Supreme Court says certain gun crimes are not 'crimes of violence' under federal law And by "rethink", I mean either get rid of it or create a more balanced selection process so you can't just load it up with whoever the political party toadies of the day are. But that ain't gonna happen. Because 'Murica.
Only Thomas and Alito dissented here. All the liberal justices were in favor of the decision. This case was about what the law allows in terms of sentencing, not guns or violence per se. I wouldn't be opposed to certain judicial reforms, but I don't see anything wrong with how this was decided.
Agreed. Less so with their overturning of a ban on public school money to religious schools, stating that you MUST fund religious schools. That's absolute horseshit. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/politics/supreme-court-religious-schools/index.html Time for the Church of Satan to start spreading its Satanic indoctrination centers on the State's dime.
They didn't rule that States "must fund religious schools", they ruled that "if States decide to fund private schools, then they cannot exclude religious schools just because they are religious". I see no flaw in the reasoning here.
Another fine reason why all schools should charge tuition and all taxes collected for that purpose should be abolished. People just can't seem to stop viewing schools as their own personal conformity factories.
To answer the thread question, no. Each president is free to choose who they want on the court and congress is free to add or take away seats on the court. That Democrats haven’t had success lately means they need to rethink their strategy.
I'm not surprised that you're taking a position that has historically been promoted by racists (beginning as a response to desegregation).
Meanwhile, I swoon from shock that you would immediately veer into the most obvious boilerplate trolling tack available.
Conformity factories has been a bitch for .. at least 50 years. Unfortunately, you can’t just ask parents to pay tuition for lower education. If a parent can’t afford to feed their family, how would they afford to pay for schooling? And dont jump to the shit about not having children if you can’t afford it. Humans have been reproducing long before any kind of society existed. Suggesting people stop reproducing because they’re poor is a lazy argument. And about as productive as suggesting guns don’t shoot people. Please try a bit harder to come up with a reason for not having publicly funded education.
How much effort am I expected to put into a problem I did not cause and events I cannot control? Because I gotta tell you, my opening bid and all subsequent counter offers will be zero.
You know, for someone who claims to hate stupid people, you sure do like to advocate for policies that will ensure we have more stupid people than ever before.
Well, there's a difference between separation and discrimination. I need to check and see if I can take advantage of this in my state. God knows I pay enough taxes here.
How so? Oh, I still want them educated. I just want the people who created them to take the fucking responsibility. And to reiterate, "Support my kids or they will rob you!" is extortion, and selling me on the personal benefits of buying into some stranger's education implies the option of a refund if they actually grow into a malignant shitbag drain on society.
Your narrow thinking is not my problem. You playing along with his obvious paint-by-numbers trolling is definitely yours.
In fairness, I don't think the positions that "all schools should charge tuition," "all taxes collected for the purpose of education should be abolished" or "people should stop viewing schools as their own personal conformity factories" are particularly aligned with racists historically, although there presumably are some racists who believe those things. Like I'm sure if one dug for Storm's positions on education, he would probably be pro-school choice and against tax dollars going to education. From what I understand, the typical racist position is fine with tax dollars being spent on education, but they want it to spent the way they want (i.e. on schools that don't teach that diversity stuff, on schools that allow children of illegal immigrants to enroll, or in such a way that they can take those tax dollars and go to a private school that caters to their beliefs) and they are fine with schools as conformity factories as long as what they are producing are kids who conform to their ideals. It's more like UA's position is the standard "fuck you, I got mine" approach of libertarians combined with his own twist of "If I don't have to pay for it and it doesn't affect me personally, I don't give a fuck how it affects anyone else."
Mostly agree, but I also have a big problem with the notion that holding onto what I earn somehow equates with depriving some stranger of something they are rightfully owed. Are they also responsible for my choices? Are they going to pay my electric bill or something?
