SCOTUS and whatnot

[gehringer_2]

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

We haven’t talked about this in a long time, but I am going to go out on a limb here and predict .....

this would be a lot more entertaining to speculate about if the real stakes weren't so high for so many people - especially poor women.

None the less I think you are right that political considerations are at the top of the Justices' minds on both sides. Despite Buddha's protestations there seem to be ample smoke signals saying collegiality and dispassionate consideration of the inherent virtue of issues  inside this court is a distant memory.

I can see various possibilities - granting those you touched on, maybe adding that there might also be some feeling in the opposite direction of 'if not now, when' about going through with the repeal of Roe just because this may the conservative political power high water mark. It all depends on where the electorate turns in reaction to Trump - or more to the point where the conservative Justices think the electorate turns. I still have hope a major repudiation is brewing out there in the hinterlands - if that is what conservative justices see then it could lead to a 'get all you can now strategy', whereas if they see Biden as just a speed bump on the way to  'inevitable' conservative political dominance, then a strategy that avoids temporarily derailing that and that lets an even stronger conservative political position later give them more cover to move law toward their preferences without generating as much political cost as it might today.

[chasfh]

15 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

this would be a lot more entertaining to speculate about if the real stakes weren't so high for so many people - especially poor women.

None the less I think you are right that political considerations are at the top of the Justices' minds on both sides. Despite Buddha's protestations there seem to be ample smoke signals saying collegiality and dispassionate consideration of the inherent virtue of issues  inside this court is a distant memory.

I can see various possibilities - granting those you touched on, maybe adding that there might also be some feeling in the opposite direction of 'if not now, when' about going through with the repeal of Roe just because this may the conservative political power high water mark. It all depends on where the electorate turns in reaction to Trump - or more to the point where the conservative Justices think the electorate turns. I still have hope a major repudiation is brewing out there in the hinterlands - if that is what conservative justices see then it could lead to a 'get all you can now strategy', whereas if they see Biden as just a speed bump on the way to  'inevitable' conservative political dominance, then a strategy that avoids temporarily derailing that and that lets an even stronger conservative political position later give them more cover to move law toward their preferences without generating as much political cost as it might today.

Well, buddha can't protest that too strongly because he has the most-liked post in this thread confirming his recognition of the political considerations in picking justices! 😅

But seriously, folks—I hadn't considered the idea that the overturning of Roe could be a political high mark for the radical righties, one which might be the catalyst for a sea change in the organized political power pendulum in America. After all, abortion rights have been considered settled precedent for half a century, and no one alive today who needs the benefit of that choice was alive when it wasn't.

Big sea changes frequently happen when a cataclysmic events occur. Could the overturning of Roe be one? If I had to bet, I'd probably be inclined to bet against it—but it's certainly not an impossibility by any stretch.

[gehringer_2]

here is one on it's way to Scotus. Alito will certainly find the view of the manager's of this Charter school right in his 12th Century wheelhouse.

NYT - charter school dress code overturned at US District level

Quote

The decision said the school “has imposed the skirts requirement with the express purpose of telegraphing to children that girls are ‘fragile,’ require protection by boys and warrant different treatment than male students, stereotypes with potentially devastating consequences for young girls.”

The Charter Day School “does not attempt to disguise the true, and improper, rationale behind its differential treatment of girls,” Senior Judge Barbara Milano Keenan wrote in the majority opinion.

The ruling was the first time that a federal appeals court recognized that charter schools receiving public funds are subject to the same safeguards as traditional public schools, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Aaron Streett, a lawyer representing Charter Day School, said the school is looking into potential next steps after the “erroneous ruling.”

“Treating charter schools exactly the same as traditional public schools limits the ability of parents to choose the best education for their children,” Mr. Streett said in an emailed statement.

.....

Officials at the charter school said it put in place the dress code requiring girls to wear skirts, jumpers or skirt-like shorts known as “skorts” and boys to wear shorts or pants to “promote chivalry” and “instill discipline and keep order” among the students.

The school’s founder, Baker A. Mitchell Jr., said the dress code created a “code of conduct where women are treated, they’re regarded as a fragile vessel that men are supposed to take care of and honor,” according to the court opinion. He also said that the school’s skirt requirement aimed to “treat girls more courteously and more gently than boys.”

“Chivalry may not have been a bed of roses for those forced to lie in it,” Judge Keenan said about the dress code in her opinion.

 

[chasfh]

What if they gave a different, less-insulting reason for requiring skirts? Would that make a difference?

After all, what is the court ruling on here? The act itself, or the overtly-stated reason for the act? Does the school need only rewrite the dress code requirements and try again?

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

What if they gave a different, less-insulting reason for requiring skirts? Would that make a difference?

After all, what is the court ruling on here? The act itself, or the overtly-stated reason for the act? Does the school need only rewrite the dress code requirements and try again?

prolly doesn't matter because if this gets to the current SCOTUS the school will win with the conservatives on two grounds: They won't care that it's public money funding the school, they will still give it private rights; and they won't care what the rational was, 'traditional gender role' in loco parentis will be just peachy with them.

