Comments on: SCOTUS gets it right in reverse-discrimination case

By: HC68

HC68 — Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:42:29 +0000

I have no inside info, but I would not be 100% shocked if it turned out that Kavenaugh’s superficially odd refusal to grant cert. in the recent 2A case while signaling sympathy is a result of some tradeoffs to get this result.

By: Marisa

Marisa — Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:24:55 +0000

There is no such thing as “reverse discrimination.” There is just plain old discrimination.

By: physicsguy

physicsguy — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 23:16:57 +0000

Bob Wilson

Yes, and to have KJB write the opinion on a case involving a heterosexual woman when she can’t define what a woman is, tells me things are not what they seem in SCOTUS land.

By: Bob Wilson

Bob Wilson — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 22:10:41 +0000

Physicsguy that was also my thought. This seems too good to be true. At least we should wait until the lawyers read through the decisions to look for loopholes.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 21:54:22 +0000

The problem is that we are surprised by this. What does that say about society or at least conservatives?

By: physicsguy

physicsguy — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 21:26:54 +0000

“So the unanimity of this decision is something to praise.”

I would say its something to parse. Both unanimous decisions today were shocking to me. This is so out of character for the 3 left women, and the court in general, from the last few decisions. My very skeptical brain tells me something is afoot, to borrow from Mr. Holmes