Bi_3 wrote:What's interesting is that the arguments against the plaintiff are at odds with anti-racist policies. For example:
Brian Fletcher, the principal deputy solicitor general who argued on behalf of the Biden administration in support of Colorado, resisted any effort to carve out an exemption for same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court’s First Amendment cases, he argued, do not distinguish between “views we find odious and those we respect.” He noted that in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that private schools may not discriminate based on race. But if Smith prevails, he posited, a private school could exclude some children by arguing that the messages that it teaches “change when we express them to students of a different race.”
Isn't this exactly what anti-racist educators assert is happening via the 'white supremacy' embedded our education system?
Are you asking if anti-racists endorse teaching different messages to children of different races?
I believe anti-racist educators explicitly say that the messages we teach mean different things to kids of different races (hence the need to 'decolonize') and use that as a basis for differential treatment... this behavior is cited in this case as the worst possible outcome but seems to be a desirable outcome in schools all over the country.
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
B wrote:Huh, well, I've never understood that to be a goal of anti-racism, but I've only read a few books, and none of them were textbooks.
In fairness I often use the terms anti-racist, critical race theory, and culturally responsive teaching interchangeably with regards to education as they all seem the same in practice so you could be right in that I am misattributing it.
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
Lol. Try the LA Times article instead. Whatever editor they have over there that did not approve breathlessly repeating the Propublica account without context is not long for this world.
simple schoolboy wrote:Lol. Try the LA Times article instead. Whatever editor they have over there that did not approve breathlessly repeating the Propublica account without context is not long for this world.
What did he do?
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
simple schoolboy wrote:Lol. Try the LA Times article instead. Whatever editor they have over there that did not approve breathlessly repeating the Propublica account without context is not long for this world.
What did he do?
Received gifts without disclosing them, which does not seem to violate anything if they are personal gifts from people with no business before the court. He's friends with some oil baron who is constantly taking him on expensive vacations.
He used to report such gifts back in the day but got annoyed with the shit he got over it so stopped. We are in bad look territory as far as the LA Times is concerned.
simple schoolboy wrote:Lol. Try the LA Times article instead. Whatever editor they have over there that did not approve breathlessly repeating the Propublica account without context is not long for this world.
What did he do?
Received gifts without disclosing them, which does not seem to violate anything if they are personal gifts from people with no business before the court. He's friends with some oil baron who is constantly taking him on expensive vacations.
He used to report such gifts back in the day but got annoyed with the shit he got over it so stopped. We are in bad look territory as far as the LA Times is concerned.
Imagine being annoyed that you’re expected to disclose gifts worth half a million dollars, when you sit on the Supreme Court.
simple schoolboy wrote:Lol. Try the LA Times article instead. Whatever editor they have over there that did not approve breathlessly repeating the Propublica account without context is not long for this world.
What did he do?
Received gifts without disclosing them, which does not seem to violate anything if they are personal gifts from people with no business before the court. He's friends with some oil baron who is constantly taking him on expensive vacations.
He used to report such gifts back in the day but got annoyed with the shit he got over it so stopped. We are in bad look territory as far as the LA Times is concerned.
Imagine being annoyed that you’re expected to disclose gifts worth half a million dollars, when you sit on the Supreme Court.
Yeah, but not an actual violation of anything. This is a, "we need to update judicial ethics rules because Thomas shouldn't have nice things". Pro Publica couldn't even get the LA Times to re-broadcast their breathless tone.
It would be more awkward if he was getting tons of gifts from a wide variety of people he wasn't very close with. His seems to mostly get trips and whatnot from this one friend of his. Don't have high net worth friends if you're a Supreme Court Justice, I guess.
simple schoolboy wrote:Lol. Try the LA Times article instead. Whatever editor they have over there that did not approve breathlessly repeating the Propublica account without context is not long for this world.
What did he do?
Received gifts without disclosing them, which does not seem to violate anything if they are personal gifts from people with no business before the court.
what if he accepts personal gifts from people with no business before the court in order to hang out with people with business before the court?
I'm sorry, but a mega REP donor has business before the court. He dedicates his life to donating $$$ to political causes. Gonna take a wild guess those causes involve abortion, etc.
