The Supremes

[Dahobbs 17,533]

It hasn't really been discussed it, but the Mallory opinion yesterday is pretty big deal on personal jurisdiction of corporations. Basically, it allows states to require any company that registers to do business there to consent to personal jurisdiction as to any cause of action against the company. This is in stark contrast to a line of recent decisions that has narrowed when a corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction. While I've argued for the conclusion of Mallory in previous cases, it was always a bit of a Hail Mary argument. Seeing it embraced by a majority of Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Jackson, and Sotomayor is something else. 

[scottsins 1,966]

Becuase if they don't theyll stop getting all the illegal perks they've been getting. Do you have any idea how much a martini made with glacier ice probably costs? Do you think Clarence Thomas is actually going to start vacationing in an RV?

I meant “why would they need to pretend and preserve image”?

[LTbear 4,168]

On 6/26/2023 at 9:55 AM, StassneyHorn said:

Texas alone could have 3-5 seat gain in D favor since the census bureau confirmed Hispanics are now majority in state

After the last presidential election I don't see this strong correlation between being Hispanic and voting democrat. 

[C-Man 27,214]

After the last presidential election I don't see this strong correlation between being Hispanic and voting democrat. 

Same. But I was advised that it’s the big metro areas that would be involved and that bloc is much stronger. The Valley is a lost cause at this point.

[Js1 85,310]

21 minutes ago, LTbear said:

After the last presidential election I don't see this strong correlation between being Hispanic and voting democrat. 

Lockdowns and COVID. GOP couldn’t even flip the 28th district and lost the 34th district 2 years later. They only won the 15th district bc it was aggressively gerrymandered to favor them 

Edited June 28, 2023 by Js1

[Voldemort86 2,259]

I’m glad Mayra Flores lost. She was so stupid.

[gmr548 16,576]

After the last presidential election I don't see this strong correlation between being Hispanic and voting democrat. 

Same. But I was advised that it’s the big metro areas that would be involved and that bloc is much stronger. The Valley is a lost cause at this point.

???

2020-22:

Cameron County D+13, D+9
Hidalgo County D+16, D+18
Webb County D+23, D+24
Nueces County R+ 3, R+8

That’s where everyone lives. Beyond that South Texas is counties ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand voters. BuT tRuMp FlIpPeD ZaPaTa CoUnTy!1!1! Yeah, all of it’s 4,000 voters.

A rightward shift of a few points for Abbott in a midterm year is expected. This also says nothing if the Hispanic population in large metro areas which of course is the majority of the Hispanic population in the state.

It’s absolutely a Democratic constituency in Texas.

[StassneyHorn 6,575]

1 hour ago, LTbear said:

After the last presidential election I don't see this strong correlation between being Hispanic and voting democrat. 

You should, it’s 65/35

[LTbear 4,168]

2 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

You should, it’s 65/35

Nationally, or in Texas? If you know the answer to both, I'd be curious to see that number/ see how divergent they are (or not). 

[Horn Dog 9,818]

15 hours ago, 'stache said:

Voila, Uncle Clarence.

You can also bet the farm that he'll draft the opinion declaring "affirmative action" in college admissions dead. And he'll go off about how it actually hurts black people if you dare take our countries past into consideration, while of course refusing to acknowledge he only got the seat because he was black and replacing the court's only black member at the time.  

Well in the sense that affirmative action is the only reason Thomas became a SC justice, he has a (twisted) point that AA has lead to significant harms for the black community (as well as all minorities, gays, and women).

[Bozo_Casanova 26,444]

Attn: @Brisketexan and other law dogs.
Make a cup of coffee and read this decision.
Tasked with actually trying to apply Bruen  and the nonsense doctrine of originalism in real life, Judge Carlton Reeves delivers a FAFO letter for the ages to the Roberts court AND the DOJ while pissing on the grave of Scalia:

 

[Bookman 4,639]

I will probably read that but damn I'm tired of these long-ass opinions.

[South Austin 52,463]

3 minutes ago, Bookman said:

I will probably read that but damn I'm tired of these long-ass opinions.

Too many posts from Lobo will do that to a person.

[HRSchenker 2,268]

7 cases left and today is the last announced opinion day of the month. I'd be surprised if they hold any over until after the 4th of July. 

