Does the Supreme Court Exist to Protect White Straight Supremacy?

[NWRatCon]

Does the Supreme Court Exist to Protect White Straight Supremacy? (Robert Reich)​

The Supreme Court recent unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services hasn’t got nearly the attention it deserves.

On the surface, the ruling seems innocent enough. The Court merely decided that white and straight employees who allege they’ve been discriminated against don't need to meet a higher standard of proof than do Black or LGBTQ+ employees who sue for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

(Prior to this ruling, some courts had required that white or straight employees demonstrate not only that they were discriminated against but they also worked in a discriminatory environment.)

The Court’s decision in Ames appears a logical extension of the 2023 ruling by its six conservative justices ending race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities across the country.

But seen against Trump’s bigoted agenda and the widening discrepancies between the political power of Black or LGBTQ+ people relative to the power of white straight people, the Ames case should trouble everyone.

Trump and his lackeys have argued that discrimination against white and straight Americans occurs under the cover of diversity, equity and inclusion. And Trump has gone to great lengths to undo what it calls “illegal D.E.I.” — ousting diversity officials from federal agencies and removing D.E.I. references from government websites.

The Ames ruling could be the death knell for D.E.I. because it makes it easier for white and straight people to argue that a D.E.I. policy at the workplace caused an employer to discriminate against them.

The Supreme Court I got to know in the 1970s when I worked in the Solicitor General’s office understood its responsibility to balance the scales of justice in favor of the powerless — including Black people, women, and gay people.
_____
Similar sentiments have been posted elsewhere, but this Supreme Court majority seems hell-bent on eliminating Equal Protection from the Constitution itself, under the guise of enforcing it. It's of the laws is deliberately skewed in only one direction - and not even subtlety - to favor straight Christian white men. They extendedthat process - by that same 6-3 gerrymandered majority - just yesterday, in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming treatment for minors without even pretending to consider the impact on those children and families.

This Court, led by that charlatan John Roberts, will go down in history as the worst Court ever, surpassing even the Taney Court that gave us Dred Scott (which ruled that blacks are not citizens) and the Fulller Court that have is Plessey v. Ferguson (legitimizing Jim Crow laws for 70 years). They aren't troubled by this, but seem to relish being as draconian and anti-Constitutional as possible.

Words cannot adequately express my disgust.

 

[Mycroft]

Does the Supreme Court Exist to Protect White Straight Supremacy?​

No.

 

[Cosmo]

So going forward the colored and rainbow people are to get the same court treatment they had no problem applying to straight whites and now the left is melting down over this actually level playing field.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Pretty much.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Supposed SC centrist Justice Amy Coney Barret (joined by Justice Clarence Thomas) this week argued that laws classifying people based on transgender status do not trigger heightened scrutiny by the courts. If a majority of the court adopts her reasoning for that argument, it could further erode transgender rights. Words to the wise: Never place Barrett's legal sensibilities above her Roman Catholic instruction.*

* Barrett attended St. Mary's Dominican High School, an all-girls Roman Catholic high school in New Orleans. She graduated from Notre Dame Law School and joined the ND law faculty in 2002. From 2011 to 2016, she spoke on constitutional law at Blackstone Legal Fellowship, a summer program for law school students that the Alliance Defending Freedom established to inspire a "distinctly Christian worldview in every area of law".

 

[CaughtInThe]

It did for a long, long time.

It seems to have turned back to that now as well

 

[bomberfox]

Does the Supreme Court Exist to Protect White Straight Supremacy? (Robert Reich)​

The Supreme Court recent unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services hasn’t got nearly the attention it deserves.

On the surface, the ruling seems innocent enough. The Court merely decided that white and straight employees who allege they’ve been discriminated against don't need to meet a higher standard of proof than do Black or LGBTQ+ employees who sue for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

(Prior to this ruling, some courts had required that white or straight employees demonstrate not only that they were discriminated against but they also worked in a discriminatory environment.)

The Court’s decision in Ames appears a logical extension of the 2023 ruling by its six conservative justices ending race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities across the country.

But seen against Trump’s bigoted agenda and the widening discrepancies between the political power of Black or LGBTQ+ people relative to the power of white straight people, the Ames case should trouble everyone.

Trump and his lackeys have argued that discrimination against white and straight Americans occurs under the cover of diversity, equity and inclusion. And Trump has gone to great lengths to undo what it calls “illegal D.E.I.” — ousting diversity officials from federal agencies and removing D.E.I. references from government websites.

The Ames ruling could be the death knell for D.E.I. because it makes it easier for white and straight people to argue that a D.E.I. policy at the workplace caused an employer to discriminate against them.

