FIrstly, this is a debate thread and please be kind and courteous with citing of facts and opinions. We all want to be respectful regardless of which party you are or if you are in agreeance or non-agreeance.
Now off to the topics at hand. (I did study Constitutional Law in University and was Pre-Law)
1) Supreme Court guts Affirmative Action in College Admissions
This is a landmark case that was set up several years ago in order to give people of color an opportunity to be considered for universities and universities had to accept a certain amount of people of color and consideration in admissions.
The Supreme Court says that colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as specific basis for granting admission, a landmark decision overturning long-standing precedent that has benefited Black and Latino students in higher education.
Chief John Roberts wrote:
“The Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today,” Roberts
Source:
(you need an account to see links)
The court basically said that race should not be a factor for consideration in admissions and that that does not stop applicants from stating how race has affected the applicant's life and can still be part of the application.
I did however appreciate the dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that dissented:
“With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,” she wrote. “But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems.”
Source:
(you need an account to see links)
Many people have been outspoken and come forward such as Michelle Obama who stated that if it wasn't for affirmative action, she would not have in fact been where she is today.
2) Supreme Court says Christian Business Owners can refuse to create same-sex marriage websites.
The Supreme Court ruled Friday for a Christian web designer in Colorado who refuses to create website to celebrate same-sex weddings out of religious objections.
In dissent, Sotomayor said the decision will undermine the government’s compelling interest in ensuring that all Americans have equal access to the public marketplace.
“Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” she wrote.
“Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public.”
She called this a “sad day in American constitutional law and the lives of LGBT people.”
“By issuing this new license to discriminate in a case brought by a company that seeks to deny same-sex couples the full and equal enjoyment of its services, the immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status.”
This could in turn cause discrimination for LGBTQ+ communities or open up a reversal for gay marriage if a lawsuit were to arise.
Source:
(you need an account to see links)
3) Supreme Court blocks Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness Program
The Supreme Court blocked the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness plan on Friday, invalidating a program aimed at delivering up to $20,000 of relief to millions of borrowers struggling with outstanding debt in the aftermath of Covid.
“The Secretary’s comprehensive debt cancellation plan cannot fairly be called a waiver — it not only nullifies existing provisions, but augments and expands them dramatically,” Roberts wrote.
Essentially, the Court Justices can take fancy vacations/trips and receive donations from billionaires but when it comes to student debt, they turn a blind eye.
Biden had a company that was wiling to do the student debt relief and was held up in the Supreme Court. Biden now faces the challenges of whether or not he can sign an executive order regarding the HEROES Act which congress approved previously.
My Dissent:
The Supreme Court has a responsibility to be impartial and to benefit its constituents at the highest level. The failure of not only the reversal of Roe v. Wade and Abortion rights and now Affirmative Action and Gay right's is backwards movement and sets back decades of civil rights.
To be upset is an understatement that the Supreme Court has become a political weapon to carry out certain agendas and NOT to benefit the American People. These Justices are not elected officials or justices and therefore should have some sort of liability when it comes to civil rights violations.
There are solutions to this conservative majority, however, Biden has stated he is against expanding the court. There are now 12 District Courts and there should technically be 12 justices. (1 for each).
If there is no action taken within the liberal party, the conservative party will come in and take over and possibly expand the court to overrule cases that will impact generations to come if actions are not met in 2024.
The Constitution says that the Church and State need to be separate. Justice Amy Coney Barrett contradicts this by saying she will bring religion into consideration on all her cases. To say this is a clusterfuck would be saying this very nicely.
Looking forward to everyone's opinions on these and including Roe v. Wade.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by I_royalty_I
Posting Permissions
