Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case with potentially sweeping implications for discrimination cases. Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Service involves an Ohio woman, Marlean Ames, who claims she was discriminated against for being straight as less-qualified LGBT colleagues in Ohio’s youth corrections system were promoted.Ames alleged that she was treated differently due to her heterosexuality at the Ohio Department of Youth Services, resulting in not just a demotion but a pay cut in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ames started working at the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004 as an executive secretary and was promoted several times, ultimately reaching program administrator.
In 2017, Ames was given a new supervisor, Ginine Trim, who is openly gay. She alleges that she met or exceeded performance review standards, but was discriminated against due to being straight.
Her case was dismissed by the lower courts using a three-step process for handling discrimination cases based on indirect evidence under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973).
Under that test, plaintiffs must first present sufficient evidence of discrimination, but also requires an added burden for those individuals who are part of a majority group. The test requires plaintiffs like Ames to provide additional “background circumstances” to “support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
She is arguing that all parties should bear the same burden. In her filing, she calls for the Court to reject the precedent:
“Judges must actually treat plaintiffs differently, by first separating them into majority and minority groups, and then imposing a ‘background circumstances’ requirement on the former but not the latter. In other words, to enforce Title VII’s broad rule of workplace equality, courts must apply the law unequally.”
The case could further develop discrimination precedent two years after the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College.
In reviewing her claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit called the matter an “easy” call at the preliminary stage. It noted that Ames could not show that a member of a minority group made the allegedly discriminatory decision, or with evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group.
Judge Raymond Kethledge criticized the court’s requirement that Ames show special “background circumstances” because she is straight. Such a rule, he argued, “discriminates” “on the very grounds that the statute forbids.”
Ames argues that the test’s “background circumstances” component conflicts with the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination “against any individual with respect to the terms of conditions of employment because of that individual’s sex” or other protected characteristic. She argues “that the law as applied demands something more of her than the law as written.”
The Court could break from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green and continue the push of Chief Justice John Roberts in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College to make the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment “universal in its application.”
BREAKING NEWS
Federal Judge Declares Constitution Unconstitutional – https://babylonbee.com/news/federal-judge-declares-constitution-unconstitutional
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal appellate judge delivered a heavy blow to the Trump administration today, issuing a stunning ruling that the Constitution of the United States is unconstitutional.
The ruling was issued by Judge Marsha Lanning of the D.C. Circuit, who stated that the founding document of the United States was in clear violation of the Constitution.
“Something being written in the Constitution does not magically make it constitutional,” read Judge Lanning as she announced the decision. “All seven articles and twenty-seven amendments of the U.S. Constitution are hereby ruled unconstitutional. No elected official shall have any power mentioned in the Constitution. That’s illegal.”
The Trump administration attempted to argue that the Constitution is, in fact, what makes something constitutional, but to no avail. “I’ve heard enough,” said Judge Lanning. “Your appeals to the law are felonious. There shall be no more arguing about what is or is not allowed by the Constitution. That sort of talk is unconstitutional.”
At publishing time, Judge Lanning had issued a second ruling that voters duly electing a President was a violation of democracy.
This is not beyond the realm of possibilities among those so deep in the throws of pernicious ideologies all stemming from concepts ranging from nihilism to marx.
This will be a heavy lift to undo all of this indoctrination or we may just have to hold the line and let these morons age out. (I am personally in favor of a concept similar to that found in the movie “Escape From NY” where all the crazies are confined within a walled area and are free to do as they like while keeping their infections from contaminating the rest of the nation.).
Nonsense. Do better, if you can.
I suppose that you are opposed to living in a wired cage in the bad lands of Wyoming?
“The difference between a judge and God is that God knows he’s not a judge.”
