UPDATE: In our continuing effort to stay on top of the most important news from the Big Apple 🍎, comes this startling report:
Six unelected people, cloistered away from the public, with lifetime tenure and physical protection have in a space of a few days upended American Society.
The Supreme Court just
1) Held that being of color in the US is no big deal. There are no disadvantages to being black or any other minority such that a student's race should not be considered by colleges. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The opinion notes "with distinct approval" the formerly discredited comments of a notable sports tout that none of the Judges in the REGIB reading this (and most do) will know because their parents were in diapers when Jimmy the Greek Synder said this:
The decision did all but say "some of our best friends are black...:
NB: Philosophically Rumpole agrees with the proposition that two wrongs do not make a right and considering race in college admissions has inherent philosophical problems. BUT we also note that racism still pervades US society on a scale that does not allow courts and legislatures to turn a blind eye and announced that they are "Shocked! Shocked that there is
gambling racism going on in these premises..."
2) Held that Gay people have less rights than they might think they have. Businesses can discriminate against a customer on the basis of their sexual orientation. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
Again, Rumpole philosophically agrees a business has a right to have signs that say "We do not serve Jews, Judges, or Armenian people" because we believe in the sanctity of property rights. But under that premise, are we prepared to return to a society separated by race?
And in that vein, the Court announced a willingness to reexamine Brown vs. Board of Education: "What's exactly wrong if people are separate but equal? We have three separate but equal branches of government. Why can't we have separate but equal education? " Thomas, J, concurring in the grant of Certiorari.
The Court also announced a grant of Cert on the issue of whether a domestic violence restraining order constitutionally can prohibit someone from possessing a firearm. First, we must all agree what we need in this country is more guns in the hands of angry and unstable people. Second, since the framers were not DV PC and didn't spend a lot of time discussing domestic violence restraining orders, the court will most certainly rule that DV restraining orders cannot stop people from carrying firearms.
We really mean this. Follow us on this quick legal journey (judges, ask a PD to help you out on the law)
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2022) Justice Thomas, writing on behalf of school gunmen everywhere, and the majority, wrote: