| ▲ | xienze 7 hours ago | |
> If the case was “can Trump dissolve New York as a state” you would still have 3 justices siding in his favor with some dog shit reasoning. As a counter-example, if the case was, say, "can a college use race as a factor in admissions"[0], you get 3 justices siding in favor using dogshit reasoning, just from the other side of the aisle. It's a bit ridiculous to think there aren't Democrat partisan judges on the Supreme Court. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v... | ||
| ▲ | 5upplied_demand 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
The Bakke decision in 1978 upheld that race could be used as a factor in admissions. Your counter-example is precedent from 50 years ago. Does that same precedent exist in this tariff case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_C... | ||
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
I guess there are “hacks” on both sides? | ||
| ▲ | watwut 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
That is not contraexample. It does not show conservative justices not being hacks. Besides, conservatives including conservative justices are literally pro racial profiling and arresting people on race only. | ||