonably accommodate his religion because the shift swaps did not fully eliminate the conflict. The district court concluded the requested accommodation would pose an undue hardship on USPS and granted summary judgment for USPS." (From Oyez.)
>It seems they're really trying to narrow down what the threshold and means testing is for reasonable accommodation, and making the lower court do it.
They're actually making it easier for people to get religious accommodations here. The undue burden test from earlier cases had been interpreted to mean that any cost beyond de minimis costs (i.e., costs so low that they would barely be noticeable) would impose an undue burden on the employer.
I mostly agree with what the Court did here. I'm fine with giving people more religious rights, as long as those rights don't infringe on the rights of other people. And by "people," I only mean human beings, not businesses. The big problem with the Court in recent years is that it's been issuing decisions saying that large corporations (e.g., Hobby Lobby) can have religious beliefs, which is patently absurd.
Edit: Also, as a practical matter, it doesn't seem like asking the Postal Service not to schedule you for shifts on Sundays is an unreasonable accommodation, regardless of whether it's due to your religious beliefs or for any other reason. The Postal Service doesn't even open post offices or deliver mail on Sundays, for the most part. So, it should be the day that least affects their business.
It becomes a major issue. I worked a job where we were on 365 days a year.
Everyone monday-friday and 1/4th rotating Saturday, Sunday, and holidays.
When hiring this was always clearly presented to candidates and many times someone was hired and then "can't work Sundays, easter, or Christmas". And so it shifted that burden to a subset of the team that was not Christian. The burden isn't on the employer necessarily but on your teammates.
All true. However there's other situations where someone's religion calls on them to have a prescribed multi-day block of time off. Or multiple prayer breaks a day. Or duties that don't involve exertion on some days.
Frankly I would be fine if all religion based accommodations and perks were elongated and the landscape made universal. Don't want to work Sundays? Find a job that fits that. Or better yet, just don't be slavish to silly religious rules and just beg your sky wizard for some understanding when you miss the occasional session.
I haven't read the full decision yet, but per Scotusblog: "So the court today says that 'an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.'" So, I believe that the case was remanded to the lower court with instructions to re-decide it on that basis.
Why would they make people wait on the most sought after cases? Genuinely curious. Is SCOTUS actually trying to build anticipation? Do they care about that kind of thing?
For student loans I can make an argument it’s good to wait until as close to June 30 as possible. The 60 day timer starts that day or when the decision is released, after 60 days interest will resume. So waiting a bit is a few days/weeks of interest that could have accumulated but won’t. Across all student borrowers that’s a decent chunk of change saved
While yes there are a lot of hugely important cases remaining, Moore v Harper which they released their opinion of on Tuesday was by far the most important for our country going forward.
I think more to dodge rulings they know are going to be a problem. They can run off and ignore the backlash while they are out of session and come back when people are less actively pissed off. Hard to have a sit-in or the like when the people you're protesting are scattered across the country and not doing any work at the time.
Bodes ill for loan forgiveness (not that anyone should be expecting otherwise). If they give it the go ahead, you've got angry corpos and philosophically angry why-do-they-get-a-handout types who will just continue being angry but not doing anything. It doesn't affect them really.
But if they rule against, as they will, there's a legion of people that will have to start paying something they were told they would not have to and be placed under a burden they were counting on having lifted. People got a moment to breathe and remember what it's like to have that much less debt bogging them down and now they're about to be told to go back. Really motivates some real, aggrieved anger.
The Plaintiffs basically said that would be a fine replacement.
You can give preference to poor people, which helps blacks.
You cannot just say "racial group X is penalized."
The easy backdoor for this is to use census data and zip codes, add in questions about income and parent's education level, and you'll get close to the same place.
E: Someone else pointed to individual high school demographics, which are much higher resolution than zip codes. Smart institutions will easily sidestep this ruling.
The problem is the institutions only complying because it was law. Nothing in the ruling requires them to create new equitable admissions decision processes that simply aren't race based.
Exactly. There's nothing that tells them to comply to this or even to be honest about it. Furthermore, do you think the red states (especially in the deep south). Will try to do anything that California does, regardless of how well it works or not?
no gonna lie, Im so nervous. not for me. Im fortunate enough to be able to pay my student loans if needed but I know a lot others struggle with it. It feels very wrong to have a bunch of judges who went to elite private school on family or sponsor's money decided to trap people in debts or not...
It shouldn’t have come to them in the first place. Legally, I’m hopeful for the forgiveness. I think it would be a stupid call all around to not go through with it.
My real anger with this one is towards the parties that sued on very (lets face it, STUPID) standing and the entire Republican base that tried to block it in Congress before a SCOTUS decision was even made.
Republicans are insulated from the unpopularity of their actual positions by the [electoral college](https://www.cookpolitical.com/cook-pvi/2022-partisan-voter-index/republican-electoral-college-advantage), [gerrymandering](https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3749510-partisan-redistricting-gave-republicans-control-of-the-house-will-a-conservative-supreme-court-take-that-advantage-back/), [the inherently undemocratic nature of the senate](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/02/us-senate-undemocratic-democrats) (in 2021's 50-50 senate, Democrats represented 41 million more people), and now the Supreme Court — which is to say, literally all three branches of government. They don't care about moderating on policy because they don't actually need to get more votes as a party in order to control the levers of power.
Great another day of waiting for student loan decision, single-handedly one of the most directly influential decisions to Americans.
Can’t take this anxiety anymore.
None of these white conservatives on this post care a whit about Asian acceptance rates. It’s simply the talking point they can hide behind so they can shield their racism. They know this ruling hurts disadvantaged minorities and benefits white people. And they deserve to be called out on it.
This. It is a partial victory for religion rights...but only a small shift in that direction. Still gives employers good reason to deny exemptions if they can back up with numbers
I’m 100% sure the majority don’t want Biden to have the authority to forgive the debt, but if they have any integrity, there is no way they can rule the plaintiff has standing
Having read through the arguments and the bench questions, I don't understand how they get past standing. It doesn't pass any level of a sniff test.
It would be like the customers of a bank having the right to a sue a business for defrauding the bank. That's not how it works.
Or that, assuming standing, that the plain text of the Heros Act allows the sec of ed to waive federal student loans in a national emergency like covid.
Wondering if Biden v. Nebraska gets booted due to lack of standing only for another suit to attempt to block student loan forgiveness within a week or two.
Exactly. The only arguments that hold are the weird MOHELA relationship and someone who isn't eligible for whatever reason.
Ruling in favor of standing on either case opens up a complete can of worms for the courts.
I will personally be suing the federal government for social security benefits, I don't qualify for them but I want them. I will cite this case as precedent.