[South Austin 52,463]

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Attn: @Brisketexan and other law dogs.
Make a cup of coffee and read this decision.
Tasked with actually trying to apply Bruen  and the nonsense doctrine of originalism in real life, Judge Carlton Reeves delivers a FAFO letter for the ages to the Roberts court AND the DOJ while pissing on the grave of Scalia:

 

This is a gotdam great opinion.  Here's a concluding gem:

"We have one Constitution. All of it is law. It has been enforced today as best as this Judge can discern the Bruen Court’s holding and reasoning. And, one hopes, a future Supreme Court will not rest until it honors the rest of the Constitution as zealously as it now interprets the Second Amendment."

Edit:  And this one at the end:

"Let’s be clear about what this means for originalism. The next generation will have its own conceptions of liberty. It will interpret the principles of the Constitution, enduring as they are, differently than this generation has interpreted them. Change is unstoppable. And to the extent Bruen and decisions like it try to stop that change, they will not last long. The only question is how long the People will let them remain."

Edited June 29, 2023 by South Austin

[HRSchenker 2,268]

Well shit. Amy Howe says today will NOT be the final opinion day of the term 

[Js1 85,310]

1 minute ago, HRSchenker said:

Well shit. Amy Howe says today will NOT be the final opinion day of the term 

Tomorrow is the final day I believe? Kinda figured we'd get 1 controversial opinion on Friday so that Uncle Ruckus and Alito can mic drop and head off to Billionaire Island to celebrate Freedom Day

Edited June 29, 2023 by Js1

[YGIFS 19,450]

1 hour ago, South Austin said:

Too many posts from Lobo will do that to a person.

Hey!  My posts have become much briefer since my return for obvious reasons.  

77-pages to explain why a convicted felon shouldn't have that held against them as a red flag.  Fucking amazing.  This'll be the first SCOTUS opinion ever read by 35% of our country.  Some enterprising firearms dealer is contemplating right now, literally hanging a sign out front that says, "Convicted Felon Sale!  Bring in your parole card and get half off!"    

[Js1 85,310]

Groff v DeJoy - unanimous. 3rd circuit decision vacated and remanded 

Affirmative action admissions - violates 14th amendment equal protection clause  Both 6-3

[Js1 85,310]

That’s all for today 

[elfenix 34,230]

 

[South Austin 52,463]

Huge day for Whitey.

[Brisketexan 105,095]

9 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Huge day for Whitey.

Thank God.  About damn time the white man caught a break in this country.

[wildcat09 29,349]

Well this will make tomorrow more interesting:

 

 

 

[Js1 85,310]

Like the coach who got “fired” for praying. Built on a lie 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Js1

[babysdaddy 2,721]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Thank God.  About damn time the white man caught a break in this country.

 

Is he wrong?  

[Brisketexan 105,095]

3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Attn: @Brisketexan and other law dogs.
Make a cup of coffee and read this decision.
Tasked with actually trying to apply Bruen  and the nonsense doctrine of originalism in real life, Judge Carlton Reeves delivers a FAFO letter for the ages to the Roberts court AND the DOJ while pissing on the grave of Scalia:

 

Best summarized by this follow-up tweet:

 

As we critics of Bruen have been saying since it came out, it's one of the worst, and worst-reasoned, SCOTUS decisions in history.  It manages to take an "originalist" approach that is utterly sophomoric, and then manages to cherrypick and lie about the result that "approach" dictated.

The SCOTUS utterly fucked up with Bruen.  But I don't see them taking up this or any other 2nd Amendment case anytime soon, because if there's one thing we know about the Alito and Thomas court (and that's what it is... the rest of them are just along for the shitty ride), it's that they will never, ever, ever admit they were wrong, even tacitly. 

Felon-in-possession laws are unconstitutional under Bruen.  By the reasoning and holding in Bruen, the court made the exact right conclusion here.  Just as we told y'all would happen.  Gun laws and regulation are functionally dead, across-the-board.  It's just going to take some time before the people realize it, after those laws and regs have been picked off, one-by-one.

[Pancho 44,757]

 

[Brisketexan 105,095]

6 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

 

Is he wrong?  

Yes.  Until they nix legacy admissions, yes, he's wrong.  The math is fucking glaring.

Legacy admissions favor applicants whose family have a history of attending an institution.  Until approximately 50 years ago (and less, with respect to many institutions), those institutions actually or functionally discriminated against minority students.  And shit, until present day (but at least well into the 70s and 80s), the lower level education apparatus available to minority students was generally inferior to that available to white students.  But let's just go with the fact that there was open discrimination 50 years ago.  That means that when you're looking back in time for a family history.....a white applicant might have such history.  A minority candidate will have a much, much, MUCH lower chance of such history.

