SCOTUS - Supreme Court of the United States

[tetley]

Except they weren't closing down because they were forced to, they were closing down because they couldn't get federal funding. So yes they wanted federal funding. They could have continued without federal funding.

a) Separate, unequal black schools are better than no schools at all. Over in the private sector, poorly-funded startups have to compete against big-money behemoths all the time. Which leads to...

b) That is not private sector, though. Public schools are taxpayer-funded. Black people and white people both pay into the system, and thus black people are entitled to equal treatment. But the Catholics are working entirely out of their own charity. NO ONE is entitled to ANYTHING.


P.S. I should probably add: C) the Bible condemns homosexuality. It does not condemn people for being black. These are Catholic institutions, and that's what they believe.

 

[Lexicus]

P.S. I should probably add: C) the Bible condemns homosexuality. It does not condemn people for being black. These are Catholic institutions, and that's what they believe.

So what? It costs $0.00 not to be a bigoted douchebag.

Again, the Catholic agencies chose to shut down rather than not discriminate. Their choice. They are at fault. And that's the end of it.

Does the court really want to make rulings on incredibly tenuous ground where there is no law applicable?

Far-right ideologues appointed to the Supreme Court by Republicans for the express purpose of accomplishing right-wing policy objectives that cannot be accomplished through majoritarian political processes probably do, yes.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Far-right ideologues appointed to the Supreme Court by Republicans for the express purpose of accomplishing right-wing policy objectives that cannot be accomplished through majoritarian political processes probably do, yes.

Meh. I think Roberts would rather be remembered for running the court in an orderly fashion and laying down rulings that supported the rule of law than for supervising the construction of ideological chaos in the vacuum of the absence of law. I also think that is what continuously leaves the real ideologues unhappy with the behavior of "their" judges. While the Democrats (who notably didn't seem to give enough of a fudge to go out and vote in 2016) are boohooing their eyes out and fretting about the conservative court bench legislating the rise of facism, the actual fascists, and even just ordinary Republican sorts, seem far less convinced that the supreme court is going to dance to their tune.

 

[tetley]

So what? It costs $0.00 not to be a bigoted douchebag.

Again, the Catholic agencies chose to shut down rather than not discriminate. Their choice. They are at fault. And that's the end of it.

AND--it is your choice not to "equalize" it by going and adopting a kid through a federally-funded program yourself. Your fault. And that is the end of it, too. If a white guy chooses to help out another white guy in need with his own personal money, but not a black guy, you can always go and help out a black guy in need yourself at any time. No point complaining about all the good other people are not doing when you yourself could be doing it.

 

[Lexicus]

No point complaining about all the good other people are not doing when you yourself could be doing it.

Again, I don't particularly care that these institutions decided to shut down because they were no longer allowed to discriminate. You're the one complaining about it.

Meh. I think Roberts would rather be remembered for running the court in an orderly fashion and laying down rulings that supported the rule of law than for supervising the construction of ideological chaos in the vacuum of the absence of law.

He'll need a time machine for that. Shelby County is probably the worst decision handed down by the Court since Plessy v Ferguson.

 

[tetley]

Again, I don't particularly care that these institutions decided to shut down because they were no longer allowed to discriminate. You're the one complaining about it.
.

Not much, though, because as AmazonQueen said, for the most part Catholics have not been hogtied like that--and it's because of pretty much exactly the reasons which were already mentioned.


It's this simple:

Person A tries to help Person B. Person C--who is neither Person A nor Person B--comes along and says, "No, no. If you help Person B then you have to help Person D, E, and F, too." Person A, realizing that no good deed goes unpunished, walks away. To which Person C calls Person A (the giver) a douchebag.

Person B loses. Person A never stood anything to gain to begin with. Person C is the douchebag in that situation--not Person A. It was never any of Person C's business to begin with.

 

[Lexicus]

Person A tries to help Person B. Person C--who is neither Person A nor Person B--comes along and says, "No, no. If you help Person B then you have to help Person D, E, and F, too." Person A, realizing that no good deed goes unpunished, walks away. To which Person C calls Person A (the giver) a douchebag.

Person B loses. Person A never stood anything to gain to begin with. Person C is the douchebag in that situation--not Person A. It was never any of Person C's business to begin with.

This is one of the worst analogies I've ever read.
Why don't you tell us all how you feel about the ability of homosexual couples to raise children. Maybe that would cast some light on why you are spewing transparent nonsense like this.

 

[tetley]

It's not an analogy at all. That is pretty much exactly the situation, distilled down as simply as it gets.

 

[Lexicus]

It's not an analogy at all. That is pretty much exactly the situation, distilled down as simply as it gets.

If you really believe that is the situation, I am not actually sure you understand the situation at all.

 

[tetley]

If you really believe that is the situation, I am not actually sure you understand the situation at all.

It's not mutual. I think you understand the situation just fine, and are just pretending not to. Nonetheless, giving the benefit of the doubt, I will try and be more explicit:

Person A: the Catholic institution trying to help kids.
Person B: the orphans looking for a home.
Person C--whom it was never any of their business to begin with, who is contributing nothing positive to the situation and just wants to be a critic: you.

Does that help?

 

[Lexicus]

Does that help?

It confirms in my mind that you don't really understand the situation, I guess, since I figured that you at least understood it well enough that Person C would be the government.

