Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down three major cases with unanimous decisions. One, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, raises additional questions over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that have been widely used in higher education and businesses. There is no reason to believe that DEI measures are DOA, but the decision is likely to accelerate challenges based on reverse discrimination after the Court rejected the imposition of an added burden for members of any “majority group” including straight, white males.
The immediate question before the Court was a circuit split over the standard that applies to a member of a “majority” group who claims that he or she was treated unfairly based on majority characteristics. The Sixth Circuit, along with four other circuits, held that such litigants must shoulder additional pleading burdens under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Many of us have long argued that this long-standing rule was itself discriminatory and at odds with both constitutional and statutory authority. It was a bizarre interpretation of a law that barred employees from discriminating based on “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.” That would ordinarily require a plaintiff to support a claim of disparate treatment by showing that she applied for a position for which she was qualified but was rejected under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. However, judges began to add their own burden of white, male or straight litigants in requiring them to show additional “background circumstances” that show the defendant is an “unusual employer” that discriminates against majority groups.
In this case, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, claimed that she was demoted at the Ohio Department of Youth Services after Ginine Trim, a gay woman, replaced her supervisor. Trim hired a younger gay man allegedly based on sexual orientation. Both the district court and the Sixth Circuit dismissed the complaint because Ames failed to identify any other “background circumstances” that demonstrated her employer discriminated against heterosexual women.
“As a textual matter, Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The “law’s focus on individuals rather than groups [is] anything but academic.” Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). By establishing the same protections for every “individual”—without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, filed a concurrence that chastised lower courts and “judges creating atextual legal rules and frameworks.”
The opinion has broader implications for businesses and higher education where DEI has been used to brush aside such reverse discrimination claims. Often such claims are mocked as suggesting that members of a majority group are “victims.” While not imposing this specific “add-on,” these controversies involve much of the same bias against reverse discrimination claims. Litigants complain that they often face greater demand and resistance to their claims as opposed to employees who are part of minority groups.
Various legal groups insisted that the Sixth Circuit was correct and that majority-group litigants should shoulder an added burden, including the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Women’s Law Center, Latino Justice, National Employment Law Project and Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund. The views of these groups could not garner a single vote on the Court.
The Ames decision is a welcome development in bringing greater uniformity in the treatment of discrimination claims. It is also a shot across the bow of businesses and universities that have used DEI to dismiss the countervailing interests and claims of majority-group employees.
Here is the decision: Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services
I am of the opinion that DEI never had ‘good intentions’, that’s a cop out, it was always puerile and antithetical. It was always a grift, and that literally seems to be all our modern left is capable of; that party is irreparably damaged and deranged. Trump may be a foolish megalomaniac who often cuts off his nose to spite his own face (and he does), but the dems are simply charlatans, and they must not be empowered to govern us regardless, ever again. RIP, DEI.
(I’m writing a little bit heavier this a.m.)
We must not be afraid to admit that all conceptual grasping at DEI, Affirmative Action, Equality, etc. goes against our inherited evolutionary DNA. It is scientifically posited and supported that mammals living in closed herds/familial groups, with limited transactional behaviors involving other groups, survive longer, and such research “underscore[s] a molecular basis for the influence of the social organization on longevity.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-35869-7
Repeat: “a molecular basis.”
Relating that to programs such as DEI, Affirmative Action, Equality, etc., -at least two evolutionary and instinctual anathemas are triggered: forced/compelled behavior, and punishment for non-compliance. This, in turn, often manifests in external anger or internal (as in the above case of Marlean Ames), resentment and feelings of self-worth. We elevate those suppressed reactions by litigating them.
Soooo, when desegregation and affirmative action became the law, how many minds and attitudes were actually changed? Today, when laws and programs are passed that mandate “reparations” or “equitable” resolutions, how many minds and attitudes are actually changed? Have we, as a society, eliminated anger, resentment, and self-doubt as a result of these laws, programs, and policies?—-Or have we simply litigated them through actionable charges of discrimination or reverse discrimination? Litigation produces a happy winner/prevailing party, and a resentful/angry losing party. Threats of adverse punishment may have eliminated overt behaviors, but do such threats alter internal messaging?
Still, the levels of ethos and pathos in higher-developed primates nonetheless beckons humans to at least investigate, explore, and often invite interaction outside of our own comfortable social perimeter[s]. That is a good thing.
But must it be compelled?
Can society survive by simply employing a “live and let live” understanding, grown and seasoned by mutual respect and voluntary interaction?
Maybe fools will. 😏.
Only the willing minds of the academically indoctrinated naive minds of a freshman could be changed by such oppressive legislations. It was a fools goal to begin with cradled in that century old concept of the perfectablility of man via government fiat that the transcendentalists enabled way back then. It is a notion that has been festering in the minds of the irrational idealists ever since and it has, as it always has in the past, been a dismal failure. Let us hope that these delusional idealists are kept at bay and 10,000 years of human history can, again, prove them so egregiously wrong.
“goal of…perfectability of man via government fiat.”
Love it, whimsical. Good one.
@whimsicalmama
Very much agreed. Regardless of the current administration, we hang by a thread, and all that you have elucidated is why we must hold fast no matter what. There is not, and will never be anything resembling utopia. Only our perfectly imperfect life and how we navigate it together. This actually does seem to be generational, it used to come in waves, but these days it goes beyond the naiveté of youth. We literally waver on a precipice.