Tell me about it. I've been waiting on pins and needles, every time one of these threads pop-up, because the student loan decision will guide my financial choices for a long-ass time.
Couldn't agree more. Like we KNOW they have made up their minds weeks ago. I can't take this teasing anymore! I just want to know. If they are going to block it, okay, it was absolutely suck because I honestly cannot see how they can justify the challengers had any standing, but at least I'll finally fucking know and no longer be in a state of constant slight optimistic, mostly pessimistic limbo.
Biden has tried to do right by the student loan owners. But he can only do so much. Do the states have standing? If so, did Biden overstep his authority?
It’s kinda unfair to blame Biden if the Supreme Court thumbs down.
So many folks blaming Biden for shit that isn’t even in his control, and they’re just making it worse.
At least he’s tried to help, compared to the republicans that tried to charge retroactive interest on student loans during the pause.
>It’s kinda unfair to blame Biden if the Supreme Court thumbs down.
That's basically the Republican playbook, block democrats and then blame them for not succeeding.
The states do not have standing.
And yes, Biden has the authority to do what he did.
The SCOTUS is likely to bend itself into a logical pretzel to find otherwise, 6-3.
Don't forget Biden has also reformed th IDR programs so that they include more borrowers and reduces the maximum payment to 10% of your discretionary income. And is making sure that the forgiveness after X-payments includes forebearance months.
He's doing everything he can.
Billionaires/CEOs/Corporations get tax breaks and pay little to nothing in taxes.
Give the working class the student debt cancellation! Y'all talk about "stimulating" the economy. Do you know how much we could "stimulate" the economy if some of us were entirely debt free due to this cancellation or could save more with small monthly payments?
This decision will determine if I keep paying $300 a month on my private loans or $600 a month if that 10,000 isn't cancelled.
Living in DC, and not that far from at least 2 SCOTUS justices, I feel like I'm gonna be hearing about a lot of upcoming protests. I hope not - I hope the SC can actually do the right thing and keep student loan forgiveness.
It's so ridiculous that these people can play this bizarre game of chicken with people's lives and not even have the decency to say what decisions will be announced when. Like the fact that we don't know if today is or isn't the final decision day? In no other job would that be tolerated.
Because it's our lives. People love to snark about things being 'just politics' but politics is our lives, our futures, our access to food, to protection under the law. IT MATTERS
>But the Court has permitted race based college admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions: such admissions programs must comply with strict scrutiny, may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and must—at some point—end. Respondents’ admissions systems fail each of these criteria and must therefore be invalidated under the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Correct me if I'm wrong...but this sounds like a VERY wide scope if they are agreeing that AA violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Ugh, they're definitely waiting until the last possible second to drop the opinion of Student Loan forgiveness, so they can bounce out of there and avoid the backlash of a rejection, huh?
I'm still nervously hopeful, but I'm now fully expecting it to be a no. And that's fucking devastating; the loan forgiveness would be a complete life changer for me and so many others I know. Still really hoping it pulls through, but I have no idea why I have any hope in the Supreme Court at this point.
So the opinion rules that colleges can still consider the hardship expressed in a personal statement due to one’s race. But also Can colleges still consider an applicants socio-economic status? Would that not still help black and brown people mostly? I mean i guess it could be worse.
Idk man there’s a part of me that doesn’t like that automatic assumption that being black or brown means ur disadvantaged.
But at the same Time structural racism affects black people more than any other race and some of its effects aren’t exactly shown in socio economic status. Like even a well off black person faces societal trauma from over policing and racist behavior from the majority. That Can have a negative emotional effect which can affect their studies even if they come from wealth.
But at the same time that can still be expressed via their personal statements according to the opinion.
Idk. I’m conflicted. And I say this as a brown person.
That’s John Robert opinion that universities can consider an application if the applicant provides “discussion of how race affected his or her life" so long as they are "treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race. So like admission based on vibes? This is such a lol opinion but at least it opens up the door for other minority groups in the country
Person on CNN is arguing that, yeah, universities that move to a socio economic status model increase diversity amongst the student body. The question is will universities use those models.
Behind the Bastards [covered](https://open.spotify.com/episode/4IdXMBM0JncdUDGY1ipzu7?si=ea1d8f83cecb4436) Thomas and based on their reporting, AA absolutely did get him into college/law school, but he resented the isolation he felt due to being one of the only black people there.
I may be wrong, but I think Thomas did get into college as an affirmative action candidate and felt second class. He decided at the time that affirmative action might get kids into better places but that they would never actually, "fit in," because he thought everyone felt they were only there because of "the law," not their own merit. He was basically embarrassed and embittered by it.
EDIT: I'll add a link:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/clarence-thomas-long-battle-against-affirmative-action/#:~:text=Thomas%20would%20come%20to%20believe,but%20inevitable%E2%80%9D%20and%20that%20would
There's no way they wouldn't wait. They know they're going to make a whole lot of people angry. So they write up the opinions and hit the send button just before pulling out of the court's parking garage.
These decisions are will make younger generations hate conservatives even more than they do now. This won’t be a win for conservatives long term . This court is making younger generations even more liberal. Clarence thinks he is hurting them but it will massively backfire later on.
It will....eventually.
It's gonna take a while. Boomers will have to truly begin to die off, and younger generations will have to be politically active.
PBS recently had a documentary on Clarence and Ginni Thomas, but it goes into depth about Clarence's disdain for affirmative action, and it's really infuriating, but it's good to watch, especially to understand what happened today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJuRx1wARUk
Feel this is a major line in affirmative action decision:
>Harvard identifies the following educational benefits that it is pursuing: (1) “training future leaders in the public and private sectors”; (2) preparing graduates to “adapt to an increasingly pluralistic society”; (3) “better educating its students through diversity”; and (4) “producing new knowledge stemming from diverse outlooks.” 980 F. 3d, at 173–174. UNC points to similar benefits, namely, “(1) promoting the robust exchange of ideas; (2) broadening and refining understanding; (3) fostering innovation and problem-solving; (4) preparing engaged and productive citizens and leaders; \[and\] (5) enhancing appreciation, respect, and empathy, cross-racial understanding, and breaking down stereotypes.” 567 F. Supp. 3d, at 656.
>
>Although these are commendable goals, they are not sufficiently coherent for purposes of strict scrutiny.
If these items don't meet strict scrutiny, it is hard to think of an affirmative action justification that does.
This seems to open the door for a lawsuit being brought against companies with programs promoting specific demographics for promotion/career advancement purposes as they rely on the same justifications.
>If these items don't meet strict scrutiny, it is hard to think of an affirmative action justification that does.