– Congressman Tim Burchett (R, TN)
________________________________________
AI Overview
“The Constitution does not explicitly state that the power to interpret the Constitution is vested in any one branch of government.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
All federal judges who remove any aspect, facet, degree or measure of power of the executive branch from the President are irrefutably guilty of egregious crimes of high office, abuse of power, usurpation of power, subversion, sedition, treason et al.
The judicial branch must follow and strictly adhere to fundamental and statutory law.
No power to “Interpret,” modify, or amend fundamental or statutory law is vested in the judicial branch by the Constitution.
The judicial branch retains the “judicial power” or the power to adjudicate; the judicial branch retains no power to modify, amend, or “interpret” fundamental and statutory law.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
THE EXECUTIVE POWER, THE WHOLE EXECUTIVE POWER, AND NOTHING BUT THE EXECUTIVE POWER, SO HELP YOU GOD.
The executive power is vested exclusively in the President.
No other person, official, or entity has any aspect, facet, degree, or amount of executive power.
Executive power may not be legislated or adjudicated.
____________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Turls, sorry to chime in on another topic while you’re trying to make discrimination great again…
But D’s need to give absolutely no votes on the budget as R’s go all Jonathan Swift on healthcare. They also need to insist on no votes until Elon Musk is called before Congress to testify about what exactly he’s doing, exactly what data he stole, and exactly how he’s using it.
Our form of government, which went a millenia a history between countries trying it, requires it. ..
Now, feel free to go back to whatever diversion fox has assigned you. Party on!
trying to make discrimination great again
If anyone wants proof modern liberals live in opposite world, there it is. Objecting to discrimination constitutes trying to promote discrimination.
Opposite world? Same can be said for your type, a rabid fool spouting …
You didn’t provide any examples, so how can we tell if you have a valid point?
Thanks for starting your comment with gratuitous disrespect. It saves me reading time.
What historians of culture and social systems will come to understand is that programs like affirmative action and DEI only added to the cultural concept that these minorities were never as qualified because of their race or sexual preference. While some are as qualified as any other they are saddled with co-workers who display the weakness of a system that uses anything other than merit for hiring or any other option (such as college admissions etc.)
I know that I look with a little suspicion at anyone of color or other minority status with the question “did this person merit this job or was it handed to them because of their minority status alone – especially medical personnel, media personalities, and university faculty for just a few – and while this is not fair on my part, it is still in the back of my mind. This is similar to nepo babies and others with “good” connections.
Just how we may undo this damage of perception is something that I am sure the prog/left never contemplated.
Again, the problem is, that homosexuals tend to favor other homosexuals, which is behind much of the DEI push, IMHO. To make it actual policy to hire and promote more homosexuals. Look at the recent LA fires. We find out three leadership roles in the department were all lesbians. What are the odds? I guess it’s possible, and FWIW, I am not at all sure that Chief Crowley’s lesbianism was a factor in the ineffective fire department response. A straight white male might have done an equally poor job, because incompetence in leadership roles is pretty common, and even worse in government work.
But look at all this USAID scandal, and how much of that waste was GloboHomo support? Gay this, gay that, tranny this, tranny that. How did that become normalized, that American tax dollars went to Guatemalan sex changes???
So, I hope that it becomes easier for straight people, for normal people, and for white people, to sue for their rights.
Just for fun, this From the Pink website, ragging on Megyn Kelly:
Kelly, a former Fox News host well-known for her controversial comments about LGBTQ+ people, criticised the department on her podcast, taking aim at the three women in charge and repeating claims that equality programmes were the reason firefighters have not been able to extinguish the 37.1 square miles of flames.
“I believe I speak for all females in Los Angeles when I say, we want a strong man to rescue us. That’s what we want,” Kelly said.
She berated fire chief Kristin Crowley, equity and human resources bureau head Kristine Larson and training and support bureau commander Jamie Brown.
Crowley, in particular, has faced criticism from right-wingers, who claim she is nothing more than a “DEI hire” despite her 22 years of service. Before becoming fire chief, she was a firefighter, paramedic, engineer, fire inspector, captain, battalion chief, assis Atant chief, deputy chief and chief deputy.