 

[Drakle]

@tetley Your analogy is basically an argument against any and all regulation.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

He'll need a time machine for that. Shelby County is probably the worst decision handed down by the Court since Plessy v Ferguson.

Thanks for the perfect example.

Shelby county filed suit against enforcement of onerous restrictions levied on them and other specified jurisdictions in 1965. Those restrictions were justifiable, even unquestionably necessary, in 1965. Why has congress not revisited the question of that necessity since 1965? I would happily wager that NO ONE who was part of doing what made those restrictions a necessity is still involved in the local governments operating under them. I would seriously consider betting against any of those people even still being alive.

That's not to say, in the least, that I have any high level of trust in the current Shelby County Board of Supervisors, because I don't. But it is legitimately a fact that congress once again demonstrably blew off doing their jobs. There is a whole lot of performance degradation, flat out obsolete crap, and areas of demonstrable failure in the voting rights act of 1965 that make it long overdue for examination and improvement...not by the supreme court.

 

[Angst]

Uh. Ok. So here's the thing.

Describing how the situation should be here.

Standard education is ordained to be standardized. That is, it is something everyone has to do in a state, and it has to meet a certain degree of quality. Private schools or schools that are alternate to the public option needs to meet certain standards in order to sufficiently be education. This implicates both proper access (ie lack of segregation) and meeting a certain quality of educational standard (eg lack of nonsense like intelligent design).

Just because you want to offer a service and has money to fund it doesn't mean you are allowed to. I could offer to be a doctor for free but that would hurt a lot of people. That's an extreme, but still.

Education is such a fundamental part of broad society that government does indeed have a say in what people should allow in or not. Infact, the Catholics are only able to do what they do by the virtue of the government. It is very legitimate for the government to take away the license to educate, and has been so since the rise of public education in the 1800s.

EDIT: And I'd add that the problem with the government not having enough money for good education is not the fault of people like Lexicus. When you do a logical A B C whatever argument so include the situation in question. It's just not an instance of a person giving someone else something. It's about someone wanting to be a doctor without being able to practice by proper standards.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

First, that is also not a good comparison, because the Supreme Court and the southern states did not refuse to educate black people--they only refused to integrate them. Maybe the schools were separate-but-not-equal, maybe not. But if the separate black schools were not educating black people at ALL...those are black teachers with a black faculty. Surely they bear at least some of that blame?

Jesus christ, you don't even know what you're saying

you need to stop

 

[Zardnaar]

Jesus christ, you don't even know what you're saying

you need to stop

Black schools basically sucked.

Here they did it the other way around. More or less forced the Maori to go to white schools but they got caned if they spoke Maori.

To be fair you could get the cane for anything, my older stepbrothers got it but it was banned while I was at primary school.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's not mutual. I think you understand the situation just fine, and are just pretending not to. Nonetheless, giving the benefit of the doubt, I will try and be more explicit:

Person A: the Catholic institution trying to help kids.
Person B: the orphans looking for a home.
Person C--whom it was never any of their business to begin with, who is contributing nothing positive to the situation and just wants to be a critic: you.

Does that help?

OH OH!!! I think I'm catching on!!! Lemme see if I have it right!

So, as an example:

"Person A" could actually be...God
"Person B" could be one of God's creations, a beautiful human being who happens to be LGBTQ.
and that would make "Person C" some judgemental asshat that thinks they need to involve themselves in God's business because that's just what judgemental asshats do.

And then Person A and Person B live happily ever after and Person C burns in the fires of hell reserved for judgemental asshats.

Have I got this?

 

[Zkribbler]

... the Democrats ...didn't seem to give enough of a fudge to go out and vote in 2016.

There was no need. It was clear to everyone that Trump was going to lose in a landslide.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There was no need. It was clear to everyone that Trump was going to lose in a landslide.

There were senate races on a third of the ballots, and a house race on EVERY ballot.

 

[Arianrhod]

First, that is also not a good comparison, because the Supreme Court and the southern states did not refuse to educate black people--they only refused to integrate them. Maybe the schools were separate-but-not-equal, maybe not. But if the separate black schools were not educating black people at ALL...those are black teachers with a black faculty. Surely they bear at least some of that blame?

Okay, let's assume that this is a valid understanding.

How would you actually get "quality" black teachers in the first place, in your scenario? You cannot power a surge protector just by plugging it into itself for infinite electricity; besides integration, what path forward do they actually have? The "best" solution would be to import them from somewhere else, but that would not only require money these schools likely do not have but willingness of these teachers to move somewhere where they will be condemned just for existing. I see no reason to attribute blame to them for a problem that they simply do not have a reasonable means of actually solving.

It's similar to how modern "private schooling" is just a thinly veiled way to mitigate integration under the disguise of "wealth". States can pillage public education as a whole to their heart's content because it only hurts the poor, while the rich need not care because they will have access to the best schools and teachers regardless. The poor then suffer from weaker educations that prevent them from achieving the same level of potential success unless they sell their soul for loans that they are unlikely to ever be able to repay without enormous hardship or ridiculous luck. (These weaker educations can also be exploited to create a very malleable populace whose most complex political knowledge is what they've learned from saying the Pledge of Allegiance 180 times a year for thirteen years.) This creates a scenario that is not altogether very different, even if the precise nature of it isn't the same; it's effectively separating the rich from the poor, after all, and who is most likely to be poor...?