The Supreme Court I got to know in the 1970s when I worked in the Solicitor General’s office understood its responsibility to balance the scales of justice in favor of the powerless — including Black people, women, and gay people.
_____
Similar sentiments have been posted elsewhere, but this Supreme Court majority seems hell-bent on eliminating Equal Protection from the Constitution itself, under the guise of enforcing it. It's of the laws is deliberately skewed in only one direction - and not even subtlety - to favor straight Christian white men. They extendedthat process - by that same 6-3 gerrymandered majority - just yesterday, in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming treatment for minors without even pretending to consider the impact on those children and families.

This Court, led by that charlatan John Roberts, will go down in history as the worst Court ever, surpassing even the Taney Court that gave us Dred Scott (which ruled that blacks are not citizens) and the Fulller Court that have is Plessey v. Ferguson (legitimizing Jim Crow laws for 70 years). They aren't troubled by this, but seem to relish being as draconian and anti-Constitutional as possible.

Words cannot adequately express my disgust.

It really began when the court decided to ( durrr we promise guise the states wont do it again honest) enforcement of the voting rights act.

 

[mrjurrs]

Does the Supreme Court Exist to Protect White Straight Supremacy? (Robert Reich)​

The Supreme Court recent unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services hasn’t got nearly the attention it deserves.

On the surface, the ruling seems innocent enough. The Court merely decided that white and straight employees who allege they’ve been discriminated against don't need to meet a higher standard of proof than do Black or LGBTQ+ employees who sue for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

(Prior to this ruling, some courts had required that white or straight employees demonstrate not only that they were discriminated against but they also worked in a discriminatory environment.)

The Court’s decision in Ames appears a logical extension of the 2023 ruling by its six conservative justices ending race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities across the country.

But seen against Trump’s bigoted agenda and the widening discrepancies between the political power of Black or LGBTQ+ people relative to the power of white straight people, the Ames case should trouble everyone.

Trump and his lackeys have argued that discrimination against white and straight Americans occurs under the cover of diversity, equity and inclusion. And Trump has gone to great lengths to undo what it calls “illegal D.E.I.” — ousting diversity officials from federal agencies and removing D.E.I. references from government websites.

The Ames ruling could be the death knell for D.E.I. because it makes it easier for white and straight people to argue that a D.E.I. policy at the workplace caused an employer to discriminate against them.

The Supreme Court I got to know in the 1970s when I worked in the Solicitor General’s office understood its responsibility to balance the scales of justice in favor of the powerless — including Black people, women, and gay people.
_____
Similar sentiments have been posted elsewhere, but this Supreme Court majority seems hell-bent on eliminating Equal Protection from the Constitution itself, under the guise of enforcing it. It's of the laws is deliberately skewed in only one direction - and not even subtlety - to favor straight Christian white men. They extendedthat process - by that same 6-3 gerrymandered majority - just yesterday, in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming treatment for minors without even pretending to consider the impact on those children and families.

This Court, led by that charlatan John Roberts, will go down in history as the worst Court ever, surpassing even the Taney Court that gave us Dred Scott (which ruled that blacks are not citizens) and the Fulller Court that have is Plessey v. Ferguson (legitimizing Jim Crow laws for 70 years). They aren't troubled by this, but seem to relish being as draconian and anti-Constitutional as possible.

Words cannot adequately express my disgust.

The Roberts Court does.

 

[NatMorton]

So we're to believe that Trump being in office justifies unequal treatment under the law for certain demographic groups.

Trump has the ability to warp others' thinking like no politician I've ever seen.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Does the Supreme Court Exist to Protect White Straight Supremacy? (Robert Reich)​

The Supreme Court recent unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services hasn’t got nearly the attention it deserves.

On the surface, the ruling seems innocent enough. The Court merely decided that white and straight employees who allege they’ve been discriminated against don't need to meet a higher standard of proof than do Black or LGBTQ+ employees who sue for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

(Prior to this ruling, some courts had required that white or straight employees demonstrate not only that they were discriminated against but they also worked in a discriminatory environment.)

The Court’s decision in Ames appears a logical extension of the 2023 ruling by its six conservative justices ending race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities across the country.

But seen against Trump’s bigoted agenda and the widening discrepancies between the political power of Black or LGBTQ+ people relative to the power of white straight people, the Ames case should trouble everyone.

Trump and his lackeys have argued that discrimination against white and straight Americans occurs under the cover of diversity, equity and inclusion. And Trump has gone to great lengths to undo what it calls “illegal D.E.I.” — ousting diversity officials from federal agencies and removing D.E.I. references from government websites.

The Ames ruling could be the death knell for D.E.I. because it makes it easier for white and straight people to argue that a D.E.I. policy at the workplace caused an employer to discriminate against them.