Kelly went on to say: “I’m not trying to be mean but they’re obese. These are overweight, out-of-shape women, and the last thing I want to see, if I’m in a burning building is a) a woman and b) an obese woman.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/01/16/megyn-kelly-los-angeles-fire-department-kristin-crowley-wildfires/
What nonsense.
I agree that Floyd is over the top, but even Anonymous idiots like you can’t deny that the USAID scandal is chock full of gay activism being pushed into 3rd world nations to the absolute delight of the CCP.
How did USAID end up being led as if it were Disney in 2020? Who hired all the gay (and other leftist) activists for positions of leadership in the agency? The list of gay agenda being pushed is almost beyond belief. Except for the fact that us rational folks just lived through America gone wild starting in 2020.
FWIW, I wonder sometimes about me being “over the top”, too. I ask myself if I am taking far too dim a view of things. I don’t know. I just know what I see and what I have experienced, and I believe that we have been on a national road to destruction since the 1960s.
To me, it looks like most “Great Advances” have really been Great Leaps Into An Abyss. Civil Rights, women’s rights, homosexual rights, Equal Pay For Equal Work, New Math, Great Societies, Abortion Rights, a practical end to capital punishment, recreational drug use, end of prayer in schools – the whole lot – seem to have done far more harm to the country, than any good.
Look at us today – our country, and others, don’t even make enough babies to replace the population.
We’re number 141 btw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate
#74. It’s a special time in a special place. It’s all bad.
#74 no one knows where it went if anyplace at all.
why is it nonsense – the blather of that obese DEI hire to being unable to save a man in a burning building IS the nonsense.
(Before becoming fire chief, she was a firefighter, paramedic, engineer, fire inspector, captain, battalion chief, assis Atant chief, deputy chief and chief deputy.) This woman might have that on her resume but what were here performance evaluations etc. Was she just an affirmative action hire her entire career? For example, sleepy joe had how many years in government and what was his competence level at anything other than grifting.
How does a woman become the head of an agency, firefighters, that is 80-90% male? How does a woman become head of the Navy? In the entire history of the world try to make sense of that. The answer is that the Biden? team hired radicals to all staffing positions and these radicals are the ones that appointed a man in a dress to be in charge of health, a man in a dress to be in charge of nuclear waste, Dylan Mulvaney to sit in the damn Oval Office with Biden, invited a man onto the WH lawn to expose “his” breasts.
Correct, but this started long before biden.
This goes far back to the 60s and the entire social activist business of whining for minorities (qualified or not) to compensate for slavery and discrimination in the past. I agree that the best qualified person should get the job – no matter their color, religion or sexual preference – but there has been a tacit push (especially among universities and elitist business that want to flaunt their social correctness) to hire the less than best just to show their political correctness.
How to undo the idea that has been deeply indoctrinated in to the minds of those younger than their 70’s that they, somehow, just DESERVE some sort of special treatment because of the treatment of their ancestors is a much bigger problem than just removing DEI type programs from government entities or those receiving government funds. Just observe the virulent response from white and black prog/left dem politicians and leaders about this. They do not see anything other than through their indoctrinated lenses of wokeness. If you doubt their embedded ideology, just listen to hanoi jane and fran drescher in their latest plea for wokeness – it is nauseating at best but it is deeply embedded.
Our major problem is eradicating these pernicious ideologies from so many tainted minds.
IF, it can be undone, it will take generations, or something really dire and bad happening, to accelerate any healing. I look for some country like Japan or South Korea to go extreme totalitarian, in a good way, to end their declines. No abortions, limited contraceptives, official powerful patriarchy, end to women’s “rights”, bans on homosexual behavior, bans on porn, etc.
