Biden says “this is not a normal court.” Is he right? A discussion with Jeannie Suk Gersen, Harry Litman and Sarah Isgur on the end of affirmative action and more.
“this is not a normal court.”
If you consider that the justice Biden nominated to the court can’t define what a woman is, I’d have to agree
I thought the decisions specifically stated this restriction was NOT to enable not providing service to anyone but rather, the customer couldn't demand your creativity to be used for a specific thing, i.e. gay marriage. You can't force people to speak/perform/create for something they don't agree with. That was my reading.
"The mainstream media’s reaction has been fairly unanimous: these are the sorry consequences of a conservative majority court. These two decisions have undone decades of precedent that helped historically disadvantaged students have a chance at the American dream, and have weakened gay rights."
Dear Lamestream Press: These two decisions have undone decades of institutional racism in which unqualified students are advanced at the expense of qualified ones on the basis of skin color alone and have curtailed government-favored groups' ability to force individuals to express messages with which they disagree. (See "The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States")
There. Fixed it for you.
The left defines diversity as people of different skin tones who think alike. Always remember Clarance Thomas is not diversity as he doesn't believe in the approved way. It was interesting seeing the faces of the mainstream press as they reacted to his response to Justice Jackson.
The issue is that no one, and Bari is not brave enough yet, to look at the numbers for African immigrants, middle to upper-class African American, and those who were sadly born into the cities. Do we look at the outcomes of those children whose parents care and go to charter schools against those whose parents don't care and live in places where the government is corrupt, schools are terrible, and the criminals reign with gang violence?
That is diversity in the African American community. But we don't dare say that the problem can be something other than systemic racism as this is not a search for truth but rather a political movement that wants political thought conformity. Thanks for the conversation.
This is a normal court, Mr President. They just happen to disagree with you.
Thanks for this podcast it was a good one!
Turns out this SCOTUS is not as radical as media portrays. Odd.
Every “controversial” decision this court has handed down I think is the right decision. Then when AOC gang comes out against the court, I know it’s the right decision.
1st of all, do we really need to spend even a second of brain time on whatever drivel comes out of the Biden administration? I mean we get it, guys, you don’t like the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 14th amendments to the constitution. You have the Senate and the Executive branch fully on your side, and the House of Representatives almost..the media, the corporations, the largest population centers in the biggest cities, and most of Western world leaders...
The Supreme Court, which decides the constitutionality of things, is in your way. You don’t like that and are using every tool of propaganda at your disposal to try and undermine it.
Looks to me like the founders were forward thinking and smarter than you. Shocker, I know. 🤦♂️
Isn't the Court's job to decide if a law is constitutional, as opposed to whether it's a good idea? The preview of the roundtable speaks to the latter, but that's not the Court's bailiwick or duty in this.
We have been bludgeoned with the “Diversity is our strength” mantra for decades now.
I have come to believe this is massive disinformation and propaganda. This country will succeed or fail on its accomplishments, its “intellectual property,” as it were, and not on its polyglot demographics. Meritocracy, not false “affirmative action,” is what will distinguish and sustain the future growth and prosperity of our country.
The only problem with today’s Supreme Court is the justices who stray from the Constitution and impute rights where there are none, in the name of ideological principles. We seem to have a 6/3 split when it comes to understanding and applying the Constitution to decisions.
This is absolutely not about gay people. That’s the shift, the scare tactic, the Left wants you to believe. No, it’s a free speech case. It’s about the government’s compelling a business to say - to express an opinion - that the business owner does not share. It’s about the government’s telling you that your “free speech” has to align with theirs.
Who cares what a not normal putative POTUS says about anything?
Biden screeching about normalcy is hilarious. Is it "normal" to have a senile imbecile as president? Is it "normal" to shower with your daughter? Is it "normal" to preside over a family where you coddle and protect a criminal, corrupt drug addict?
In contrast, the Court's decisions were all more than "normal" - they reflected the sort of nation we want and were intended to be. A colorblind society, rewarding merit not tribalism. A Constitutional nation where Congress decides how our tax dollars are spent, not a President dispensing cash to buy votes. And a nation where a person may decide for what and for whom they will labor. Without the Court to protect us, we'd have to take up arms to restore justice and the rule of law.
Well, there's a reason Legacy Media is dying, and this is it. Americans are sick of them pushing their own ridiculous narratives instead of reporting on the news. Most Americans are happy with the decisions made by the supreme Court. I hope they tackle equity and woke Marxism in our institutions next.
The 303 case does NOT say they don’t have to make a website for a gay couple. It says they don’t have to make a gay wedding website for anyone.
All the difference in the world.
I think the comment about compelled speech hit the mail on the head. When the law compels speech, it violates the Constitution. A paid website designer should not have a different set of standards than a musician. Both produce commercially offered works of creativity. I’ve wondered about this too - why would anyone want service of any kind from someone who dislikes you on principle? I don’t want a misogynist designing my website.
Oh, the slippery slopes are too numerous to count...if you can compel me to say something I don't want to say...then, you can compel me to create something I don't want to create...then, I can be compelled to think something I don't want to think...at this point, I am no longer a free individual but merely an unwilling shill for the state...g.