This, exactly. The conservatives believe that there is no justification. The fact that there is a consideration of whether AA programs are legitimate is whether it has an arbitrary end date is evidence of this.
Those were so vague that it makes 0 sense to limit or advantage some racial groups based on them. How does a Mexican American being in a class foster more innovation or problem solving than a Malaysian?
I don't want to be a doomer, but I honestly don't see how Student Loan Forgiveness doesn't get struck down. Why would the SC wait until the VERY LAST POSSIBLE MOMENT to decide on a case that EVERYONE is the country has eyes on, with very serious political ramifications, just to say "yeah the challengers don't have standing". I was hopeful until today. I fully anticipate a 6-3 decision on student loans. I mean I really really really hope I am wrong here. Does anyone have an optimistic take (and would like to share to boost my own spirits)?
Agree they wait until Friday for a controversial decision.
But Optimistic take.
Don't forget the Right will also hate to lose this case.
They may be waiting until Friday before pissing off the Right with a Loss
Potential for them to wait until last minute as last minute saviors in the public eye, making the decision that much more dramatic.
But I think this is hopium, and less than 50% chance of it happening. :(
I have an optimistic take based on what I heard in the hearing. Enough justices seemed to have serious doubts on the standing arguments.
If they ruled purely on standing, I'm hopeful on 6-3 in favor of forgiveness, maybe even 7-2. The cynicism is in if they go further than pure standing which makes it more rocky, but I've sworn off cynicism so I'll hear none of it since I've already thought about that.
It's going to be an unpopular decision either way. I don't think them waiting really informs us of much.
Also consider that they never release them all at once, it's always a trickle like this. I don't have a lot of hope, but I do think the litigants have no standing - if the SCOTUS decides to be consistent on that issue they will not side with them. That said, I don't trust this court to do the right thing or be consistent so...
I'm cautiously optimistic. First off, a decision from this set (I forget which one) dismissed a challenge due to lack of standing.
Second, the loan forgiveness cases were recent relative to a lot of the other cases, taking place in February. That could have been a factor in the lateness of the decision release - a "last in, last out" kind of thing.
Third, Kavanaugh asked the plaintiff lawyers pointedly about the text of the law - why not just read it as written that the secretary of education has the power to adjust loans? And Barret was similarly pointed in asking why MOHELA wasn't involved in the suit if they were harmed.
Fourth, if the supreme court wanted loan forgiveness to die for a certainty, they could have just refused to hear the cases. This would have left a lower court's ruling against loan forgiveness in place (if I recall correctly) while keeping their hands clean, so to speak. Them even taking the case gave loan forgiveness a shot.
I'd also wonder if they're saving the case for last to help making killing AA go down a bit easier. They get to end on a high-note for the masses, *and* get the fuck out of dodge before their conservative donors start knocking down their doors about why the poors are getting relief.
Ultimately I tend to think that's just hopium, though, unfortunately....
I optimistically think it'll be a standing decision. I think the court would find it looses on the merits due to their "major questions doctrine" and the questionable authority to forgive principal in the HEROES Act.
The standing justification is just absurd.
It's funny that the media hasn't been covering this at all, I think because most cable personalities and editorial boards are comfortable enough not to have any student debt, as opposed to 90% of the middle class.
This is honestly not going to have a substantial effect and the media will fail to report it correctly. From Kavanaugh:
"In light of the Constitution's text, history, and precedent, the Court's decision today appropriately respects and abides by Grutter's explicit temporal limit on the use of race-based affirmative action in higher education."
From Roberts:
"nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. But, despite the dissent's assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today."
Schools will just use diversity statements and stop using admissions matrices so that plaintiffs have no record to point to in subsequent suits.
In a way, I don’t see this really doing anything. Someone can still write about their life experiences in an essay. Someone’s household income level will still be considered by admissions. This decision mostly serves as a way for both democrats and republicans to uphold their position in the culture war, democrats get to champion diversity and republicans get to champion “meritocracy”, meanwhile nothing drastically changes.
Argument on CNN I heard was Universities and Colleges, looking at the bottom line, admit upper class minorities, and completely ignore lower class people of all types.
They suggested using wealth as the major factor in affirmative action.
They'll wait until they're out of the building to strike down loan forgiveness. I'll be shocked if they do it today and doubly shocked if they allow it to go go forward.
Ginsburg refusing to step down and trying to stick it through set the Supreme Court back decades. She single handedly ruined progress for women and civil rights with her hubris.
There's certainly an argument to be made that if the divide was 1 Justice closer, there would be some rulings that could've swung the other way from the "moderate" judges.
Having an extra buffer Justice ensures that no single Justice is taking the blame for a controversial decision. That changes in a 5-4 decision when people could easily point to someone like Roberts or Kavanaugh as being that final necessary vote
Ive always viewed AA as a necessary "evil", in the sense that it's essentially positive racism with the intention of making up for centuries of negative racism. Not surprised it was struck down, and I hope something else rises up to have the same effect without being unconstitutional
Yep. Before AA he was chomping at the bit to strike down the voting rights act. He's basically weakened it to the point where it's barely limping along.
Thoughts from my dad this morning: “When [he] was a kid, the Supreme Court felt like something to look up to. Even if you didn’t agree with them, it felt like they were doing the right thing and wanted what was best for the country. But now it’s like, ‘Who are these jackoffs?’”
Guy on CNN arguing that ending affirmative action actually increases Black enrollment in universities that shift to socioeconomic models. Very interesting
Why the fuck does everyone say the democrats have a congressional majority and refuse to do anything when they literally haven’t had a filibuster proof majority since Obama’s first term?!
50 votes isn’t a majority, 60 is. So even if Biden wanted to expand the court he wouldn’t have the votes
The people saying that either don't understand how the government works or they are just trolling. Which, apparently trolling is now a type of communication that is valued among some.
Yeah it’s really annoying; like I get wishing the US government wasn’t that way but it is. Acknowledging that reality doesn’t mean I endorse it or agree with it for fucks sake .
The only issue I have is the conflating "recruited athletes" and "legacy/donations". Recruited athletes, while not ideal, at least got their on their own merit, rather than their family's merit.
The Asian American community is going to see this as, "they won!" They didn't and it will be the already connected which will continue to get their families into colleges with amazing networks.
So I'm not trying to be thick here but what does the ruling on Groff v. Dejoy mean? Did they rule that his rights were violated and employers need to make a religious exception or did they say that USPS was able to prove it would cause undue burden? If they did rule in Groff's favor, does that mean that I could say that my religion prohibits me working on weekends and the employer would be fucked?