There is no way to determine how incompetent she was, because she was floating in a sea of governmental incompetence. I do know that she pushed DEI crap, and that calls her intelligence into question. Her boss, Mayor Karen Bass is an incompetent twerp, and she only got elected because she was black. Michael Shellenberger (?) was on a podcast, where he ran focus groups on mayoral contenders Bass and Caruso. You can listen to Rick Caruso, and he is a Democrat, but he seems to have good sense, and he protected his properties during the fire. But Shellenberger says that when his liberal white focus group found out Bass was black, that was all they needed to know to vote for her.
Not only was Bass incompetent, the voters were incompetent. How does anyone separate out the various threads of stupidity in all this?
And that is our biggest problem, undoing all the pernicious indoctrination since the 70s that has baked in this nonsense about woke progressivism as a virtue. It will take almost as long to undo and age out all the morons created by our media/education industries working under the command of prog/leftist in government and academia.
“It’s the [merit], stupid!”
– James Carville
___________________
Affirmative action is unconstitutional; it denies the rights and freedoms of others.
No legislation that denies constitutional rights and freedoms is constitutional.
Please cite the Constitution for any power to disfavor one, and favor any particular individual or group with affirmative action.
I believe that Megyn Kelly was reacting, in part, to a, in my opinion rather shocking, quote by Assistant Fire Chief Larson. “‘Is she strong enough to do this,'” Larson asked, relating criticism she’s received, “or ‘You couldn’t carry my husband out of a fire.’ Which my response is, ‘He got himself in the wrong place if I have to carry him out of a fire.'” I think that most of us would agree with Megyn Kelly that Assistant Chief’s own admitted limits on her rescue capabilities fall far short of reasonable expectations of firefighter’s capabilities particularly if we were needing rescue from a burning house,
Kelly actually mentioned that Larson thing in her podcasts.
My bad, the “background circumstances” requirement does not appear in McDonnell Douglas, contrary to what I thought below, and I believe contrary to what Professor Turley implies in the article above. It is a circuit-level add-on. SCOTUS could disapprove it without having to overturn one of its cases, which makes it easier for the plaintiff to win.
https://petapixel.com/2025/02/26/the-president-shares-ai-video-of-trump-gaza-complete-with-giant-gold-statue/
I hear Palistinians get a one time 10% discount on their first booking. And get this, it isn’t just a 10% booking of one day, If they book 10 days their total expenses will be 10%.
trump is so generous. All hail the most generous fantastical orange fascist god trump.
Before reverse discrimination was known to be a thing, the rule might have made sense. Not anymore, and besides which it lacks a principled intellectual defense. It’s high time to level the playing field.
Contrary to the implication of some commenters below, I believe Roberts will vote to reverse. I know he’s gone wobbly on other topics, but he’s been solid on his skepticism of affirmative action type discrimination, of which the McDonnell Douglas rule is an example.
You believe roberts… spoken to him lately?
Depends what you mean by “lately.” But not since he wrote the Court’s majority decision in Students for Fair Admissions, which was less than two years ago.
A case could be made that Title VII shouldn’t even exist because it abridges free speech, in violation of Congress not abridging free speech. Most cases probably come down to something that someone said that someone didn’t like.
Screened for intelligent, knowledgable problem solvers. HR weenies used to prescreen for DEI. Asked for unscreened resumes. Built a good team but don’t miss the Cupertino Fruit Loop.
#74. Delete “background info”. Or administer a math test or put all “qualified candidates in a hat and draw a name. Personally, drawing a name is preferred.
Sometimes, the clear language of a statute prevails over tests that jurists employ to make life easier for them. By the time a matter reaches the SCOTUS, there is a belief that the constitutional language of the statute will be examined closely and rules of thumb or any other shortcuts used to parse plaintiffs will be ignored as the justices consider the statute’s plain language. As Turley points out, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the equal treatment principle of the 14th Amendment to be overruled by some heuristic conjured up by a well-meaning but incorrect lower court. Ames may get a 7-2 or better decision on this, with only the most ardently discriminatory justice(s) dissenting.