The Supreme Court I got to know in the 1970s when I worked in the Solicitor General’s office understood its responsibility to balance the scales of justice in favor of the powerless — including Black people, women, and gay people.
_____
Similar sentiments have been posted elsewhere, but this Supreme Court majority seems hell-bent on eliminating Equal Protection from the Constitution itself, under the guise of enforcing it. It's of the laws is deliberately skewed in only one direction - and not even subtlety - to favor straight Christian white men. They extendedthat process - by that same 6-3 gerrymandered majority - just yesterday, in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming treatment for minors without even pretending to consider the impact on those children and families.

This Court, led by that charlatan John Roberts, will go down in history as the worst Court ever, surpassing even the Taney Court that gave us Dred Scott (which ruled that blacks are not citizens) and the Fulller Court that have is Plessey v. Ferguson (legitimizing Jim Crow laws for 70 years). They aren't troubled by this, but seem to relish being as draconian and anti-Constitutional as possible.

Words cannot adequately express my disgust.

I guess treating people the same is discrimination now.

 

[Terryj]

Does the Supreme Court Exist to Protect White Straight Supremacy? (Robert Reich)​

The Supreme Court recent unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services hasn’t got nearly the attention it deserves.

On the surface, the ruling seems innocent enough. The Court merely decided that white and straight employees who allege they’ve been discriminated against don't need to meet a higher standard of proof than do Black or LGBTQ+ employees who sue for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

(Prior to this ruling, some courts had required that white or straight employees demonstrate not only that they were discriminated against but they also worked in a discriminatory environment.)

The Court’s decision in Ames appears a logical extension of the 2023 ruling by its six conservative justices ending race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities across the country.

But seen against Trump’s bigoted agenda and the widening discrepancies between the political power of Black or LGBTQ+ people relative to the power of white straight people, the Ames case should trouble everyone.

Trump and his lackeys have argued that discrimination against white and straight Americans occurs under the cover of diversity, equity and inclusion. And Trump has gone to great lengths to undo what it calls “illegal D.E.I.” — ousting diversity officials from federal agencies and removing D.E.I. references from government websites.

The Ames ruling could be the death knell for D.E.I. because it makes it easier for white and straight people to argue that a D.E.I. policy at the workplace caused an employer to discriminate against them.

The Supreme Court I got to know in the 1970s when I worked in the Solicitor General’s office understood its responsibility to balance the scales of justice in favor of the powerless — including Black people, women, and gay people.
_____
Similar sentiments have been posted elsewhere, but this Supreme Court majority seems hell-bent on eliminating Equal Protection from the Constitution itself, under the guise of enforcing it. It's of the laws is deliberately skewed in only one direction - and not even subtlety - to favor straight Christian white men. They extendedthat process - by that same 6-3 gerrymandered majority - just yesterday, in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming treatment for minors without even pretending to consider the impact on those children and families.

This Court, led by that charlatan John Roberts, will go down in history as the worst Court ever, surpassing even the Taney Court that gave us Dred Scott (which ruled that blacks are not citizens) and the Fulller Court that have is Plessey v. Ferguson (legitimizing Jim Crow laws for 70 years). They aren't troubled by this, but seem to relish being as draconian and anti-Constitutional as possible.

Words cannot adequately express my disgust.

So, does equal protection under the law apply to everyone except "straight white people"? Why would the color of my skin make it so I have to answer to a higher standard than a minority filing for the same laws suit?

 

[NWRatCon]

So, does equal protection under the law apply to everyone except "straight white people"? Why would the color of my skin make it so I have to answer to a higher standard than a minority filing for the same laws suit?

Oh, I don't know, maybe because you've been the "privileged class" all of your life? Here's a thought: engage your brain, and acquire a soul.

 

[reinaert]

So going forward the colored and rainbow people are to get the same court treatment they had no problem applying to straight whites and now the left is melting down over this actually level playing field.

Colored?

 

[NWRatCon]

Colored?

Don't expect better.

 

[NWRatCon]

Two points: first, this was an article I posted, except for my commentary. Second, it didn't take long for the asses of DP to provide asinine content, did it?

The central point, idiots, is the phrase is "equal protection". Those with the advantage don't need protection. What the Supreme Court has done, instead, in case after case after case, including on Friday, is grant special privileges to the advantaged classes that are denied to the disadvantaged - the opposite of equal protection; it being neither protection nor equally applied. If you are advantaged in society, the Supreme Court will extend that advantage. If you are disadvantaged, the Supreme court will ensure that disadvantage is extended. There really isn't an argument otherwise.

 

[Cosmo]

Colored?

Got a problem with that?

 

[reinaert]

Got a problem with that?

Reason you went with the term colored?

 

[NWRatCon]

Reason you went with the term colored?

He's a fan of Jim Crow. It was all the rage for decades.
Good times, huh? Miss'em.