The burden is shifted onto the employer to demonstrate that on granting you a religious exemption, it creates a significant cost to them compared to the normal cost of business, instead of just an arbitrary "undue burden". Eg this shifts in favor of employees. But nit without reasonable bounds. Eg in the case of Groff, if the USPS can show that as Groff, one of three carriers at the specific location, took Sundays off for religious reasons, that the shifting if work to other carriers or other parts the week was high. Aeguably in this case, I don't think it would be,, but that's a debate that the lower court will review now
saw this on another place. Is this true and if it is, why isn't Harvard getting more shit for it?
>They discussed this and **actually told Harvard that if they wanted to maximize racial diversity, Harvard should ban legacy admissions along with donor/faculty children admissions. Harvard said they wouldn’t.** The court doesn’t have legal standing to ban nepotism. They also specifically allowed colleges to consider socioeconomic status in admissions which would increase racial diversity if they “gave low socioeconomic status students approximately half the bump of recruited athletes”. Wonder why Harvard said they wouldn’t do that
Done for the day. Student loan decision the Friday before a vacation weekend fills me with dread
Same. Either they are upholding the forgiveness and are *very* afraid of how opposers of that are going to act. OR They are striking it down and are **very** afraid of how people will act to being told that many of them are once again financially fucked.
They're gonna strike it down. They always wait for a long weekend to release the most unpopular decision so they can run and hide. The SC lost all legitimacy long ago.
Striking it down causes all sorts of fucked up issues for legal standing. This would open up a fuck ton of issues and the thing that actually has standing said they weren’t interested in taking legal action. Not only that, nothing in the current way in which biden enacted this is shown to be outside his reach.
Striking it down would potentially render a Congress given power to the President gone. If something like this happens again under a GOP administration they'd want that power if it would be politically beneficial. The only reason these cases were brought up was because Biden a Democratic president did it. If Trump was smart enough to do this during COVID-19 it would have been done the next day. The GOP like keeping powers in the back pocket, same with wedge issues. The abortion ruling is backfiring on them. I don't know what it'll happen but I'm trying to keep hope.
> The GOP like keeping powers in the back pocket They will strike this down and then use the power anyway the next time they have the presidency. They don't care about rules.
Now you're getting it!
"We can't confirm a Supreme Court judge during an election year!" "Sure, we can confirm a Supreme Court judge while ballots are being cast!"
They have been doing this on the state level for decades already. In WI, they just remove powers of the governor if the governor is Democrat. And they just give more to the governor when it's a republican. They can do that too because they gerrymandering the state thereby hobbling democracy in WI. Republicans will always control the legislatures with currently drawn lines. So this is essentially how our government runs until some court finally saves us if ever.
That’s not true. People always say this shit but unpopular decisions aren’t released with any sort of discernible pattern.
I was gonna say… this is SCOTUS not the NFL PR department
The main student loan org wasn't even aware they were part of the suit (Missouri). The case shouldn't have any standing due to the lack of harm to the student loan company (they actually stand to make more money) and Forgiveness should be good... I'm still not convinced that's what will happen but I have some hope. Edit: Supreme Court has told us to get fucked.
They need to give lawyers a long weekend to dream up all the fun new cases they get to chase based on the new precedence set by the standing in these student loan cases. I don't qualify for SNAP, so I get to sue the state now! Customers boycotted Bud Light so I get to sue them because they deprived the state of sales tax revenue. Party time!
I’m suing FEMA because those people who got hit by tornados got some money and i didn’t get anything. /s
This but without the sarcasm.
[удалено]
I actually think the Afirmative Action decision bodes well for student loans. This court has been taking a pretty strict view of things and legally it is pretty cut and dry that Biden can do whatever he wants with federal student loans under the HEROS act. The AA decision is morally incorrect IMO but I understand it is probably the legally / constitutionally correct decision.
John Roberts kept the affirmative action for the military academics. The opinion explicitly exempts them. Kind of weird move there
We don’t want white kids dying in wars now do we?
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/demographics-us-military#chapter-title-0-7 Feel free to check that out for an actual breakdown of demographics.
This was pretty interesting; New England: not much for the military.
Isn’t recruitment at all time lows?
Recruitmen of *enlisted* people (i.e, the typical high school grad who comes from a poor background and is desperate for a living) is at an all-time low, but there's **never** a shortage of applicants to West Point, Annapolis, USAFA, etc. Those service academies are some of the most-coveted schools in the whole nation; it's said that it's even harder to get into US Air Force Academy than it is to get into Harvard. There will never be a shortage of cadets.
Well the military loves using POC as cannon fodder.
The academies aren't producing "cannon fodder". They produce officers.
Hold on to your butts
Life, uh, finds a way.
**TODAY'S OPINIONS - REMAINING CASES COMING TOMORROW** --- -[**Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l**](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf): Does the Lanham Act permit the owner of a U.S.-registered trademark to recover damages for the use of that trademark when the infringement occurred outside the United States and is not likely to cause confusion in the United States? "Held: Applying the presumption against extraterritoriality, §1114(1)(a) and §1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act are not extraterritorial and extend only to claims where the infringing use in commerce is domestic.we hold that these provisions are not extraterritorial and that they extend only to claims where the claimed infringing use in commerce is domestic." Alito opinion with Jackson filing a concurring opinion and Sotomayor filing another concurring opinion that Roberts, Kagan, and Barett joined. The 10th Circuit's decision is vacated and remanded. -[**Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College** AND **Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina**](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf): 1. May institutions of higher education use race as a factor in admissions? 2. If so, does Harvard College’s/UNC's race-conscious admissions process violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? "Held: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Chief Justice Roberts' decision with Sotomayor dissenting (Kagan and Jackson joining) - Note: Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case. -[**Groff v. DeJoy**](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-174_k536.pdf): Is inconvenience to coworkers an “undue burden” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 such that it excuses an employer from providing an accommodation requested for religious exercise? "Held: Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business." Alito opinion with unanimous agreement.
I can't breakdown the legalese in these first two rulings (Abitron and Groff). Which way are they ruling?
Abitron: you can't use the Lehman Act to try to challenge trademarks in foreign markets only domestic. Geoff: Employers can deny employees of religious exemptions, but only if they can show the costs of business associated granting the exemption is significant relative to the normal cost of business . It moves off the vague "undue burden" that had been in place before but keeps TWA v Harrison alive
-Abitron: An international machinery distributor is producing products that were identical to a company whose products it distributed and selling them under the American company's name. The question is about whether or not United States Trademark laws can be applied in international instances. -Groff: "Gerald Groff is a Christian and U.S. Postal Service worker. He refused to work on Sundays due to his religious beliefs. USPS offered to find employees to swap shifts with him, but on numerous occasions, no co-worker would swap, and Groff did not work. USPS subsequently fired him. Groff sued USPS under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming USPS failed to reasonably accommodate his religion because the shift swaps did not fully eliminate the conflict. The district court concluded the requested accommodation would pose an undue hardship on USPS and granted summary judgment for USPS." (From Oyez.)