“Equal justice under law” is a phrase engraved above the front entrance of the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C. It is also a societal ideal that has influenced our legal system from the very beginning, throughout the Civil War, and during the civil rights era of the 20th century. From time to time, courts may adopt standards and shortcuts to determine which cases are heard, but these conveniences must comport unambiguously with the Constitution and the “equal justice” principle. Kudos to the SCOTUS for accepting this case and agreeing to clarify for all what equal justice under law means.
Don’t WE know what “equal justice under law” means? That every person is to be treated the same without reference to his race, color, or creed? (When I applied to graduate school in the 60s the application had no reference to race nor requirement of a photograph. It was blind to race and color.)
Michael: George Orwell wasn’t kidding when he said, “All pigs are equal, some more equal than others.” I think we must be careful about absolutism when interpreting laws. Yes, that’s the general principle, but there may be reasonable limitations. You cannot expect police, firefighters, and EMTs to have the same “rights” to employment as all others, and there may be other occasions when it’s lawful to treat people unequally. Women, for example, are not tested for prostate cancer, and men generally are not tested for breast cancer. There must be a reasonable basis for making these exceptions to the general rule that we treat everyone equally. The SCOTUS is likely to have to revisit this issue in the coming years as the administration’s recent ban on biological men playing in women’s sports is litigated. The Ames case may be a prelude to this. Justice Learned Hand said that reason is codified law. The reverse is also true; that codified law is reason. When we strive for absolutism, we wind up with unreasonable outcomes like men competing with women in sports. When it comes to discrimination that is not reasonable – such as what we’ve been told about in the Ames case – the Court must uphold the law and rule in Ames’s favor. Thank you for your comment.
#74. 🤔 Chong, Sanjay, Garcia, Washington, Oh, Jefferson…
JJC, I hit like for your great comment, but I have to disagree with your opinion that the decision would be 7-2. There is no way that any of the 3 liberals will ever agree with something so obvious because they don’t care about the plain language of the Constitution.
She’s not in the transgender spectrum, not politically congruent (“=”). The People are not amused. That said, DEI/IED… boom. DIE in a selfie-abortion. Karmic… and we’ll have a gay ol’ time.
“. . . an *added burden* for those individuals who are part of a majority group.” (JT, emphasis added)
So much for a *blindfolded* Lady Justice holding *balanced* scales.
Sam: Justice, it has been said, may be blind but not stupid. Ames will win this one not on the merits or whether being straight or not is the issue but whether the statute in question is constitutional. I think in this instance the Court will have little leeway other than to declare it is not constitutional because it does not treat everyone equally and there is no reasonable basis to depart from that requirement here.
Nit pick, the statute itself is constitutional (or at least its constitutionality is not being challenged in this case). The judicial gloss by a few circuits is inappropriate, either because it is contrary to the statute itself or contrary to the Equal Protection Clause.
I suspect appellant will need to get Gorsuch and Kavanagh to prevail. Certainly the liberal 3 will support the lower court and Thomas, Alito, and Barrett will side with the appellant. Roberts being reluctant to reverse precedent will probably side with the liberal three.
I thought that Justice Roberts has written that “. . . the way to stop discrimination by race is to stop discrimination by race”. Substitute “sexual orientation” for “race” and we will continue to be on his path to a more equal society.
In this case, maybe not. No SCOTUS precedent was mentioned.
Roberts has been pretty good on discrimination cases.
Did you read the abominable requirements woven into “The Law” by ridiculous, almost deranged, rulings in the courts? How did discrimination become codified into “The Law?” By black robed tyrants pushing personal agenda in open defiance of basic Constitutional and moral principles. The judiciary is out of control. It has become the laughingstock of the Common American. We are on the cusp of the rejection of the legal system with all of the possible consequences fully understood by our people. The Common American has an intrinsic understanding of Fair Play. When “The Law” turns its back on Fair Play, respect and obedience die. Judicial changes must be implemented now, before it’s too late.
