The decision of the Supreme Court to end the use of race in college admissions was not unexpected. Yet, President Joe Biden expressed outrage and actually claimed that the Court gutted the constitutional guarantee that "all men and women are created equal."  

In declaring that this Court was not "normal," Biden further insisted that these admissions decisions and the Dobbs abortion decision reversed the gains that "we fought a war over in 1860" to secure. 

In an interview on MSNBC’s "Deadline: White House," President Biden accused the court of ignoring what "the Constitution says: We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men and women are created equal, endowed by their creator." That is actually a reference to the Declaration of Independence, but it was the substance of the point that was so baffling. 

 

LIBERALS LAMENT STRING OF SUPREME COURT VERDICTS: ‘THIS TRULY SUCKS’

 

In barring the use of race in admissions, the court believed that it was protecting that very "self-evident" guarantee. It erased what the court viewed as a glaring anomaly in its cases in the treatment of racial discrimination in education as opposed to employment.  

 

FULL STORY

 

Scroll down the first post. 

 

See Fox News.

 

Ignore the thread.

Un hinged?really?I beg to differ the Supreme Court has been stripping rights from the American people at an alarming rate he’s calling them out as he should and personally any (news)organization that was fined 800 million for knowingly spreading false information isent a credible source 

Edited July 3, 20233 yr by Tug

38 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Scroll down the first post. 

 

See Fox News.

 

Ignore the thread.

Yeah the truth can be such an awful enemy, better ignore everything you don't like to hear

1 hour ago, BenStark said:

Yeah the truth can be such an awful enemy, better ignore everything you don't like to hear

The truth from Fox News which paid $787.5 million fine for lying? ????

Edited July 3, 20233 yr by candide

5 hours ago, BenStark said:

Yeah the truth can be such an awful enemy, better ignore everything you don't like to hear

Clicked on full story.  Saw it was an opinion piece.  Ignored the rest.

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Clicked on full story.  Saw it was an opinion piece.  Ignored the rest.

Saw the headline, then the Fox logo, check your brain at the door.

With so many of the articles in here coming from Fox, The Hill, et al someone may get the impression that this is a MAGA operation.

Fox is not news, it's fiction.

If one of these Fox blurbs seems like it may be legit, I'll check it against other sources.  But it is the stuff they leave out of their reporting, and their loyal viewers don't check other sources so they never learn about it, THAT is the dangerous part. 

 

 

Edited July 3, 20233 yr by bendejo

2 hours ago, bendejo said:

Saw the headline, then the Fox logo, check your brain at the door.

With so many of the articles in here coming from Fox, The Hill, et al someone may get the impression that this is a MAGA operation.

Fox is not news, it's fiction.

If one of these Fox blurbs seems like it may be legit, I'll check it against other sources.  But it is the stuff they leave out of their reporting, and their loyal viewers don't check other sources so they never learn about it, THAT is the dangerous part. 

 

 

Pray tell which news is the "truth"???

32 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Pray tell which news is the "truth"???

You can start your search for such news sources by eliminating all opinion articles, which don't even pretend to be news, and all pundit programs, which are the mainstay of 24 hour news channels.

11 hours ago, Tug said:

Un hinged?really?I beg to differ the Supreme Court has been stripping rights from the American people at an alarming rate he’s calling them out as he should and personally any (news)organization that was fined 800 million for knowingly spreading false information isent a credible source 

What rights have you had stripped away?

10 hours ago, candide said:

The truth from Fox News which paid $787.5 million fine for lying? ????

Never happened. 

Fox didn't pay a fine.

They paid a settlement in a defamation case to make the case go away.   Let's try to be a little accurate here.

 

21 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Never happened. 

Fox didn't pay a fine.

They paid a settlement in a defamation case to make the case go away.   Let's try to be a little accurate here.

 

For the sake of accuracy Fox also said in their settlement statement:

“We are pleased to have reached a settlement of our dispute with Dominion Voting Systems. We acknowledge the court's rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false."

25 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Never happened. 

Fox didn't pay a fine.

They paid a settlement in a defamation case to make the case go away.   Let's try to be a little accurate here.

 

Semantics

It was still a fine, Just  not one imposed by the courts but by mutual negotiated agreement.

A fine is a penalty , and fox certainly paid a penalty. 

6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

For the sake of accuracy Fox also said in their settlement statement:

“We are pleased to have reached a settlement of our dispute with Dominion Voting Systems. We acknowledge the court's rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false."

Absolutely correct. It was part of the agreement.

 

Now, on to Biden and the Supremes...

 

Just now, Hanaguma said:

Absolutely correct. It was part of the agreement.

 

Now, on to Biden and the Supremes...

 

Yes I know its correct, its also correct that the Judge Davis ruled that he would instruct the jury that the claims are false. Fox had little choice but to settle. However yes back to Biden and unhinged ideas of the Supreme court

54 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Never happened. 

Fox didn't pay a fine.

They paid a settlement in a defamation case to make the case go away.   Let's try to be a little accurate here.

 

True. It wasn't a fine. And the reason Fox decided to pay over 3/4 of a billion dollars rather than take the case to trial?

