121

Supreme Court Justices Give Heated Dissent Over Latest Racial Bias Ruling (www.theroot.com)

submitted 1 year ago by gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

While everyone was going up about the Supreme Court’s block on President Joe Biden’s student loan debt relief plan, the court passed another decision right under our noses. According to NBC News, the court refused to hear the appeal of a Black death row inmate who alleged his jury was picked based on race.

Tony Clark was convicted on murder charges and sentenced to death in the killing of a 13-year-old boy during the robbery of a convenience store back in 2014. His appeal claimed that during the jury selection for his trial, prosecutors unlawfully sought to strike Black jurors based solely on race. That would be in direct violation of the Court’s 1986 ruling that potential jurors can’t be excluded based on race. But alas, Clark’s trial was composed of 11 white people and one Black person.

top 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] onionbaggage@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Mmm yes, I enjoy seeing my values reduced to "heated dissent" by a fascist minority that gamed the system.

[-] MaxVoltage@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Dude they will complain about our screams as we suffocate in their "Assisted Suicide Chambers for the mentally ill"

[+] Thorosofbeer@lemmy.world -46 points 1 year ago

Ultimately I agree with the Affirmative Action ruling. The Equal Protections clause doesn't say, "All racism is bad except some racism for the right reasons, that's okay." it just says there is to be no discrimination based on race.

Affirmative Action was racism with good intentions.

[-] archiotterpup@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

I don't think you understand what racism means. AA was there to help even the playing field.

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

It should be based on economic status. That would accomplish the same boost to struggling people without requiring the distinction to be about race.

[-] RaincoatsGeorge@lemmy.zip 37 points 1 year ago

But that’s using rose colored glasses. In the past if you said only look at people’s economic status guess what would have happened, there would be a few more poor whites going to college but still no minorities.

Institutional racism runs deep, it doesn’t go away because someone says to stop being racist, you have to physically take the wheel and correct the ship. Was it perfect? No. But is there a concerted effort by multiple bad actors including sitting Supreme Court justices to gut long standing protections that have shown that they work? Without any doubt. The most recent Supreme Court cases that have had the most devastating impact were knowingly fraudulent but allowed to advance anyways. That stinks like major shit to me.

You can debate the merits of affirmative action all day, in the end there are extremists gaming the system to overrule the will of the people to benefit a select few. That’s dogshit and unamerican, full stop.

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Oh no doubt. Affirmative Action is the easiest (and therefore only viable) way to fix that problem, even if the “correct” way is to base it on economics. Society is complex and we need suboptimal solutions in order to even function correctly.

[-] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree if the hypothetical class-based AA law is being abused and allowing poor white kids going to college and no more minorites, that would be a huge step backwards, but I really doubt that would be the case unless the law was ridiculously vague.

If a class-based AA law was passed that was completely indiscrimate towards race, I think that would be much fairer.

[-] RaincoatsGeorge@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago

Well at the end of the day it’s clear that all of these things need to stop being propped up by vague court decisions and should instead be passed as an act of congress. That requires a concentrated long term effort to vote out anyone standing in the way of progress to obtain the necessary majorities to enshrine these things into law. I think if there’s ever been a time where there needs to be a democratic supermajority it’s now. As long as we continue to keep operating in these thin margins individual extremists can hijack the collective.

Perhaps one day we can get there and pass laws that can’t be overruled by a corrupt court.

[-] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

I believe judicial review could work if the entire point of being a justice was to interpret absolutely every word of the constitution literally. If that was the case, we would actually have a solid foundation to the law of the land. Instead, justices have time and time again made decisions off of words they think are implied even if not stated at all in the constitution.

I don't think the Constitution's literal interpretation is perfect, but the entire point is to amend the document as needed.

[-] Froyn@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I do not think that means what you think it means. Currently there are admissions based on economic status, they're called Legacy admissions.

[-] keeb420@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

theres a way to sidestep this entire issue, make college free.

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Clearly I meant the opposite. Legacy admissions obviously cater to the wealthy, not the disadvantaged.

[+] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz -19 points 1 year ago

So in your opinion minoritie are less capable of getting into college. Besides economic reasons, (class-based affirmative action actually makes sense) what disadvantage is placed on someone because of their race?