This is one of those practical flaws in the whole “gay/lez is normal” theory. When gays get into positions of leadership, they tend to hire and promote other gays and lesbians, and pretty soon, the whole leadership is non-straight. Not much that can be done except to permit discrimination against gays and lesbians from the onset, and de-normalise homosexuality. Which, is a tall order.
Federal Judge sanctions 3 Leftist Lawyers on Transgender Case for “judge shopping”, refers one of the attorneys for potential prosecution to the U.S. Attorney.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION
Boe v. Marshall, M.D. Ala., No. 2:22-cv-184
2/25/25
ORDER
This case requires the Court to consider a malignant practice that threatens the orderly administration of justice: judge-shopping. The lead attorneys in this case— a high-profile challenge to Alabama state law—tried to avoid their assigned judge by voluntarily dismissing one case and filing anew with different plaintiffs in a neighboring federal district court. This was not just a strategic litigation decision; it was a calculated effort to subvert the rule of law.
But the plaintiffs’ filings in Walker and Ladinsky sparked concern among the federal bench that counsel had tried either to manipulate or circumvent the random case-assignment procedures for the Northern and Middle Districts of Alabama. In May 2022, a three-judge panel consisting of the chief judges for the Northern, Middle, and Southern Districts of Alabama (or their designees) was convened to investigate their conduct. After six months developing a substantial evidentiary record and eleven months deliberating, the Panel found that eleven lead attorneys from Walker and Ladinsky (the “Respondents”) had committed misconduct by judge-shopping. Doc. 339. On October 3, 2023, the Panel published its findings in a 53-page Final Report of Inquiry, which it referred to this Court for further proceedings. Id.
Now, for the reasons discussed below, the Court PUBLICLY REPRIMANDS attorneys Melody Eagan and Jeffrey Doss for their intentional, bad-faith attempts to manipulate the random case assignment procedures for the Northern and Middle Districts of Alabama, DISQUALIFIES them from further participation in this case, and REFERS the matter of their professional misconduct to the Alabama State Bar. The Court declines to exercise its discretion to suspend Eagan and Doss from practice in the Middle District of Alabama.
Moreover, the Court PUBLICLY REPRIMANDS Carl Charles for his repeated, intentional, bad-faith misrepresentations of key facts to the three-judge panel about his call to Judge Thompson’s chambers, imposes MONETARY SANCTIONS in the amount of $5,000, and REFERS this matter to the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama and Charles’s licensing bar
https://aboutblaw.com/bhkT
BRAVO!
Holy Crap, Estovir!!! That link ought to be the basis for a Turley post! I browsed around some in the filings, some. Points of interest:
1) The pro-tranny lawyers had been preparing two years in advance for the Alabama law to be passed. Think of the time and money the forces of evil are willing to expend. Who paid for this work???
2) The stuff on page 98, A Primer on Judge Shopping, was a good red.
3. The stuff on page 48, where the lying attorney ( I dint talk to no judge’s clerk or office!) lied four times, UNTIL Judge Proctor read out his phone number to him, and then, the liar fessed up. Priceless!
Kudos on this find!
maybe the Washington Post will cover it? It appears that Jeff Bezos is making some changes at the Washington Post in the interest of personal liberties and free markets. Very interesting. The Opinion Editor David Shipley resigned. Cue the hysteria by Leftist Pravda cultists….
Off to Physical Therapy….
🏋🏽
Jeff Bezos
@JeffBezos
I shared this note with the Washington Post team this morning:
I’m writing to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages.
We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.
There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.
I am of America and for America, and proud to be so. Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America’s success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity.