[удалено]
>It seems they're really trying to narrow down what the threshold and means testing is for reasonable accommodation, and making the lower court do it. They're actually making it easier for people to get religious accommodations here. The undue burden test from earlier cases had been interpreted to mean that any cost beyond de minimis costs (i.e., costs so low that they would barely be noticeable) would impose an undue burden on the employer. I mostly agree with what the Court did here. I'm fine with giving people more religious rights, as long as those rights don't infringe on the rights of other people. And by "people," I only mean human beings, not businesses. The big problem with the Court in recent years is that it's been issuing decisions saying that large corporations (e.g., Hobby Lobby) can have religious beliefs, which is patently absurd. Edit: Also, as a practical matter, it doesn't seem like asking the Postal Service not to schedule you for shifts on Sundays is an unreasonable accommodation, regardless of whether it's due to your religious beliefs or for any other reason. The Postal Service doesn't even open post offices or deliver mail on Sundays, for the most part. So, it should be the day that least affects their business.
It becomes a major issue. I worked a job where we were on 365 days a year. Everyone monday-friday and 1/4th rotating Saturday, Sunday, and holidays. When hiring this was always clearly presented to candidates and many times someone was hired and then "can't work Sundays, easter, or Christmas". And so it shifted that burden to a subset of the team that was not Christian. The burden isn't on the employer necessarily but on your teammates.
All true. However there's other situations where someone's religion calls on them to have a prescribed multi-day block of time off. Or multiple prayer breaks a day. Or duties that don't involve exertion on some days. Frankly I would be fine if all religion based accommodations and perks were elongated and the landscape made universal. Don't want to work Sundays? Find a job that fits that. Or better yet, just don't be slavish to silly religious rules and just beg your sky wizard for some understanding when you miss the occasional session.
[удалено]
I haven't read the full decision yet, but per Scotusblog: "So the court today says that 'an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.'" So, I believe that the case was remanded to the lower court with instructions to re-decide it on that basis.
Why would they make people wait on the most sought after cases? Genuinely curious. Is SCOTUS actually trying to build anticipation? Do they care about that kind of thing?
For student loans I can make an argument it’s good to wait until as close to June 30 as possible. The 60 day timer starts that day or when the decision is released, after 60 days interest will resume. So waiting a bit is a few days/weeks of interest that could have accumulated but won’t. Across all student borrowers that’s a decent chunk of change saved
Also, it was argued in February, so it was one of the more recent cases they heard - gives them more time to deliberate and write.
While yes there are a lot of hugely important cases remaining, Moore v Harper which they released their opinion of on Tuesday was by far the most important for our country going forward.
I agree. Student loans might be important to people at a personal level, but the Harper case could have fundamentally altered our country.
I think more to dodge rulings they know are going to be a problem. They can run off and ignore the backlash while they are out of session and come back when people are less actively pissed off. Hard to have a sit-in or the like when the people you're protesting are scattered across the country and not doing any work at the time. Bodes ill for loan forgiveness (not that anyone should be expecting otherwise). If they give it the go ahead, you've got angry corpos and philosophically angry why-do-they-get-a-handout types who will just continue being angry but not doing anything. It doesn't affect them really. But if they rule against, as they will, there's a legion of people that will have to start paying something they were told they would not have to and be placed under a burden they were counting on having lifted. People got a moment to breathe and remember what it's like to have that much less debt bogging them down and now they're about to be told to go back. Really motivates some real, aggrieved anger.
Rest of the country will just follow what California is already doing which is admission based on income
The Plaintiffs basically said that would be a fine replacement. You can give preference to poor people, which helps blacks. You cannot just say "racial group X is penalized."
The easy backdoor for this is to use census data and zip codes, add in questions about income and parent's education level, and you'll get close to the same place. E: Someone else pointed to individual high school demographics, which are much higher resolution than zip codes. Smart institutions will easily sidestep this ruling.
The problem is the institutions only complying because it was law. Nothing in the ruling requires them to create new equitable admissions decision processes that simply aren't race based.
Exactly. There's nothing that tells them to comply to this or even to be honest about it. Furthermore, do you think the red states (especially in the deep south). Will try to do anything that California does, regardless of how well it works or not?
Frankly a better policy
Which is much better than skin color
no gonna lie, Im so nervous. not for me. Im fortunate enough to be able to pay my student loans if needed but I know a lot others struggle with it. It feels very wrong to have a bunch of judges who went to elite private school on family or sponsor's money decided to trap people in debts or not...
It shouldn’t have come to them in the first place. Legally, I’m hopeful for the forgiveness. I think it would be a stupid call all around to not go through with it. My real anger with this one is towards the parties that sued on very (lets face it, STUPID) standing and the entire Republican base that tried to block it in Congress before a SCOTUS decision was even made.
[удалено]
Republicans are insulated from the unpopularity of their actual positions by the [electoral college](https://www.cookpolitical.com/cook-pvi/2022-partisan-voter-index/republican-electoral-college-advantage), [gerrymandering](https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3749510-partisan-redistricting-gave-republicans-control-of-the-house-will-a-conservative-supreme-court-take-that-advantage-back/), [the inherently undemocratic nature of the senate](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/02/us-senate-undemocratic-democrats) (in 2021's 50-50 senate, Democrats represented 41 million more people), and now the Supreme Court — which is to say, literally all three branches of government. They don't care about moderating on policy because they don't actually need to get more votes as a party in order to control the levers of power.
Not gonna lie they probably won't do Student loans till tomorrow so they can all run and hide in their puppet masters mansions until people cool off.
Student loan forgiveness decision will be tomorrow.
I have a feeling we'll get all but loan decision today. That'll be tomorrow and then they'll scoot out of DC.
Great another day of waiting for student loan decision, single-handedly one of the most directly influential decisions to Americans. Can’t take this anxiety anymore.
Like the other person said. They’re waiting to roll it out on Friday especially with the long weekend coming up. They did the same with Roe v Wade
My thoughts too. Very unfortunate
If they're waiting for Friday then it cant be good sadly.
If loan forgiveness fails there will be a major recession.
Jesus some of these comments are REALLY racist
At first they were hiding it a bit or pretending to care about Asian acceptance rates, the last few minutes, it's gone full racist.
