james_davis_nicoll (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2015-06-26 10:22 am
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2015-06-26 10:22 am
Entry tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project. Claims of discrimination under the Fair Housing Act can be based on disparate impact rather than overt evidence of discrimination. Not many people were expecting it to win, especially after the ridiculous rulings on the Voting Rights Act.
Nah, he'll launch a giant fireball at Armenia. "Armenia?" you ask. Indeed, given how poor God's smiting aim seems to be. For example during Hurricane Katrina one of the areas of New Orleans least effected was where the gay community congregates.
I didn't mind the mandatory minimums one, either.
I haven't read his opinion, but from the paragraph quoted, I'd guess he's not conflating state and federal, he's comparing judicial to legislative branches, and saying it'd be better for gay marriage to win legitimacy in the legislatures and populace, not be imposed by the courts.
Obama's favorite legal scholar, Cass Sunstein, is a judicial minimalist with similar views, I'm told. I think the warning example would be Roe vs. Wade, still fought heavily because abortion rights are pretty unpopular.
People talk about the courts protecting minorities from a majority, but if the majority really has it in, that won't work well. Arguably the courts work best when they clear away legal cruft that the majority hasn't gotten around to yet -- which given the rapid change in public opinion on gay marriage, seems to actually apply here.
Obama's favorite legal scholar, Cass Sunstein, is a judicial minimalist with similar views, I'm told. I think the warning example would be Roe vs. Wade, still fought heavily because abortion rights are pretty unpopular.
People talk about the courts protecting minorities from a majority, but if the majority really has it in, that won't work well. Arguably the courts work best when they clear away legal cruft that the majority hasn't gotten around to yet -- which given the rapid change in public opinion on gay marriage, seems to actually apply here.
This is one of the few times that if Card posts a screed on this topic I'll read it, because the schaudenfreude will (at least for me) more than cancel out the noxiousness.
I wonder what John C. ----
NO. NO. I WILL NOT. *sits on hands*
NO. NO. I WILL NOT. *sits on hands*
My money's on a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
So pretty much indistinguishable from his normal output, really.
So pretty much indistinguishable from his normal output, really.
As I understand it, that was the Supreme Court finally giving up on Congress to get its act together to clarify a statute. An eight-to-one decision, great but not WOOOOOOO great, if that makes sense?
This case, the concept of disparate impact has been found constitutional and honest jurisprudence now has to accommodate it. (Hackery won't, but that goes with the territory.)
This case, the concept of disparate impact has been found constitutional and honest jurisprudence now has to accommodate it. (Hackery won't, but that goes with the territory.)
I'm almost never up for his sort of crazy.
As well as similar rulings barring judicial action on racial bias in the criminal justice system.
Yes, this one is huge. I don't think the justices even understand what doors they've opened. But I bet a lot of civil rights activist lawyers do. School districts should start working on it today--there's a lot of harm since NCLBA that they're going to be held accountable for.
Ted "No, we don't want him back, Americans, he's yours, deal with it!" Cruz has apparently called this the darkest 24 hours in US history. Yep, worse than Pearl Harbor, 911, the Kennedy and King assassinations etc.
Haven't you heard? Racism is just something made up by the media!
Has someone filked "How do you solve a problem like Scalia"?
A food group I'm part of requested a recipe for a drinkable Pride weekend cocktail that could be called "Scalia's Tears."
My suggestion:
Carpano Antica
Aperol
DOL Gin (if you can get it - if not, St. George Terroir)
Lemon
Dry shake with egg white (for foaming at the mouth)
Dash of Angostura bitters
Garnish with a sprig of marjoram or thyme (Italian herbs, tear-shaped leaves) and a very light sprinkle of salt
Alternatively, omit the egg white, and top with Prosecco - both Italian and gay!
Drink with your head in a bag.
A food group I'm part of requested a recipe for a drinkable Pride weekend cocktail that could be called "Scalia's Tears."
My suggestion:
Carpano Antica
Aperol
DOL Gin (if you can get it - if not, St. George Terroir)
Lemon
Dry shake with egg white (for foaming at the mouth)
Dash of Angostura bitters
Garnish with a sprig of marjoram or thyme (Italian herbs, tear-shaped leaves) and a very light sprinkle of salt
Alternatively, omit the egg white, and top with Prosecco - both Italian and gay!
Drink with your head in a bag.
Perhaps Our Host will provide amusing excerpts of various Puppies' heads exploding, with a suitable prophylactic warning attached.
Set to the tune of the 1812 Overture, it could be quite entertaining.
Probably a heartfelt statement that those damn liberals won't force *him* to gay marry. He'll be defiant to the end about that, he will.
Have you seen this?
https://twitter.com/geekbarchicago/status/614536085671145472
(Malort, for the curious, is a singularly vile beverage widely found in Chicago as a local version of the sheep's eyeball; the name is allegedly Swedish, but no Swede has yet been convicted, and so the question of ultimate blame remains unresolved)
https://twitter.com/geekbarchicago/status/614536085671145472
(Malort, for the curious, is a singularly vile beverage widely found in Chicago as a local version of the sheep's eyeball; the name is allegedly Swedish, but no Swede has yet been convicted, and so the question of ultimate blame remains unresolved)
Just came across my FB. I have had Malort in the wild and found it not nearly as objectionable as Fernet Branca.
I give them props for including the apple bitters but demerits for the superfluous inclusion of Combier, rather than say an apple brandy. Also they should have garnished with a fortune cookie.
I give them props for including the apple bitters but demerits for the superfluous inclusion of Combier, rather than say an apple brandy. Also they should have garnished with a fortune cookie.
I actually did see an article that argued "the Supreme Court got it wrong again, just as it did years ago with Roe vs. Wade." It's not clear if they honestly forgot Loving vs. Virginia or if they thought that wouldn't be wise to bring up.
I would invite Scalia to read the US Consitution, but that would apparently violate his beliefs.
>...he's calling the bartender a Lamanite.
Congratulations, you've gotten me to google and enlarge my vocabulary.
Congratulations, you've gotten me to google and enlarge my vocabulary.
Page 2 of 3