 

[reinaert]

He's a fan of Jim Crow. It was all the rage for decades. View attachment 67575907
Good times, huh? Miss'em.

But too cowardly to stake an actual position?

 

[NWRatCon]

But too cowardly to stake an actual position?

Oh, I've seen enough of those "positions". Apartheid was too kind to "those people", yanno.

 

[Terryj]

Two points: first, this was an article I posted, except for my commentary. Second, it didn't take long for the asses of DP to provide asinine content, did it?

The central point, idiots, is the phrase is "equal protection". Those with the advantage don't need protection. What the Supreme Court has done, instead, in case after case after case, including on Friday, is grant special privileges to the advantaged classes that are denied to the disadvantaged - the opposite of equal protection; it being neither protection nor equally applied. If you are advantaged in society, the Supreme Court will extend that advantage. If you are disadvantaged, the Supreme court will ensure that disadvantage is extended. There really isn't an argument otherwise.

First of all "equal protection" means just what the term applies, regardless of race, sexual orientation, age or religion, PERIOD. So, please expain just what "special privileges" the so called "advantaged class" has that no other person in this country has the rights to? So, you're saying that a person of your so called "advantage class" doesn't need equal protection under the law. Are you saying that minorities don't have the same rights as the majority, show me where this applies. Are you referring to education, employment, housing, it is against the law to deny any of these based on any race, sexual orientation, age or religious status, this is why law suits are files. If you're trying to balance the scales of racial injustice that has happened in the past, you don't balance it by granting special privileges, you balance it by removing those injustices so that the scale is balanced, not tipped back in the opposit direction.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Does the Supreme Court Exist to Protect White Straight Supremacy? (Robert Reich)​

The Supreme Court recent unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services hasn’t got nearly the attention it deserves.

On the surface, the ruling seems innocent enough. The Court merely decided that white and straight employees who allege they’ve been discriminated against don't need to meet a higher standard of proof than do Black or LGBTQ+ employees who sue for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

(Prior to this ruling, some courts had required that white or straight employees demonstrate not only that they were discriminated against but they also worked in a discriminatory environment.)

The Court’s decision in Ames appears a logical extension of the 2023 ruling by its six conservative justices ending race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities across the country.

But seen against Trump’s bigoted agenda and the widening discrepancies between the political power of Black or LGBTQ+ people relative to the power of white straight people, the Ames case should trouble everyone.

Trump and his lackeys have argued that discrimination against white and straight Americans occurs under the cover of diversity, equity and inclusion. And Trump has gone to great lengths to undo what it calls “illegal D.E.I.” — ousting diversity officials from federal agencies and removing D.E.I. references from government websites.

The Ames ruling could be the death knell for D.E.I. because it makes it easier for white and straight people to argue that a D.E.I. policy at the workplace caused an employer to discriminate against them.

The Supreme Court I got to know in the 1970s when I worked in the Solicitor General’s office understood its responsibility to balance the scales of justice in favor of the powerless — including Black people, women, and gay people.
_____
Similar sentiments have been posted elsewhere, but this Supreme Court majority seems hell-bent on eliminating Equal Protection from the Constitution itself, under the guise of enforcing it. It's of the laws is deliberately skewed in only one direction - and not even subtlety - to favor straight Christian white men. They extendedthat process - by that same 6-3 gerrymandered majority - just yesterday, in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming treatment for minors without even pretending to consider the impact on those children and families.

This Court, led by that charlatan John Roberts, will go down in history as the worst Court ever, surpassing even the Taney Court that gave us Dred Scott (which ruled that blacks are not citizens) and the Fulller Court that have is Plessey v. Ferguson (legitimizing Jim Crow laws for 70 years). They aren't troubled by this, but seem to relish being as draconian and anti-Constitutional as possible.

Words cannot adequately express my disgust.

The Constitution is now null and void.

 

[Fearandloathing]

He's a fan of Jim Crow. It was all the rage for decades. View attachment 67575907
Good times, huh? Miss'em.

I have seen this is real life.

In the early 60's in Georgia.

I drank out of the 'colored' fountain.

Was my dad ever mad when I told him I did it deliberately.

 

[Fearandloathing]

The Constitution is now null and void.

Now?

The same constitution that didn't recognize blacks as "people"? The same constitution where they had to Amend it to give women the vote?

Americans have a religion around the constitution. It's a failed document, needing amendment after amendment.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Now?

The same constitution that didn't recognize blacks as "people"? The same constitution where they had to Amend it to give women the vote?

Americans have a religion around the constitution. It's a failed document, needing amendment after amendment.

Well it is totally failed now, states and federal officials are openly ignoring it as if it never even existed.
The only amendment still operational is the 2A.
And it's interesting that all those NRA guys are suddenly silent in the face of tyranny.