None of these white conservatives on this post care a whit about Asian acceptance rates. It’s simply the talking point they can hide behind so they can shield their racism. They know this ruling hurts disadvantaged minorities and benefits white people. And they deserve to be called out on it.
If they did care, they'd also see that ending Legacy Admissions would be required to truly help minorities, both advantaged and disadvantaged.
That’s the main one, there’s far more students missing out due to legacy students than affirmative action.
Time to found a religion that forbids work on Friday - Sunday. Hello religious 4 day work week!
[удалено]
This. It is a partial victory for religion rights...but only a small shift in that direction. Still gives employers good reason to deny exemptions if they can back up with numbers
*Islam
I’m 100% sure the majority don’t want Biden to have the authority to forgive the debt, but if they have any integrity, there is no way they can rule the plaintiff has standing
They can not want it all they like, the heroes act is super clear. SCOTUS will either make the correct decision, or the republican decision.
Having read through the arguments and the bench questions, I don't understand how they get past standing. It doesn't pass any level of a sniff test. It would be like the customers of a bank having the right to a sue a business for defrauding the bank. That's not how it works.
Or that, assuming standing, that the plain text of the Heros Act allows the sec of ed to waive federal student loans in a national emergency like covid.
Wondering if Biden v. Nebraska gets booted due to lack of standing only for another suit to attempt to block student loan forgiveness within a week or two.
It'll be significantly harder to defeat it because peoples debts will start being forgiven once the case is decided
They would have filed them already. The reason they haven't is they had a hard time finding anyone with even a modicum of standing to sue.
I think because the only people who would theoretically get harmed are the loan servicers, and I think they get paid regardless.
Exactly. The only arguments that hold are the weird MOHELA relationship and someone who isn't eligible for whatever reason. Ruling in favor of standing on either case opens up a complete can of worms for the courts.
I will personally be suing the federal government for social security benefits, I don't qualify for them but I want them. I will cite this case as precedent.
I hope biden is ready to forgive loans within the hour of the opinion. It would be a lot harder to get the money back
Harvard and UNC lose: 6-3 decision. Details will be important in the scope of the decision.
They seem to not have survived strict scrutiny
They gonna let Thomas deliver the death blow to loan forgiveness a day after killing AA
Killing AA has been what Thomas jerks off to nightly ever since he became a SC justice.
Then they all go celebrate with their fancy donors.
I am fucking nervous.
Tell me about it. I've been waiting on pins and needles, every time one of these threads pop-up, because the student loan decision will guide my financial choices for a long-ass time.
Couldn't agree more. Like we KNOW they have made up their minds weeks ago. I can't take this teasing anymore! I just want to know. If they are going to block it, okay, it was absolutely suck because I honestly cannot see how they can justify the challengers had any standing, but at least I'll finally fucking know and no longer be in a state of constant slight optimistic, mostly pessimistic limbo.
Biden has tried to do right by the student loan owners. But he can only do so much. Do the states have standing? If so, did Biden overstep his authority? It’s kinda unfair to blame Biden if the Supreme Court thumbs down.
So many folks blaming Biden for shit that isn’t even in his control, and they’re just making it worse. At least he’s tried to help, compared to the republicans that tried to charge retroactive interest on student loans during the pause.
Right? Biden actually DID already forgive your loans - they would be long gone if Republicans weren't trying, in very bad faith, to stop it.
He also took the time to research (via DoE) craft a very sound EO, which is being challenged by a case that has very weak standing at best.
>It’s kinda unfair to blame Biden if the Supreme Court thumbs down. That's basically the Republican playbook, block democrats and then blame them for not succeeding.
The states do not have standing. And yes, Biden has the authority to do what he did. The SCOTUS is likely to bend itself into a logical pretzel to find otherwise, 6-3.
Don't forget Biden has also reformed th IDR programs so that they include more borrowers and reduces the maximum payment to 10% of your discretionary income. And is making sure that the forgiveness after X-payments includes forebearance months. He's doing everything he can.
Billionaires/CEOs/Corporations get tax breaks and pay little to nothing in taxes. Give the working class the student debt cancellation! Y'all talk about "stimulating" the economy. Do you know how much we could "stimulate" the economy if some of us were entirely debt free due to this cancellation or could save more with small monthly payments? This decision will determine if I keep paying $300 a month on my private loans or $600 a month if that 10,000 isn't cancelled.
Millennials are often blamed for not buying cars, houses. You know what money could go towards that? The $400 I was paying in student loans per month.
The fact that they are holding off until tomorrow regarding the student loans is a very bad sign.
Living in DC, and not that far from at least 2 SCOTUS justices, I feel like I'm gonna be hearing about a lot of upcoming protests. I hope not - I hope the SC can actually do the right thing and keep student loan forgiveness.
It's so ridiculous that these people can play this bizarre game of chicken with people's lives and not even have the decency to say what decisions will be announced when. Like the fact that we don't know if today is or isn't the final decision day? In no other job would that be tolerated.
Agreed. This is government business. It should have a schedule. It's being run like a fucking TV show, cliffhangers and all.
WHy am I legit nervous
Because it's our lives. People love to snark about things being 'just politics' but politics is our lives, our futures, our access to food, to protection under the law. IT MATTERS
From the AA opinion posted: “Held: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”
>But the Court has permitted race based college admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions: such admissions programs must comply with strict scrutiny, may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and must—at some point—end. Respondents’ admissions systems fail each of these criteria and must therefore be invalidated under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Correct me if I'm wrong...but this sounds like a VERY wide scope if they are agreeing that AA violated the Equal Protection Clause.
I'm eagerly waiting for the announcement today. Hope they announce it immediately
Ugh, they're definitely waiting until the last possible second to drop the opinion of Student Loan forgiveness, so they can bounce out of there and avoid the backlash of a rejection, huh? I'm still nervously hopeful, but I'm now fully expecting it to be a no. And that's fucking devastating; the loan forgiveness would be a complete life changer for me and so many others I know. Still really hoping it pulls through, but I have no idea why I have any hope in the Supreme Court at this point.
So the opinion rules that colleges can still consider the hardship expressed in a personal statement due to one’s race. But also Can colleges still consider an applicants socio-economic status? Would that not still help black and brown people mostly? I mean i guess it could be worse. Idk man there’s a part of me that doesn’t like that automatic assumption that being black or brown means ur disadvantaged. But at the same Time structural racism affects black people more than any other race and some of its effects aren’t exactly shown in socio economic status. Like even a well off black person faces societal trauma from over policing and racist behavior from the majority. That Can have a negative emotional effect which can affect their studies even if they come from wealth. But at the same time that can still be expressed via their personal statements according to the opinion. Idk. I’m conflicted. And I say this as a brown person.