Because of our long history of discrimination -- which is not disputed, even by the SCOTUS in this decision -- legacy admissions are a mechanism that guarantee a discriminatory outcome in favor of white applicants.

A policy of "we don't consider race anymore....we just consider whether your granddad went here [back when we were racist and didn't let black folks in, so we know your granddad was white]" is indisputably racist.  Yet it remains intact.

And by the way....I actually don't have a problem with "legacy" being a FACTOR in admissions decisions, especially for private institutions - it's a pathway to greater donations and revenue, which is a material consideration for a university.  However, to balance that, other factors need to come into play, including the race of applicants who are of races who were historically discriminated against and thus are much less likely to have legacy status.

As is the case with this court with some frequency, it sees only what it wants to see, and turns a blind eye to the rest.

[freyguy 4,267]

Well, like I give a crap what happens at Havard....

Also, hadn't UT already worked themselves out of affirmative action specific wording decades ago?

[HRSchenker 2,268]

Speculation that Gorsuch is the author of the unreleased Colorado gay website opinion 

[Brisketexan 105,095]

13 minutes ago, freyguy said:

Well, like I give a crap what happens at Havard....

[South Austin 52,463]

Pfft.  Harvard was my safety school.

[FartingDreamer 138]

I see both sides of the coin on this issue.  On one hand, I want and believe in equality of opportunity for all students regardless of what race or ethnicity they are, on the other hand, being at a disadvantage because one happens to be in the majority, isn't right or fair for those individuals either.  Taking race out of the equation makes sense, that said how do we ensure opportunity and realized potential for those who are disadvantaged and underprivileged?   This is such a complex issue.  And I say that as someone who grew up around poor, disadvantaged peers and people (most of whom were also white).

Edited June 29, 2023 by FartingDreamer

[Pancho 44,757]

 

[tx 3 putt 76,905]

50 minutes ago, elfenix said:

 

Consider economic conditions, instead of race 

[South Austin 52,463]

2 minutes ago, FartingDreamer said:

Taking race out of the equation makes sense, that said how do we ensure opportunity and realized potential for those who are disadvantaged and underprivileged? 

By making race part of the overall equation.

[FartingDreamer 138]

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

Consider economic conditions, instead of race 

This!  I think finding a way to rate applicants based on socio-economic status/background would go a long way towards solving the paradox. 

[tchookem 3,900]

So let's say a white kid, graduating next June, is in the top 5% of his class with an okay SAT score. Do auto-admission go out the window? What did this do to his chances of acceptance to UT?

Asking for a friend.

[FartingDreamer 138]

2 minutes ago, South Austin said:

By making race part of the overall equation.

But if you do that, then you are going to be discriminating either way?

[gmr548 16,576]

Consider economic conditions, instead of race 

I think that will ultimately be the workaround. Underrepresented ZIP codes, household income, and parents’ education level are all ostensibly race-blind and yet a pretty good proxy on the whole.

[Brisketexan 105,095]

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

Consider economic conditions, instead of race 

Yep.  Go with "attended a high school in a zip code where over X% of the population is below 150% of the federal poverty rate" or somesuch as getting a plus mark.  It's race-neutral (just like the top 10% rule (now top 5%, I think?)), but it will capture most of the effects of historical and systemic racism that persist in our society.

Kids in a shitload of the high schools in the Valley will get that checkmark.  Kids at Westlake will not.  The effect will be functionally the same as Harvard's current matrix: white and asian kids won't get the plus, minority kids will.

 

[FartingDreamer 138]

I grew up in Quinlan, (southern Hunt County) and if you had based admissions on local zip codes, and the general lack of wealth and poverty in the area, you wouldn't know that students from that area would be mostly white youth, growing up in the cycle of poverty, some in abject poverty, but would be giving them an opportunity to pull themselves up through educational opportunities.  

Edited June 29, 2023 by FartingDreamer

[CooterBrown 18,006]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  Go with "attended a high school in a zip code where over X% of the population is below 150% of the federal poverty rate" or somesuch as getting a plus mark.  It's race-neutral (just like the top 10% rule (now top 5%, I think?)), but it will capture most of the effects of historical and systemic racism that persist in our society.