Edited June 19, 2022 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

prolly doesn't matter because if this gets to the current SCOTUS the school will win with the conservatives on two grounds: They won't care that it's public money funding the school, they will still give it private rights; and they won't care what the rational was, 'traditional gender role' in loco parentis will be just peachy with them.

Sure, it won’t matter in this case. I’m really speaking in generalities.

[gehringer_2]

17 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Sure, it won’t matter in this case. I’m really speaking in generalities.

to separate the private/public part - say it was a public school, then as far as I understand things think 'generally' the school would at minimum have to show a rational basis that connects the rule to an educational purpose. That is sort of getting to first base for rule making by a government sponsored entity. 

Suit could have been more fun if the guys had been demanding to wear the skort uniform.....

Edited June 19, 2022 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

I think Roe is toast personally

[gehringer_2]

18 minutes ago, pfife said:

I think Roe is toast personally

Roberts doesn't have much in the way of formal powers as Chief, so I wonder how long he can delay or even refuse to release a decision if he wants to? It's been 6 weeks since the leak, and they must have already been some distance along in the case for drafts to be circulating. I suppose 2 months isn't that long given the generally slow place the Court operates....

Edited June 19, 2022 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

7 minutes ago, pfife said:

I think Roe is toast personally

If that’s true, then this country will really be separated economically like nothing any of us have ever seen.

Not only will well-educated young professionals avoid moving to states with such restrictions on their freedoms, but corporations also won’t locate their headquarters to those states either, because a lot of their top officers and talent won’t want to relocate to socially-fascist red states.

Take a look at the current top five states that are listed as corporate relocation magnets:

5 States That Are Corporate Relocation Magnets

All five of the states listed here are moving forward right now on rigging their elections process, politicizing education with precepts based explicitly on a single religion, casting aspersions on the efficacies of their own health systems and professionals, and promoting among all their white residents the proliferation of weapons capable of perpetrating quick mass murder. The overturning of Roe will also lead every one of these states to outlaw abortion outright and possibly put the doctors who perform them and the women who get them directly into prison. That may well be the last straw for anyone considering which states to take their considerable professional talents and tax-paying potential.

I wouldn’t be surprised if all five of these states started bleeding corporate headquarters, at least once their talent starts quitting and taking jobs in other states that have more freedom. It won’t happen the very day after Roe gets overturned, of course, but in the space of a few short years, we would start seeing the effects, and it will take a couple or three decades to really be obvious to anyone with their heads still outside their own asses.

To attract corporate headquarters in the future, such states will really have to dumpster-dive on tax breaks, which will further bankrupt them and make them even more dependent on federal bailouts to keep their heads above water. And even that might not be enough, because companies would still have to get their talented top people to move to these states, and good smart talented people won’t want to go.

The economic disparity between the free states and the fascist states will be as stark as that between the north and the south in the late 19th century. I may not live to see the full effect of that, but you young people here, you watch. That’s what‘s gonna happen.

[gehringer_2]

18 minutes ago, chasfh said:

To attract corporate headquarters in the future, such states will really have to dumpster-dive on tax breaks, which will further bankrupt them and make them even more dependent on federal bailouts to keep their heads above water. And even that might not be enough, because companies would still have to get their talented top people to move to these states, and good smart talented people won’t want to go.

IDK chas - on the above part -  I would never underestimate what corporations will put up with to gain tax breaks/cut costs. The top officers that make such decisions can live where they choose regardless of where they site HQ. And exceptions are easy to make. A fortune 100 I worked for bought a company in St Louis and moved everyone to Houston, but a top tech group all just quit instead. Within a yr they swung a deal to reassembly the tech group in a St. Louis facility. And that was in the pre-zoom days. Even easier today.  Employees with leverage will always have a choice, but corps can easily live with those compromises. We have a Toyota tech center in MI but Toyota won't manufacture here because of UAW strength- same basic principle at work.

Edited June 19, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Jim Cowan]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

IDK chas - on the above part -  I would never underestimate what corporations will put up with to gain tax breaks/cut costs. The top officers that make such decisions can live where they choose regardless of where they site HQ. And exceptions are easy to make. A fortune 100 I worked for bought a company in St Louis and moved everyone to Houston, but a top tech group all just quit instead. Within a yr they swung a deal to reassembly the tech group in a St. Louis facility. And that was in the pre-zoom days. Even easier today.  Employees with leverage will always have a choice, but corps can easily live with those compromises. We have a Toyota tech center in MI but Toyota won't manufacture here because of UAW strength- same basic principle at work.

This is correct.  Governments will always be able to buy jobs with tax breaks, and corporate carpetbaggers will always accept them.  Ireland tried this in the 1980's, they offered a 10 year tax holiday and some other incentives, and a lot of multinationals established new operations there.  When the 10 years were up, everybody left, almost overnight.

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

IDK chas - on the above part -  I would never underestimate what corporations will put up with to gain tax breaks/cut costs. The top officers that make such decisions can live where they choose regardless of where they site HQ. And exceptions are easy to make. A fortune 100 I worked for bought a company in St Louis and moved everyone to Houston, but a top tech group all just quit instead. Within a yr they swung a deal to reassembly the tech group in a St. Louis facility. And that was in the pre-zoom days. Even easier today.  Employees with leverage will always have a choice, but corps can easily live with those compromises. We have a Toyota tech center in MI but Toyota won't manufacture here because of UAW strength- same basic principle at work.