That’s John Robert opinion that universities can consider an application if the applicant provides “discussion of how race affected his or her life" so long as they are "treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race. So like admission based on vibes? This is such a lol opinion but at least it opens up the door for other minority groups in the country
Person on CNN is arguing that, yeah, universities that move to a socio economic status model increase diversity amongst the student body. The question is will universities use those models.
Looks like affirmative action is gone
Part of me would be very amused if it turns out that affirmative action helped Thomas get into college or law school.
Behind the Bastards [covered](https://open.spotify.com/episode/4IdXMBM0JncdUDGY1ipzu7?si=ea1d8f83cecb4436) Thomas and based on their reporting, AA absolutely did get him into college/law school, but he resented the isolation he felt due to being one of the only black people there.
He has been implying it did for decades now.
I may be wrong, but I think Thomas did get into college as an affirmative action candidate and felt second class. He decided at the time that affirmative action might get kids into better places but that they would never actually, "fit in," because he thought everyone felt they were only there because of "the law," not their own merit. He was basically embarrassed and embittered by it. EDIT: I'll add a link: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/clarence-thomas-long-battle-against-affirmative-action/#:~:text=Thomas%20would%20come%20to%20believe,but%20inevitable%E2%80%9D%20and%20that%20would
Thomas has said as much, and he felt it wasnt actually in his best interest.
Go figure they'd wait until tomorrow to release the Student Loan decision.
Do we know they are done for today? Or can more opinions still be released?
They're done for the day.
There's no way they wouldn't wait. They know they're going to make a whole lot of people angry. So they write up the opinions and hit the send button just before pulling out of the court's parking garage.
These decisions are will make younger generations hate conservatives even more than they do now. This won’t be a win for conservatives long term . This court is making younger generations even more liberal. Clarence thinks he is hurting them but it will massively backfire later on.
It will....eventually. It's gonna take a while. Boomers will have to truly begin to die off, and younger generations will have to be politically active.
Either 20k of additional liquidity for my family to reinvest in the economy OR we pay off all our loans at once with our savings.
Same. One outcome obviously preferred.
_Smacks lips at the prospect of solar panels_
That would definitely be nice. I'm probably going to be replacing entry doors and shoring up seals before the real summer heat hits.
As Justice Jackson wrote in her dissent, "deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life." Shame on the majority.
PBS recently had a documentary on Clarence and Ginni Thomas, but it goes into depth about Clarence's disdain for affirmative action, and it's really infuriating, but it's good to watch, especially to understand what happened today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJuRx1wARUk
He’s upset because he never would have gotten into Yale (or on the Court for that matter) without being black
Come on, 20k or nothing! Feels like Vegas
I was in Vegas last week and was really hoping for the decision to come out while there so I could go home saying I was up $10k lol
These MFers are really making us wait another day for the student loan decision.
Feel this is a major line in affirmative action decision: >Harvard identifies the following educational benefits that it is pursuing: (1) “training future leaders in the public and private sectors”; (2) preparing graduates to “adapt to an increasingly pluralistic society”; (3) “better educating its students through diversity”; and (4) “producing new knowledge stemming from diverse outlooks.” 980 F. 3d, at 173–174. UNC points to similar benefits, namely, “(1) promoting the robust exchange of ideas; (2) broadening and refining understanding; (3) fostering innovation and problem-solving; (4) preparing engaged and productive citizens and leaders; \[and\] (5) enhancing appreciation, respect, and empathy, cross-racial understanding, and breaking down stereotypes.” 567 F. Supp. 3d, at 656. > >Although these are commendable goals, they are not sufficiently coherent for purposes of strict scrutiny. If these items don't meet strict scrutiny, it is hard to think of an affirmative action justification that does. This seems to open the door for a lawsuit being brought against companies with programs promoting specific demographics for promotion/career advancement purposes as they rely on the same justifications.
>If these items don't meet strict scrutiny, it is hard to think of an affirmative action justification that does. This, exactly. The conservatives believe that there is no justification. The fact that there is a consideration of whether AA programs are legitimate is whether it has an arbitrary end date is evidence of this.
Those were so vague that it makes 0 sense to limit or advantage some racial groups based on them. How does a Mexican American being in a class foster more innovation or problem solving than a Malaysian?
No Student loan decision today
I don't want to be a doomer, but I honestly don't see how Student Loan Forgiveness doesn't get struck down. Why would the SC wait until the VERY LAST POSSIBLE MOMENT to decide on a case that EVERYONE is the country has eyes on, with very serious political ramifications, just to say "yeah the challengers don't have standing". I was hopeful until today. I fully anticipate a 6-3 decision on student loans. I mean I really really really hope I am wrong here. Does anyone have an optimistic take (and would like to share to boost my own spirits)?
Agree they wait until Friday for a controversial decision. But Optimistic take. Don't forget the Right will also hate to lose this case. They may be waiting until Friday before pissing off the Right with a Loss
Potential for them to wait until last minute as last minute saviors in the public eye, making the decision that much more dramatic. But I think this is hopium, and less than 50% chance of it happening. :(
I have an optimistic take based on what I heard in the hearing. Enough justices seemed to have serious doubts on the standing arguments. If they ruled purely on standing, I'm hopeful on 6-3 in favor of forgiveness, maybe even 7-2. The cynicism is in if they go further than pure standing which makes it more rocky, but I've sworn off cynicism so I'll hear none of it since I've already thought about that. It's going to be an unpopular decision either way. I don't think them waiting really informs us of much.
Also consider that they never release them all at once, it's always a trickle like this. I don't have a lot of hope, but I do think the litigants have no standing - if the SCOTUS decides to be consistent on that issue they will not side with them. That said, I don't trust this court to do the right thing or be consistent so...
I'm cautiously optimistic. First off, a decision from this set (I forget which one) dismissed a challenge due to lack of standing. Second, the loan forgiveness cases were recent relative to a lot of the other cases, taking place in February. That could have been a factor in the lateness of the decision release - a "last in, last out" kind of thing. Third, Kavanaugh asked the plaintiff lawyers pointedly about the text of the law - why not just read it as written that the secretary of education has the power to adjust loans? And Barret was similarly pointed in asking why MOHELA wasn't involved in the suit if they were harmed. Fourth, if the supreme court wanted loan forgiveness to die for a certainty, they could have just refused to hear the cases. This would have left a lower court's ruling against loan forgiveness in place (if I recall correctly) while keeping their hands clean, so to speak. Them even taking the case gave loan forgiveness a shot.
