The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[RockyTop85]

What is the fundamental problem besides some people want to blame whitey for all their failures and whitey must be complicit? That whitey of today has controlled everything that’s happened in history for the past 500 years.

You know that Title VI and Title VII of the civil rights act already prohibit this, right? The Education Department has an office devoted to civil rights complaints and it creates a private cause of action.

 

[85SugarVol]

Makes you wonder if she knows anything.

She knows plenty.

I understand the reticence to say anything of substance.
But I did find the unwillingness to define “woman” to be a bit silly.

 

[utvolpj]

On point. And funny as hell

If you spend your time listening to stuff like this it's no wonder your posts are such nonsense

 

[85SugarVol]

You know that Title VI and Title VII of the civil rights act already prohibit this, right? The Education Department has an office devoted to civil rights complaints and it creates a private cause of action.

Do they keep metrics on complaints lodged?

 

[C-south]

Makes no sense and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of our system of government. SCOTUS doesn't actually enforce anything. They make rulings based on interpretations and then the executive branch enforces the ruling (or doesn't, in some cases). Separation of powers....

Remember when Andrew Jackson said, more or less "It's your ruling, now you enforce it." and they had no ability to? Yeah...

A ruling is an enforcement. What is written in black and white is the only interpretation that’s needed. Anything else is a disservice to everyone. Some people act like the constitution was written and no context was added by the people that wrote it.

 

[C-south]

You know that Title VI and Title VII of the civil rights act already prohibit this, right? The Education Department has an office devoted to civil rights complaints and it creates a private cause of action.

That title IX is working out great.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Yeah she’s perfect for defending womens rights. Woke AF

With all of her smarts, this Judge Jackson lady can't give the definition of what a woman is.

 

[C-south]

She knows plenty.

I understand the reticence to say anything of substance.
But I did find the unwillingness to define “woman” to be a bit silly.

I guess since she won’t answer anything we just have her terrible record as a judge to go by.

 

[n_huffhines]

If this is true of our judicial system, how can a judge in Greeneville, TN make a ruling that forces all school children in Knox County wear masks? Should that have been an order from the county Mayor?

You've gone from federal to local, so it doesn't necessarily work the same, but the judge in Greeneville, TN would be ruling on a law presumably laid out by the mayor and/or city council, or some other body of government. I don't know of instances where a local judge is just making up laws out of thin air and if they are, it's not supposed to work that way.

 

[RockyTop85]

Do they keep metrics on complaints lodged?

It’s a government agency, they probably have a whole team devoted to tracking complaint and response data to justify their existence to congress.

The private cause of action would be in the form
of a court filing. Should be public record. Seems like it would be all over Fox News if some school was being sued for discriminating against children.

 

[C-south]

The role of the Courts is indeed to interpret the law. The Executive enforces the law.

I don’t think interpretation of the constitution is needed. It’s there in black and white. Context was given when it was written. Interpreting it would mean you’re trying to guess what they meant when they wrote it. Laws are based on the constitution and I suppose they could be interpreted to see if they violate those rights given under the constitution.

 

[volgr]

Do they keep metrics on complaints lodged?

They are forwarded to the FBI for review.

 

[RockyTop85]

That title IX is working out great.

So you’re saying that race-neutral laws against discrimination are insufficient to create an even playing field for white students because individuals working for the government have biases that put them at a disadvantage?

 

[n_huffhines]

I don’t think interpretation of the constitution is needed. It’s there in black and white. Context was given when it was written. Interpreting it would mean you’re trying to guess what they meant when they wrote it. Laws are based on the constitution and I suppose they could be interpreted to see if they violate those rights given under the constitution.

Then there is no point to even having a SCOTUS. Have fun on your lonely island with your singular interpretation of the constitution.

 

[85SugarVol]

I don’t think interpretation of the constitution is needed. It’s there in black and white. Context was given when it was written. Interpreting it would mean you’re trying to guess what they meant when they wrote it. Laws are based on the constitution and I suppose they could be interpreted to see if they violate those rights given under the constitution.

I believe that’s what we refer to as an Originalist.

Scalia would be the oft cited example.
Gorsuch too, I think.

 

[C-south]

Then there is no point to even having a SCOTUS. Have fun on your lonely island with your singular interpretation of the constitution.

No we need a body to enforce the constitution as it was written. However, they are fallible people that have their own beliefs and may not agree with the constitution. That’s why we have 9 of them.

 

[85SugarVol]

It’s a government agency, they probably have a whole team devoted to tracking complaint and response data to justify their existence to congress.

The private cause of action would be in the form
of a court filing. Should be public record. Seems like it would be all over Fox News if some school was being sued for discriminating against children.

I was just curious if there was a breakdown of the data collected on reports

 

[n_huffhines]

I believe that’s what we refer to as an Originalist.

Scalia would be the oft cited example.
Gorsuch too, I think.

And they're not going to see eye to eye on every constitutional question, even though they are of the same school of thought, because it's not "black and white" at all.

 

[85SugarVol]

No we need a body to enforce the constitution as it was written. However, they are fallible people that have their own beliefs and may not agree with the constitution. That’s why we have 9 of them.

But it’s the Executive that enforces the law.

 

[85SugarVol]

And they're not going to see eye to eye on every constitutional question, even though they are of the same school of thought, because it's not "black and white" at all.

Exactly.

 

[RockyTop85]

I was just curious if there was a breakdown of the data collected on reports

OCR Reports and Resources

 

[C-south]

But it’s the Executive that enforces the law.

And it’s the Supreme Court’s job to interpret the law based on the constitution assuming it goes that far.

 

[volgr]

Ironically, the Supreme Court itself largely operates outside of the Constitution. Like the other 2 branches, it magically gave itself many powers it wasn't Constitutionally granted. If I were President, I would largely ignore SCOTUS rulings.

 

[85SugarVol]

I guess since she won’t answer anything we just have her terrible record as a judge to go by.

That’s how it’s worked for a long time now.

It might have been Ginsburg that pioneered this strategy?

 

[85SugarVol]

And it’s the Supreme Court’s job to interpret the law based on the constitution assuming it goes that far.

Well now I’m just dizzy