I offered David Shipley, whom I greatly admire, the opportunity to lead this new chapter. I suggested to him that if the answer wasn’t “hell yes,” then it had to be “no.” After careful consideration, David decided to step away. This is a significant shift, it won’t be easy, and it will require 100% commitment — I respect his decision. We’ll be searching for a new Opinion Editor to own this new direction.
I’m confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I’m excited for us together to fill that void.
Jeff
9:31 AM · Feb 26, 2025
2.4M Views
https://x.com/JeffBezos/status/1894757287052362088
Wow, Estovir, that is HUGE. Thank you for that.
PS, to any naysayers, I don’t care if Bezos is sincere or just making a business decision, it’s an amazing development for WaPo either way.
“I’m writing to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages.
We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others. ”
I suspect Bezos is seeking to salvage his investment in WP, which has pretty well marginalized itself following the election: much too far left for Trump supporters; not nearly left enough for the rabid wokists. That certainly is his prerogative, WP is a business, and the purpose of a business is to maximize ROI. However, I’m not really buying into his painting lipstick and eye shadow on his motive in order to portray it as idealism. Even if he is somewhat sincere, unless he completely revamps the culture there by firing and replacing pretty much everyone on the news and editorial staffs, any such change will only last until such time as his attention is diverted elsewhere (which, considering his varied business interests, cannot take very long) at which time it will revert to its culture as the mediocre leftist rag it had become over recent decades. I’d be very happy to be proven wrong, but I do not expect that to happen.
time to END the quota for women, people of color, etc
Also time to SUE the advertising industries OBVIOUS brainwashing directive…where 10% of the population are used
I want actors and models to SUE…for BILLIONS!
Name and town if you wish to opine.
This case seems like a great opportunity for the Court to once again level the playing field. How is it even arguable (or possible) that a law can be construed differently if you are one color as opposed to if you were a different color?
Only in leftist America would the majority have a heavier burden of proof when making claims of discrimination.
Hypocrisy alert: Notice the big time leftists, the Schumers, Bernies never quit their positions in favor of a minority and even micro examples such as Jen Psaki, a truly far left WHITE partisan, getting a weekday anchor job in place of Joy Reid, a far left BLACK partisan. Why doesn’t the loud mouth Psaki, who asserted that her own employer is racist for firing Reid give up her position in order to led Reid stay employed. Of course the same can be said for the very WHITE Rachel Maddow.
OT, but did you see Bernie’s latest video? He, honest to God, opened with the “I am once again asking for your financial support.” Like good God man, mortgage one of your mansions or something.
“did you see Bernie’s latest video? He, honest to God, opened with the “I am once again asking for your financial support.””
He must be anticipating that Big Pharma will no longer be dumping millions into his political coffers. That little squeak you hear in the background is the Word’s Smallest Violin playing My Heart Bleeds for Bernie… I guess he is too old to get a job as anything except a parasite.
COME ON MAN!!! Long standing precedent that White and Straight people are the Supremacists that rule the world and thus cannot possibly be victims of discrimination even when their Masters are the Victim Class, right? Welcome to American Absurdistan!! Don’t worry, turncoats Barrett and Roberts will reach deep to console their liberal Pisano’s on the bench and keep the ideology of victimhood alive and well despite obvious facts! One more nail in the coffin of the legal system!
So, you openly admit the legal system is discriminatory against one subset of race and sexual orientation? That a greater burden of proof must be attained by one party, usually seen as a “majority”?
(Same Anon) I apologize if you were being sarcastic, my sarcasm-ometer does not work well over uneditable blog comments.
What does a history of white privilege have to do with Joe Zlobotnik, who is looking for a job today based on his diligent studies and accomplishments? Requiring him to jump through made-up (not codified) hoops others of color or different sexual preferences do not is blatantly discriminatory.
#74. The lesser beings just kill off the best and brightest and destroy their institutions and they’ve successfully set a new normative. It’s not rocket science or even linear algebra.. .
During the WWII holocaust, Jewish professors hid as shoe makers , field workers and brick layers etc…