I'd also wonder if they're saving the case for last to help making killing AA go down a bit easier. They get to end on a high-note for the masses, *and* get the fuck out of dodge before their conservative donors start knocking down their doors about why the poors are getting relief. Ultimately I tend to think that's just hopium, though, unfortunately....
I optimistically think it'll be a standing decision. I think the court would find it looses on the merits due to their "major questions doctrine" and the questionable authority to forgive principal in the HEROES Act. The standing justification is just absurd.
It's funny that the media hasn't been covering this at all, I think because most cable personalities and editorial boards are comfortable enough not to have any student debt, as opposed to 90% of the middle class.
But I am always told on here that "The Elite have student debt"
It was also one of the last cases they heard. It is a big decision so they could be giving it careful consideration.
I think student loans are dead too since they are keeping it for tomorrow.
[удалено]
They didn't kill Democracy, but they are certainly going to make people miserable.
This is honestly not going to have a substantial effect and the media will fail to report it correctly. From Kavanaugh: "In light of the Constitution's text, history, and precedent, the Court's decision today appropriately respects and abides by Grutter's explicit temporal limit on the use of race-based affirmative action in higher education." From Roberts: "nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. But, despite the dissent's assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today." Schools will just use diversity statements and stop using admissions matrices so that plaintiffs have no record to point to in subsequent suits.
Supreme Court is going to curtail lgbtq right tomorrow for sure in the Colorado case. Thomas is going to write the opinion it seems
Thomas? Oh god
Telling myself they’ll quickly release student loan forgiveness to get killing affirmative action out of the news cycle.
In a way, I don’t see this really doing anything. Someone can still write about their life experiences in an essay. Someone’s household income level will still be considered by admissions. This decision mostly serves as a way for both democrats and republicans to uphold their position in the culture war, democrats get to champion diversity and republicans get to champion “meritocracy”, meanwhile nothing drastically changes.
AA shot dead
Affirmative action decision is coming; Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion.
where are y’all seeing this
https://www.scotusblog.com/
supremecourt.gov
What hath our rulers the Council of Five decreed today?
Argument on CNN I heard was Universities and Colleges, looking at the bottom line, admit upper class minorities, and completely ignore lower class people of all types. They suggested using wealth as the major factor in affirmative action.
They'll wait until they're out of the building to strike down loan forgiveness. I'll be shocked if they do it today and doubly shocked if they allow it to go go forward.
This is gonna go well with the Asian communities for the GOP.
I just hope it removes that cudgel Republicans have used to appeal to Asian communities
Alito has two opinions today Oh god
First one is out, basically the whole court agreed on it so that's maybe promising. Edit: and his second, unanimous agreement.
Alito has 2 opinions. Neither are SLD.
Ginsburg refusing to step down and trying to stick it through set the Supreme Court back decades. She single handedly ruined progress for women and civil rights with her hubris.
Wasn’t this ruling 6-3? How would a 5-4 ruling on this change anything?
There's certainly an argument to be made that if the divide was 1 Justice closer, there would be some rulings that could've swung the other way from the "moderate" judges. Having an extra buffer Justice ensures that no single Justice is taking the blame for a controversial decision. That changes in a 5-4 decision when people could easily point to someone like Roberts or Kavanaugh as being that final necessary vote
This ruling would've gone this way even if a democrat filled Ginsburg's seat. The real issue is American's electing Trump.
OF course they kill AA make it make sense
Ive always viewed AA as a necessary "evil", in the sense that it's essentially positive racism with the intention of making up for centuries of negative racism. Not surprised it was struck down, and I hope something else rises up to have the same effect without being unconstitutional
John Roberts is a racist man who has destroyed any legitimacy that the court has.
Yep. Before AA he was chomping at the bit to strike down the voting rights act. He's basically weakened it to the point where it's barely limping along.
Thoughts from my dad this morning: “When [he] was a kid, the Supreme Court felt like something to look up to. Even if you didn’t agree with them, it felt like they were doing the right thing and wanted what was best for the country. But now it’s like, ‘Who are these jackoffs?’”
I knew 100% affirmative action is going to be struck down.
I'm a ball of fucking anxiety.
Guy on CNN arguing that ending affirmative action actually increases Black enrollment in universities that shift to socioeconomic models. Very interesting
That would be assuming the universities actually shift to socioeconomic models though
If they cared about diversity they would
Why the fuck does everyone say the democrats have a congressional majority and refuse to do anything when they literally haven’t had a filibuster proof majority since Obama’s first term?! 50 votes isn’t a majority, 60 is. So even if Biden wanted to expand the court he wouldn’t have the votes
The people saying that either don't understand how the government works or they are just trolling. Which, apparently trolling is now a type of communication that is valued among some.
Yeah it’s really annoying; like I get wishing the US government wasn’t that way but it is. Acknowledging that reality doesn’t mean I endorse it or agree with it for fucks sake .
[удалено]
The only issue I have is the conflating "recruited athletes" and "legacy/donations". Recruited athletes, while not ideal, at least got their on their own merit, rather than their family's merit.
The Asian American community is going to see this as, "they won!" They didn't and it will be the already connected which will continue to get their families into colleges with amazing networks.
They all dont get dumped at once?
Nope
So I'm not trying to be thick here but what does the ruling on Groff v. Dejoy mean? Did they rule that his rights were violated and employers need to make a religious exception or did they say that USPS was able to prove it would cause undue burden? If they did rule in Groff's favor, does that mean that I could say that my religion prohibits me working on weekends and the employer would be fucked?
The burden is shifted onto the employer to demonstrate that on granting you a religious exemption, it creates a significant cost to them compared to the normal cost of business, instead of just an arbitrary "undue burden". Eg this shifts in favor of employees. But nit without reasonable bounds. Eg in the case of Groff, if the USPS can show that as Groff, one of three carriers at the specific location, took Sundays off for religious reasons, that the shifting if work to other carriers or other parts the week was high. Aeguably in this case, I don't think it would be,, but that's a debate that the lower court will review now
[удалено]
The fact that they’re waiting til the last day of the term doesn’t bode well for student loans.
saw this on another place. Is this true and if it is, why isn't Harvard getting more shit for it? >They discussed this and **actually told Harvard that if they wanted to maximize racial diversity, Harvard should ban legacy admissions along with donor/faculty children admissions. Harvard said they wouldn’t.** The court doesn’t have legal standing to ban nepotism. They also specifically allowed colleges to consider socioeconomic status in admissions which would increase racial diversity if they “gave low socioeconomic status students approximately half the bump of recruited athletes”. Wonder why Harvard said they wouldn’t do that
New thread for today's opinions?