Politics
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
What unfortunate timing
If you look at the last paragraph, Marshall mentions exactly this possibility.
TLDR: No, but they may have the sense to not push through the wackiest of the right-wing endeavors.
No, the conservatives ruling the SCOTUS are not awesome. They know that two of their rank were caught red handed in corruption. So they're rejecting the small, easy right wing nonsense to appear reasonable, while taking a chunk out of America with the Affirmative Action ruling.
Haha, this aged poorly.
I don't think it was good when it was new. The SC was never awesome, and now they're mostly bastards.
First, we should note that the term isn’t over. Major decisions on affirmative action and student debt, among others, are still to come. So it’s premature to evaluate the term before it’s complete.
Yeah, you can say that again
You mean the Scotus that overturned Roe v. Wade? No.
I don’t imagine you actually read the article? Otherwise you wouldn’t be arguing against a position that neither the article nor I take.
You're right I didn't, and maybe I should have, but I would argue that it's also just unhealthy for an article to have a title that's completely antithetical to what it's actually saying.