I would never underestimate the desire of corporations and states to starve the residents by gutting the tax base for private gain. That’s always going to happen and it would be ignorant of me to argue that it doesn’t.

What I am fairly certain of is that, by and large, well-educated young people of considerable talents would not want to be forced to relocate to these retrograde states, especially from liberal bastions in California, Chicago, or the northeast. Affluence born of a career rooted in a college degree has a well-accepted liberal bias.

To your assumption, though, to the degree that companies don’t care about having their top management team or young talent in the office, they can have best of both worlds of red state tax breaks and young talent retention. That would be the hope of these states. I’m not sure I agree with you that single-person remote work for inner-circle management and top technical talent will be the norm, but if it is, you will probably be right. 

[chasfh]

I assume that whatever announcement the Supreme Court makes about Dobbs is going to be timed to draw attention away from the most damning revelations about January 6th.

[pfife]

WaPo push alert:

"Supreme Court says Maine cannot deny public funds to schools that promote religious instruction"

[oblong]

I only glanced at one of the articles on that.  It seems that there is a program where public funds can go to private schools but Maine said just no religious private schools and the SC said that was the discriminatory part?  What if Maine said "Ok, then no private schools at all will get public money"?

I'm not a fan of diverting any public money to private schools.  It's called Public for a reason.  Taxes aren't linked to individuals.  I don't get to only pay for roads and bridges I prefer to.

 

 

 

[gehringer_2]

22 minutes ago, oblong said:

I only glanced at one of the articles on that.  It seems that there is a program where public funds can go to private schools but Maine said just no religious private schools and the SC said that was the discriminatory part?  What if Maine said "Ok, then no private schools at all will get public money"?

I'm not a fan of diverting any public money to private schools.  It's called Public for a reason.  Taxes aren't linked to individuals.  I don't get to only pay for roads and bridges I prefer to.

Still, the Constitution doesn't say the Gov shall make no deal with private enterprise for educational services, it does say it shall make no law concerning establishment of religion. It's religion that is relevant Constitutionally, not public vs private.  Constitutionally there is a much bigger difference between a religious school and a non-religious private school than between a non-religious private school and a public school. The right has been able to obfuscate this by arguing that the question is public private when it is not, the real issue is religious/non-religious. There is simply no Constitutional prohibition of working with private schools. I oppose it politically also, but I can't base that opposition on any Constitutional grounds. These Justices simply have a religious  agenda and they are pursuing in direct contravention to any sense of original intent or clear present meaning. It's like ignoring the elephant in the room to try and put any gloss on it.

Edited June 21, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

I'm old enough to remember when Republicans lost their shit because the University of Michigan Dearborn installed foot baths in the bathroom and when one of the high schools held football practice at night because of Ramadan. 

[oblong]

5 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

I'm old enough to remember when Republicans lost their shit because the University of Michigan Dearborn installed foot baths in the bathroom and when one of the high schools held football practice at night because of Ramadan. 

and none of the non Muslim participants at Fordson had an issue.  They enjoyed it.  They felt it fostered more camaraderie and face it, their HS kids, they want to sleep all morning anyway.  Instead of just hanging out doing nothing all evening and night, they practiced.  More efficient use of their time.  

 

[oblong]

13 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Still, the Constitution doesn't say the Gov shall make no deal with private enterprise for educational services, it does say it shall make no law concerning establishment of religion. It's religion that is relevant Constitutionally, not public vs private.  Constitutionally there is a much bigger difference between a religious school and a non-religious private school than between a non-religious private school and a public school. The right has been able to obfuscate this by arguing that the question is public private when it is not, the real issue is religious/non-religious. There is simply no Constitutional prohibition of working with private schools. I oppose it politically also, but I can't base that opposition on any Constitutional grounds. These Justices simply have a religious  agenda and they are pursuing in direct contravention to any sense of original intent. It's like ignoring the elephant in the room to try and put any gloss on it.

gotcha.  That explains it well.  I agree they have an agenda and have twisted it around to some discriminatory angle to play victim.   Somehow I think if the only religious schools being affected were Muslim schools the opinion would not be 6-3.

 

[gehringer_2]

Just now, oblong said:

gotcha.  That explains it well.  I agree they have an agenda and have twisted it around to some discriminatory angle to play victim.   Somehow I think if the only religious schools being affected were Muslim schools the opinion would not be 6-3.

 

you can certainly go after funding of private schools on equal-protection grounds if they are taking public money but not allowing access to the whole public, but in the case as I read it, the "private" part is strictly the economic model - they are private enterprise providers, but they are tasked in Maine to provide "public" education.

[pfife]

so if they get tax money now does that mean the schools receiving these funds are bound to FOIA?  Isn't it basically the same as a University now?  My salary was publicly available information when I worked at UofM.

Edited June 22, 2022 by pfife

[Tigerbomb13]

 

[CMRivdogs]

FYI

 

[pfife]

so it's cool if they do it.