It looks like the blowback on college enrollment is starting to build.  They're saying that people who's grandfathers have campus buildings named after them should be no more entitled to attend the school than anyone else.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2023/07/03/activists-spurred-by-affirmative-action-ruling-challenge-legacy-admissions-at-harvard/

 

 

In the college loans opinion, I love how Chief Justice Roberts quoted Nancy Pelosi, of all people, to support the idea that Biden was wrong: 

 

‘People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress.’"

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4076303-gop-ribs-pelosi-after-roberts-cites-her-in-student-loans-decision/

 

 

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

True. It wasn't a fine. And the reason Fox decided to pay over 3/4 of a billion dollars rather than take the case to trial?

Because the chance of them getting their collective asses handed to them and paying even MORE  if they went before a jury was substantial.  Now, back to the Supremes?

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

In the college loans opinion, I love how Chief Justice Roberts quoted Nancy Pelosi, of all people, to support the idea that Biden was wrong: 

 

‘People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress.’"

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4076303-gop-ribs-pelosi-after-roberts-cites-her-in-student-loans-decision/

 

 

Roberts makes this claimed based on an extremely innovative broadening of the major questions doctrine. Very odd for a conservative justice who stresses the importance of textualism when it suits him. There are major arguments against it:

"These include arguments that the major questions doctrine is a symptom of "judicial self-aggrandizement," that it is inconsistent with both textualism and originalism, and that it is at odds with normal tools of statutory interpretation.^[4][5][6] In an article for the Harvard Law Review summarizing this transformation in the major questions case law, Professor Mila Sohoni wrote that the "first crucial thing to understand about the major questions [doctrine] is what it did to administrative law."^[7] She continued, "[w]hile ostensibly applying existing major questions case law, the [Supreme Court] in actuality altered the doctrine of judicial review of agency action in its method and content, in ways that will have momentous consequences."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_questions_doctrine#:~:text=The major questions doctrine is,major political or economic significance.

 

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Because the chance of them getting their collective asses handed to them and paying even MORE  if they went before a jury was substantial.  Now, back to the Supremes?

And the reason for that was that the evidence was overwhelmingly against them.

Just now, placeholder said:

And the reason for that was that the evidence was overwhelmingly against them.

Absolutely. I am not disagreeing with you. Fox screwed the pooch in royal fashion and got burned for it.  Believe it or not, I am not a Fox News viewer.  Don't have time for it, and it isn't available where I live. I tend to be more of a YouTube junkie, watch documentaries from CNA, CNBC, Al Jazeera, DW, and so on. 

Just now, Hanaguma said:

Absolutely. I am not disagreeing with you. Fox screwed the pooch in royal fashion and got burned for it.  Believe it or not, I am not a Fox News viewer.  Don't have time for it, and it isn't available where I live. I tend to be more of a YouTube junkie, watch documentaries from CNA, CNBC, Al Jazeera, DW, and so on. 

"Screwed the pooch" is a very mild way of putting it. Fox News knowingly fostered and supported slanderous lies.

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

"Screwed the pooch" is a very mild way of putting it. Fox News knowingly fostered and supported slanderous lies.

Not to the pooch...

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

What rights have you had stripped away?

One right that will never be lost is the Right to Whine 

5 minutes ago, novacova said:

One right that will never be lost is the Right to Whine 

Goes well with government cheese!

14 hours ago, Tug said:

Un hinged?really?I beg to differ the Supreme Court has been stripping rights from the American people at an alarming rate he’s calling them out as he should and personally any (news)organization that was fined 800 million for knowingly spreading false information isent a credible source 

Removing 'quotas' will be rights regained, not stripped.

 

"All men & women are created equal"

 

And please, name a MSM news outlet that hasn't spread false info.  You might want to google, before naming.  Try '(outlet name) + controversy' 

16 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Removing 'quotas' will be rights regained, not stripped.

 

"All men & women are created equal"

 

And please, name a MSM news outlet that hasn't spread false info.  You might want to google, before naming.  Try '(outlet name) + controversy' 

There's a difference between getting it wrong and lying.

A systematic dismantling  of the country IMO

Unlike other countries that derive their cohesion from an ethnic identity, the US being an immigrant country with many ethnicities,  for the most part, derived it's cohesion from a common trust on  it's institutions. These institutions are being systematically undermined,  and usurped by mercenary private interests. 

  Biden is right to be concerned about the Supreme Court !!

    The Supreme court is the final arbiters of the constitutionality and  implementation of the rules and regulation that govern all other institutions, 

  We see   how trust in many of our institutions have eroded , with many not trusting the elections, the police , our scientists, etc. But we always trusted the Supreme court to keep the rascals on track. 

With cases like the citizens united corporate personhood decision, Clarence Thomas ethics violations etc, The trust in the final arbiter is also eroded and IMO the final nail in the coffin, of the Union. 

It was Abraham Lincoln who quoting Mark 3:25 said  "A house divided against itself cannot stand. "   

14 minutes ago, placeholder said:

There's a difference between getting it wrong and lying.

That's a fine line.  Good investigating reporter usually don't get it wrong.  Don't think they exist any more, just a good headline brings in the money.