• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

When is the student loan forgiveness decision coming down? Saving it for Friday?
 
Unsurprisingly, affirmative action goes down (in both public and private schools). Opinion by Roberts. Sotomayor dissents, joined by Kagan and Jackson (only as it applies to the UNC case). Jackson dissents in the UNC case, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan. Jackson recused from the Harvard case. Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh with concurring opinions.

Title VII (religious accommodations) case also decided unanimously with Alito writing the opinion and Sotomayor with a concurring opinion, but I haven't even gotten through the summary on that one yet.
 
Last edited:
Court holds that showing “more than a de minimis cost,” does not suffice to establish “undue hardship” under Title VII, but rather “undue hardship” is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business. At first blush, this seems like a good decision.
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
Court holds that showing “more than a de minimis cost,” does not suffice to establish “undue hardship” under Title VII, but rather “undue hardship” is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business. At first blush, this seems like a good decision.
Click to expand...
Any case that will lead to MORE religious accommodations is not a good decision. Yes, let's everyone else work around you - require atheist Bob to work OT -- to accommodate your fantasy. More of that, please.
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
Court holds that showing “more than a de minimis cost,” does not suffice to establish “undue hardship” under Title VII, but rather “undue hardship” is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business. At first blush, this seems like a good decision.
Click to expand...
It's the correct decision and if we could know that it would be followed and applied in a vacuum, it's great for worker rights. But I think we all know that in practical application, it's going to benefit one religion over others and that there likely will be an influx of litigation based on this new elevated bar for what accommodations are required.
 
Gooner said:
It's the correct decision and if we could know that it would be followed and applied in a vacuum, it's great for worker rights. But I think we all know that in practical application, it's going to benefit one religion over others and that there likely will be an influx of litigation based on this new elevated bar for what accommodations are required.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess correct is really what I meant by good. And definitely agree with the rest of your post.
 
Gooner said:
It's the correct decision and if we could know that it would be followed and applied in a vacuum, it's great for worker rights. But I think we all know that in practical application, it's going to benefit one religion over others and that there likely will be an influx of litigation based on this new elevated bar for what accommodations are required.
Click to expand...
Yeah as we see with most instances when religion comes into play in practice, Christianity is more equal than all the others
 
Unfortunately the outcome of a SC decision is determinable more by knowing the political motivations of the winning party than by interpreting the content of the judges decision.
 
Gooner said:
It's the correct decision and if we could know that it would be followed and applied in a vacuum, it's great for worker rights. But I think we all know that in practical application, it's going to benefit one religion over others and that there likely will be an influx of litigation based on this new elevated bar for what accommodations are required.
Click to expand...
It's not great for worker's rights when other workers are forced to work more or work OT to cover for somebody's mythology.
 
Shooshmoo said:
It's not great for worker's rights when other workers are forced to work more or work OT to cover for somebody's mythology.
Click to expand...
That's what I was getting at with the second part of my post. On it's face, though, a rule requiring legitimate accommodation attempts so long as it is not an excessive burden on an employer is better for the employee. It is just going to get abused because we are a pseudo-theocracy when it comes to shit like this.
 
Liquid Karma said:
I know she wasn't here for it but didn't we do away with the SAT requirement just so we could get more rich kids in?
Click to expand...
Maybe this was an unspoken intention, especially in being able to admit more international students who will pay full freight. The research is pretty clear though that HS grades are a much better predictor of college achievement than standardized tests which are racially and economically biased.
 
I think we’ll see a lot of vague statements from college presidents and then they’ll find a way to keep admissions pretty similar to what they were. It’s not like Black students are overrepresented in selective universities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top