[-] almar_quigley@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

It’s racism. Racism is the thing that you’re looking for. Are you saying there’s no racism? Anywhere? You’re not arguing in good faith at all. This whole economic aspect is just a straw man distraction.

[+] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz -7 points 1 year ago

Obviously I dont think theres no racism, racism runs deep in many aspects of the USA.

However, there is no racism in the college admissions system, and if there is, anonymize race during admission.

If anything race as an AA factor is a straw man distraction, as there is actually a correlation between your economic state and what colleges you can attend, while your race has no effect on this.

[-] almar_quigley@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

You’re making a whole lotta statements that are pure conjecture and talking points. “Racism doesn’t exist….but I mean if it does just do this one thing and it’s gone!”

[-] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz -2 points 1 year ago

I don't see how anonymizing race on college admissions is pure conjecture and a talking point. I agree with the quote you say as if it proves me wrong; if the people doing the admissions do not know the students applying, there can be no racial bias in their selection of students. If that's conjecture, do you have a reason that would not be the case?

[-] almar_quigley@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The conjecture is saying there’s no racism. Those are the literal words you used. Then you went on to add in a what if scenario with a very over simplified and rose colored glasses solution. And if you remove race from an application there are still so many ways for people to infer. Your name, city of birth, schools, hobbies, etc. Yes anonymizing applications could work but it’s not as simple as removing the race field. I know this very well as someone who’s been hiring people for 15+ years. The amount of unconscious bias we all have is pretty surprising when you see it demonstrated for yourself.

Then there’s also the problem of once folks get on how are you sure they’re being treated equally. You’re trying to make this a simple problem and it’s much more complex than you can imagine.

[-] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Remove the name from the application information too then. I disagree that your city of birth, school, or hobby could give someone enough information to reasonably infer your race.

I don't think the solution to racism in college admissions is to assume the people selecting will be biased and discriminate the other way around. The solution is to make a procedure where there is no room for anything other than absolutely stupid outliers. Maybe one in a thousand college admissions counselor would try to infer a students race, but that counselor is just terrible at their job in that case (in a world where the pertinent details have been anonymized).

If anything, I think its conjecture to assume there will be an implicit bias even if pertinent information to race is removed from applications.

[-] archiotterpup@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

That's your opinion of AA, and a reductive take, not mine. This country has never been race blind and to assume otherwise is incredibly ignorant and naive.

[-] Locuralacura@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

I'm white, and I went to a HBCU on a minority scholarship. AA works both ways but you're not ready to consider this.

[-] Thorosofbeer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's still wrong. I'm perfectly happy to consider all aspects of AA, but so long as any part of it stands on determining someone's admission based on race it will always be racism and I'm not in favor of racism for any reason.

[-] chakan2@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I also agree with the ruling. Aid need to be based on economic standing without regard for skin color.

[-] quindraco@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

The decision wasn't even specifically anti-AA, it was specifically anti-racism.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

The decision that came from the same court that wasn't concerned at all about a death row inmate's claims of racism in this case was motivated by anti-racism?

[-] quindraco@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I have no idea what motivated any of the court's decisions; all I'm talking about is what the decision stated.

[-] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago

Yes, or at the very least striking down an unconstitional system: "nor shall any State deprive... ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.".

One decision can be bad and another can be good! (Throughout all of our history the SC has made looney decisions [hell, every federal law prohibiting drug use is unconstitutional], and Im not trying to pretend justices are impartial, I just agree with their decision / interpretation.)

[+] md5crypto@lemmy.world -75 points 1 year ago

[removed by mod]

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's strange, I can't seem to hear any whining coming from them over the sound of Roberts' incessant crying about people pointing out the illegitimacy of his court while he blows his nose with hundred dollar bills given to him by Republican mega donors

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Yeah, like how that one left-wing judge whined like a baby about drinking beer.

Wait, that wasn't one of the left-wing judges.

Oh, I know. It was the two who whined like babies about getting gifts from people who had cases in front of the court.

No... those weren't the left-wing judges either.

Not sure which judges you're talking about, I guess.

[-] jdsquared@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Thanks for your positive contribution to the fedeverse, troll.

[-] ksnnxhdhhwhsjhx@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Hahaha incel baby fuck off

[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago

This is some classic Reddit response here.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023

121 points (98.4% liked)

politics

18898 readers

6577 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News