A Court Supreme

[Stavros]

"Justice Thomas asked “what academic benefits” come from diversity, other than “feeling good and all that stuff”.“I’ve heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means,” he said."
Clarence Thomas says he doesn’t have a ‘clue’ what diversity means as Supreme Court takes aim at affirmative action (yahoo.com)

Derrida said- Il n'y a pas de hors-texte! But even he would be baffled by what Thomas has claimed. And he understood English, unlike the learned Justice, or maybe Clarence is just 'taking the piss', as they might say in The Nag's Head, Dalston.

[Stavros]

Here is a law, in a manner of speaking, that is plain enough, in 'black and white':

"The US supreme court turned away a case on Friday challenging Mississippi’s rules around voting rights for people with felony convictions, leaving intact a policy implemented more than a century ago with the explicit goal of preventing Black people from voting.
Those convicted of any one of 23 specific felonies in Mississippi permanently lose the right to vote. The list is rooted in the state’s 1890 constitutional convention, where delegates chose disenfranchising crimes that they believed Black people were more likely to commit. “We came here to exclude the negro. Nothing short of this will answer,” the president of the convention said at the time. The crimes, which include bribery, theft, carjacking, bigamy and timber larceny, have remained largely the same since then; Mississippi voters amended it remove burglary in 1950 and added murder and rape in 1968."

The legal argument being


"Challengers to the law argued that the policy was unconstitutional because it bore the “discriminatory taint” from the 1890 constitution."

But

"Both a federal district judge and the US court of appeals for the fifth circuit upheld Mississippi’s policy. The modifications to the policy in 1950 and 1968, the fifth circuit noted, got rid of any discrimination in the original policy."

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Sotomayor describes this an an 'analytical error' for while the list of crimes that stops felons voting has changed, in its substance the law retains the motive that was stated explicitly in 1890, with statistics that show the extent to which Black citizens of the USA living in Mississippi cannot vote.

Anyone get that 1619 feelin' all over again?

[Stavros]

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch, the Supreme Court (Sponsors to be declared?) may be about to interpret the Constitution so literally that most Government agencies will have to shut down, or something like that.

It is a long read on a complex legal subject, but worth it when the consequences are so profound for Americans. The case is Consumer Financial Protection Bureau vs Community Financial Services Association, and the right of Federal Agencies to be funded without the permission of Congress, which de-regulation advocates argue cannot be allowed to continue:

" “If taken seriously, moreover, this argument would invalidate most federal spending, and it would make it impossible for benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare to even exist.” ".
How the Supreme Court's corruption could end Social Security — and America | Opinion (msn.com)

[filghy2]

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch, the Supreme Court (Sponsors to be declared?) may be about to interpret the Constitution so literally that most Government agencies will have to shut down, or something like that.

It doesn't seem likely. I think even this Supreme Court can figure out that ending Social Security and Medicare would lead to very serious blowback.
https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/10/3...anaugh-barrett

[Stavros]

It doesn't seem likely. I think even this Supreme Court can figure out that ending Social Security and Medicare would lead to very serious blowback.
https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/10/3...anaugh-barrett

And those new Justices who, when questioned in the confirmation hearings said they would not vote to repeal Roe -vs- Wade? Maybe they are in the mood to be Disruptive, and who can stop them?