Eight years after its last major ruling on abortion rights, the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon agreed to decide the constitutionality of a 2013 Texas law imposing new rules for clinics and doctors. The earliest that the case would be heard is February. The Court granted review of one of two appeals on such laws; the other was from Mississippi.
Antonin Scalia wrote:There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well — as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them. I'm just not impressed by the fact that the University of Texas may have fewer. Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe some, when you take more, the number of blacks, really competent blacks admitted to lesser schools, turns out to be less. And I don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.
Between marginal white students and marginal black students at elite schools, we should expect the latter group to do better because....? I don't know why this is that controversial. It's pretty clear he's not referring to students who could get in on their own merits.
It's not terribly clear, no. It's certainly reasonable to intuit that, but his statement is incredibly poorly written if that's the message.
But then, I just almost wrote 'incredubly,' so...
Also, having worked for institutions on both ends of the 'prestige' spectrum, and with people who came from/worked for places like Harvard and Stanford, there doesn't generally seem to be a great difference in the intensity of the education or the volume of information. The only real difference is that I've recognized is that there are more bad teachers in the prestige schools, because bad teachers are harder to follow and therefore everyone mistakes them as holding to a high standard of difficulty.
McParadigm wrote:
Also, having worked for institutions on both ends of the 'prestige' spectrum, and with people who came from/worked for places like Harvard and Stanford, there doesn't generally seem to be a great difference in the intensity of the education or the volume of information. The only real difference is that I've recognized is that there are more bad teachers in the prestige schools, because bad teachers are harder to follow and therefore everyone mistakes them as holding to a high standard of difficulty.
I think that's an important point. Having worked at and attended a few universities, I can say this for sure: the difference is that the more prestigious schools have more money to spend, so they'll have better facilities, they'll attract better speakers and visitors (but not necessarily better teachers), and--if you're applying to graduate school--you'll have better chances for grants, travel, etc. Students tend to arrive with varying levels of preparedness, sure, but that doesn't mean they can't make it, either.
McParadigm wrote:It's not terribly clear, no. It's certainly reasonable to intuit that, but his statement is incredibly poorly written if that's the message.
I hate to say anything that could be construed as defending Scalia, but it should probably be noted that the quote is from the transcript of the oral argument, so he didn't actually write that applesauce, rather he just spoke that jiggery-pokery.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
McParadigm wrote:It's not terribly clear, no. It's certainly reasonable to intuit that, but his statement is incredibly poorly written if that's the message.
I hate to say anything that could be construed as defending Scalia, but it should probably be noted that the quote is from the transcript of the oral argument, so he didn't actually write that applesauce, rather he just spoke that jiggery-pokery.
I've never been on board with the Court's recent jurisprudence on sentencing with juveniles, which continued today. I'm all in favor of immaturity being a mitigating factor regarding the 8th Amendment, but that should be weighed on a case to case basis. What I don't like is the categorical cutoff that puts someone at age 17 and 364 days, and someone at age 18 and 0 days in drastically different sentencing possibilities based solely on that factor.
Green Habit wrote:I've never been on board with the Court's recent jurisprudence on sentencing with juveniles, which continued today. I'm all in favor of immaturity being a mitigating factor regarding the 8th Amendment, but that should be weighed on a case to case basis. What I don't like is the categorical cutoff that puts someone at age 17 and 364 days, and someone at age 18 and 0 days in drastically different sentencing possibilities based solely on that factor.
I sort of agree with you. But I could also see this being a factor that is taken into account differently on racial/economic lines. If there's no hard and fast rule that prevents minors from this type of sentencing, I wouldn't be surprised if more lenience was given to a white affluent teenage killer than a poor black one. With that said, maybe what makes the most sense to me would be to not allow parole free sentencing for anyone under 18, and making sure the courts allow for immaturity to be presented as a mitigating factor for those say 18-21.
Green Habit wrote:I've never been on board with the Court's recent jurisprudence on sentencing with juveniles, which continued today. I'm all in favor of immaturity being a mitigating factor regarding the 8th Amendment, but that should be weighed on a case to case basis. What I don't like is the categorical cutoff that puts someone at age 17 and 364 days, and someone at age 18 and 0 days in drastically different sentencing possibilities based solely on that factor.
I sort of agree with you. But I could also see this being a factor that is taken into account differently on racial/economic lines. If there's no hard and fast rule that prevents minors from this type of sentencing, I wouldn't be surprised if more lenience was given to a white affluent teenage killer than a poor black one. With that said, maybe what makes the most sense to me would be to not allow parole free sentencing for anyone under 18, and making sure the courts allow for immaturity to be presented as a mitigating factor for those say 18-21.
Good point on the racial/economic factors, but I think you'd have to address reworking the whole system, like the Court did with temporarily abolishing the death penalty in the 1970s. And that's probably more of a Due Process/Equal Protection question anyway. I just can't come to the conclusion that each and every teenager isn't fully aware of their actions, and conversely that each and every adult is. For example, if they hadn't offed themselves I'd have a hard time giving leeway to the Columbine shooters.