Kids in a shitload of the high schools in the Valley will get that checkmark.  Kids at Westlake will not.  The effect will be functionally the same as Harvard's current matrix: white and asian kids won't get the plus, minority kids will.

 

I wonder if giving extra points to a kid that attends a majority minority high school would even break the law.  You're not considering the race of the applicant, you're just giving a kid extra credit for attending a majority minority high school.

[South Austin 52,463]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  Go with "attended a high school in a zip code where over X% of the population is below 150% of the federal poverty rate" or somesuch as getting a plus mark.  It's race-neutral (just like the top 10% rule (now top 5%, I think?)), but it will capture most of the effects of historical and systemic racism that persist in our society.

Kids in a shitload of the high schools in the Valley will get that checkmark.  Kids at Westlake will not.  The effect will be functionally the same as Harvard's current matrix: white and asian kids won't get the plus, minority kids will.

Great plan, until the U.S. Supreme Court says that's a form of de facto discrimination because the practical effect is admitting more minority applicants. 

[YGIFS 19,450]

3 minutes ago, tchookem said:

So let's say a white kid, graduating next June, is in the top 5% of his class with an okay SAT score. Do auto-admission go out the window? What did this do to his chances of acceptance to UT?

Asking for a friend.

If they remain in the Top 5%, it's an auto-admit regardless of SAT.  Even Top 6%.  When you get between 6-7%, a certain percentage of the incoming class spots are held for them depending on capacity, but it usually goes their way.  Anything beyond Top 7%, and it's wholistic review.  

It sorta rubs against this ruling because the Top 10% (false moniker for over a decade) was tacitly enacted to bring more rural students to UT.  After about 10 years, UT realized a large portion of those students were from underperforming high schools and were not ready for UT.  Flash forward to now, The Top 10% rule is bringing in record numbers of students of color, particularly Hispanic and Asian.  Which of course prompts parents and grandparents to complain at every UT function about how their kid/grandkid who is Top 9 or 12% at (insert well-known, wealthy high school in Dallas or Houston or Austin here) can't get in and the campus "doesn't look like it did when I went here."  We know what thats code for.  And if you don't like, walk over to that big pink building over there filled with people you donate money to and ask them to amend it.  There is a "wink-wink" racial element to the Top 10% to be absolutely sure.  I wonder through which lens it will be seen now given this ruling.  

[tchookem 3,900]

Yep.  Go with "attended a high school in a zip code where over X% of the population is below 150% of the federal poverty rate" or somesuch as getting a plus mark.  It's race-neutral (just like the top 10% rule (now top 5%, I think?)), but it will capture most of the effects of historical and systemic racism that persist in our society.
Kids in a shitload of the high schools in the Valley will get that checkmark.  Kids at Westlake will not.  The effect will be functionally the same as Harvard's current matrix: white and asian kids won't get the plus, minority kids will.
 

Channeling my inner Brisket: But wouldn't that just be challenged as de facto AA? And with this court, wouldn't that logic be correct?

[Gengs1 2,583]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  Go with "attended a high school in a zip code where over X% of the population is below 150% of the federal poverty rate" or somesuch as getting a plus mark.  It's race-neutral (just like the top 10% rule (now top 5%, I think?)), but it will capture most of the effects of historical and systemic racism that persist in our society.

Kids in a shitload of the high schools in the Valley will get that checkmark.  Kids at Westlake will not.  The effect will be functionally the same as Harvard's current matrix: white and asian kids won't get the plus, minority kids will.

 

Once the parents find out that Hs are know to rate higher for kids they will send their kids there for at least the last year to get advantage etc.

I have no issues giving more points for parent(s) overall income so kids have more opportunity from poor areas etc.

There is no good solution and we always focus on Ivey league colleges, there are plenty of good schools out there 

[Pancho 44,757]

16 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Consider economic conditions, instead of race 

This isn’t just all they could do. It would help.

Colleges should 100% get rid of legacy admissions. If I’m a Black, Latino, Asian, or socioeconomic minority, I’m finding a way to bring this case to the court.

[tchookem 3,900]

This isn’t just all they could do. It would help.
Colleges should 100% get rid of legacy admissions. If I’m a Black, Latino, Asian, or socioeconomic minority, I’m finding a way to bring this case to the court.

"But it should be based on merit. My grandpa earned that spot!"