You presume from the assumption that they'll be able to afford the cost of tuition. How schools are funded varies not only from state-to-state but also locality-to-locality. In some areas, the bulk of school funding comes from property taxes. So, what an individual pays in property taxes (assuming that they do at all, property renters don't) doesn't match what tuition costs for a school would be. Which means that someone who now can afford to provide for their kids (regardless of if they pay property taxes or not) may not be able to do so, if your idea comes to fruition. And I don't have to resort to "Support my kids or they will rob you!" to point out why ensuring that everyone has a good education is something everyone should contribute to. The majority of people who become doctors, scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and just about every other profession that you can think of, were able to do so because of public education. That number would be severely impacted, negatively, if we opted for your idea. All of us benefit from a highly-educated society, regardless if those people wind up working in a highly-specialized position, or if they're simply garbage men. I have, roughly, 6 years of college (state schools, BTW), four years of trade school education, in addition my on-the-job experience, as well as my hobbies. All of it has served me well in the workplace, in unexpected ways. Because I'd had some art instruction, when the engineers who changed the color of the shipping labels we used were stumped as to why the red laser could no longer read the bar-code on the blue labels, I was able to reference the color theory training I'd gotten in art class to point out that because of the way light works, blue looks black to a red laser. My education was slightly better than that of the engineers, so I knew that, and by doing so was able to save my employer several thousand dollars (or more). Had my mother been forced to pay for tuition to the school I went to (and mind you, we weren't a wealthy school district at all, there were rust holes in the floors of many of the buses we rode in, and the school didn't often have heat in the winter), I wouldn't have gotten to go to school at all. She simply couldn't have afforded it. (Oh, and before you say that, "Well, she shouldn't have had kids if she couldn't afford to take care of them," I'll just point out that I'm the product of marital rape and that if women had been treated as equals in society, I might never have been conceived. The religious fucks who are currently running the GQP want to take us back to that time.) I don't have any kids, and I did my damnedest to make sure that I never sired any, but that doesn't mean I think I have the right to bitch about how much of my tax dollars go towards educating kids. Those kids are going to be the medical professionals who take care of me when I get older. Those kids are going to be voting on things that have an impact on my life, and since I'm a Gen Xer, there are more folks younger than me, than are in my cohort, or are even older than I am. I want them to be as well-educated as possible, because sooner or later, they're going to be changing my diapers when I'm a feeble old man, and the smarter they are, the more likely they are to see me as their equal. And will thus treat me with compassion and respect. They're also more likely to vote for politicians who'll enact policies that are better for everyone and not just a small minority who can buy lots of ad time on TV.
Ever since desegregation, conservatives have engaged in a campaign to systematically dismantle public education in favor of private education, very clearly as a means to enforce segregation again. Anyone who wants to defund public education and make parents pay is either a fool or a racist. And given UA recently taking some questionable positions on race-related topics, I'm willing to bet he falls under the latter category.
@Uncle Albert can you point to a country that has successfully eradicated public education (or never instituted it) with successful outcomes? If not, what are you using as the basis for thinking that your suggestion is at all practically viable?
Nothing wrong with government funding going to an organisation that just happens to be religious, so long as that organisation isn't using that funding to push their religion in any way. So schools run by religious groups should be fine for funding as long as they: Are open to any student or employee, regardless of religion. Do not discriminate against students or employees on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Do not push their religion onto students or employee's. Teach material without religious censorship, so science doesn't deny evolution, that sort of thing. Unfortunately, I doubt you'll find many at all that would meet those benchmarks.
There are a lot of different reasons conservatives support school choice in general. Yes, some are hoping to have school choice so they can avoid having their children with undesireables or to have their kids not "have diversity shoved down their throat." But some support it because they honestly (if arguably mistakenly) believe the free market approach will result in better outcomes overall. Some support school choice without thinking too deeply about the logistics or ideology of it, and just want to be able to send their kid to a Catholic/evangelical/other private school without "double paying." Some support it with the idea that undermining public schools will weaken teachers' unions and thus weaken Democrats. I don't think it's fair to say that because there are racists who are pro-school choice that someone who is pro-school choice is probably a racist. And specifically judging from what UA said here, he's not particularly interested in dismantling public education in favor of private education, let alone with segregation as an end goal. As far s I can tell from his statement, he would be fine with segregated schools or desegregated schools, government schools or private schools, as long as no one reached in his pocket to pay for it.