Green Habit wrote:I've never been on board with the Court's recent jurisprudence on sentencing with juveniles, which continued today. I'm all in favor of immaturity being a mitigating factor regarding the 8th Amendment, but that should be weighed on a case to case basis. What I don't like is the categorical cutoff that puts someone at age 17 and 364 days, and someone at age 18 and 0 days in drastically different sentencing possibilities based solely on that factor.
I sort of agree with you. But I could also see this being a factor that is taken into account differently on racial/economic lines. If there's no hard and fast rule that prevents minors from this type of sentencing, I wouldn't be surprised if more lenience was given to a white affluent teenage killer than a poor black one. With that said, maybe what makes the most sense to me would be to not allow parole free sentencing for anyone under 18, and making sure the courts allow for immaturity to be presented as a mitigating factor for those say 18-21.
Good point on the racial/economic factors, but I think you'd have to address reworking the whole system, like the Court did with temporarily abolishing the death penalty in the 1970s. And that's probably more of a Due Process/Equal Protection question anyway. I just can't come to the conclusion that each and every teenager isn't fully aware of their actions, and conversely that each and every adult is. For example, if they hadn't offed themselves I'd have a hard time giving leeway to the Columbine shooters.
Im not sure that 'strict scrutiny' is the right term here, but the idea that a law must be in service of a compelling legislative goal and be effective toward that goal would help get rid of a lot of shitty laws. I doubt that much in the way of occupational licensing would pass such a test, if say, access for consumers or price were considered.
Its perverse that the right to an abortion is held in higher esteem than the right to make a living without absurd licensure. To work in food services in CA, you have to take a stupid online course and pay $20 or so. The likelihood that food safety is improved is minimal, but an entry level job is that much harder to get into.
Im not sure that 'strict scrutiny' is the right term here, but the idea that a law must be in service of a compelling legislative goal and be effective toward that goal would help get rid of a lot of shitty laws. I doubt that much in the way of occupational licensing would pass such a test, if say, access for consumers or price were considered.
Its perverse that the right to an abortion is held in higher esteem than the right to make a living without absurd licensure. To work in food services in CA, you have to take a stupid online course and pay $20 or so. The likelihood that food safety is improved is minimal, but an entry level job is that much harder to get into.
The difference is, according to current Supreme Court precedent, there is a constitutional right to have an abortion, while freedom of contract does not have the same constitutional protections since the end of the Lochner era.
Im not sure that 'strict scrutiny' is the right term here, but the idea that a law must be in service of a compelling legislative goal and be effective toward that goal would help get rid of a lot of shitty laws. I doubt that much in the way of occupational licensing would pass such a test, if say, access for consumers or price were considered.
Its perverse that the right to an abortion is held in higher esteem than the right to make a living without absurd licensure. To work in food services in CA, you have to take a stupid online course and pay $20 or so. The likelihood that food safety is improved is minimal, but an entry level job is that much harder to get into.
The difference is, according to current Supreme Court precedent, there is a constitutional right to have an abortion, while freedom of contract does not have the same constitutional protections since the end of the Lochner era.
Itd be nice for them to establish that right from various emanations and penumbras.
simple schoolboy wrote:Its perverse that the right to an abortion is held in higher esteem than the right to make a living without absurd licensure. To work in food services in CA, you have to take a stupid online course and pay $20 or so. The likelihood that food safety is improved is minimal, but an entry level job is that much harder to get into.
Many women wish it was that easy to obtain an abortion.
Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
simple schoolboy wrote:Its perverse that the right to an abortion is held in higher esteem than the right to make a living without absurd licensure. To work in food services in CA, you have to take a stupid online course and pay $20 or so. The likelihood that food safety is improved is minimal, but an entry level job is that much harder to get into.
Many women wish it was that easy to obtain an abortion.
What they do have is standing and an opportunity to challenge the legal barriers they face.
It would be easier to take liberal arguments seriously about the onerous abortion regulations if they had any similar concerns regarding barriers to other day to day activities. Or at the very least if they actually applied strict scrutiny to enumerated rights that they arent as fond of.
simple schoolboy wrote:Its perverse that the right to an abortion is held in higher esteem than the right to make a living without absurd licensure. To work in food services in CA, you have to take a stupid online course and pay $20 or so. The likelihood that food safety is improved is minimal, but an entry level job is that much harder to get into.
Many women wish it was that easy to obtain an abortion.
What they do have is standing and an opportunity to challenge the legal barriers they face.
It would be easier to take liberal arguments seriously about the onerous abortion regulations if they had any similar concerns regarding barriers to other day to day activities. Or at the very least if they actually applied strict scrutiny to enumerated rights that they arent as fond of.