James,
Reading the comments here on Turley’s blog is proof-positive that utopia is an impossible goal.
The Left can erase history and make people believe the world began today, they can competely change the language, but they can *NEVER* change human nature.
Human nature is on full display each & every day here.
Nope, fallen off the cliff and about two feet before impact.
Metropolitan cities are everywhere. They have little Italy, little Puerto Rico, little this and that…
If you don’t stay with your tribe you’ll get your knees capped, mam. Israel in the middle east is racism. They just can’t stand that little tribe of Jewish people. That’s what it is. Nothing has changed. Try marriage? They’ll kick your can down the road.
* Yes, and gay men can be straight voluntarily, and the lame can walk and the blind can see…the sun will come up tomorrow, tomorrow 🎶
Why is it that so many will refuse to accept the imperfect nature of the human mind/soul.
After 10,000 years of somewhat recorded/noted human history we find that we are and will remain tribal and with a penchant for evil. How else would you explain that all surviving or past successful cultures had created very similar social controls (think the 10 commandments or any other cultural codes of conduct) because it was necessary for groups larger than an extended family to coexist peacefully.
To place one’s hopes on an enlightenment of human behavior to happen via legislation, coercion or propaganda is a fools errand but it is the utopian’s necessity. Why is it that the lessons of history never deter the cherry-picked data employed progressives to attempt to prove their goals. The history books are chock full of these delusional revolutionaries who only created chaos, suffering and a snap back of rigid conformity as a response.
Are you saying you’ve never lived in a completely moral culture uncoerced but by reason freely ? Quite utopic. There are no locked doors. No one has heard of theft.
Why do they not accept imperfection of the human mind? They learned self interest is all there is so instinct in all things is right.
“Why is it that so many will refuse to accept the imperfect nature of the human mind/soul.”
Because some of us reject the religious view that man is a misfit by nature.
“. . . an enlightenment of human behavior to happen via legislation, coercion . . .”
You keep conflating two very different ideas: The perfectibility of man (which is an Enlightenment/FF conviction). The use of government coercion to achieve that (alleged) goal is primarily a Marxist idea.
Do you equate preferences for homosexual sex to physical disabilities of lameness and blindness because you believe homosexuality is a genetic or mental defect?
Homosexuality is a loser on both sides of the debate. If you have a religious prohibition it was usually based on the notion of “be fruitful and multiply” which was a necessity and may be again in certain cultures that have demographic failure from lack of births vs death rates. If you are non-religious of persuasion and buy into the evolution ideology, then, again, homosexuality would be seen as a bad mutation since it has a negative effect on species survival.
Either way, I see it as a mutation that has either a neutral effect in flourishing cultures or a negative effect when reproduction is important for group survival. It is an abnormality of the species and has little positive impact either culturally or biologically.
This does not equate to a condemnation of those who are of that proclivity but it should be noted that it is not a normal situation from an evolutionary standpoint.
Be fruitful and multiply is an actual OBSERVATION of living organisms in nature. It’s not a command to do so. It’s an observation of what is.
For the religious God created that pervasive , all inclusive condition and evolution by that condition. Evolution declines or remains neutral. Man has used it and created the tea rose and thoroughbred horses both beautiful improvements to God’s creations.
I do believe that human manipulation of crops and livestock is not the same as random mutation as would have to be believed by evolutionists. Being fruitful is a biological necessity, otherwise why would so many organisms produce thousands of embryos knowing that only a few will survive. As to genetic manipulation of crops and animals via the extraordinary insertion of genetic materials into an embryo or seed is neither natural selection nor natural mutation.
As to the “command” to be fruitful and multiply, that was simple logic based on observation that was inserted into cultural norms just as incest taboos were added for the same reason; to stableize the tribe. Why progressives think that they are smarter than all mankind that has come before them simply because they can add some random letters after their name is the height of hubris and hubris is the fuel of the progressive.
It is repulsive to some. Don’t leave that out. Understand Islam kills homosexuals.
There is this thing called AIDs. Might explore the issue
Absolutely and syphilis and gonorrhea and cancer… thus the prohibition. Pig eating tapeworms. Pretty simple
* Let’s tie this back to the blog. Is it about the demotion of a hetero or the promotion of the homeo? It’s a negative and a positive. It’s a great article because neutrality is neither. Not for nor against. Apply it then to homeo marriage. This is hostile , a negative to religion. Congress shall pass no law. Homeo marriage is unconstitutional because of 1A. Just as congress cannot tell a church what and how marriage takes place, it cannot then say what marriage is at all. It’s enough to decriminalization homosexuality and if they choose cohabitation then it is.
The homosexuals were positively impacted by discrimination while injury was to the hetero. Of course that was in real property as income.
You see the error?
Perhaps or merely a refusal to change rather than a genetic anomaly. The sex chromosomes are defective in many cases as they are subject to evolutionary decline like any other chromosomes. It’s like an old car when things begin to break down. Mankind is old and tinkered. They’re tinkering now once again and absolutely no one knows what will happen genetically because of that tinkering in in 35 generations. There’s much evidence available in inbreeding.
So generally, yes, with a caveat of child molestation for some in early years. Lesbianism may be caused by such.
@lin
Sorry, I disagree. Reducing anything to strictly biology is foolishness. We all have free will, and most of us know what the right thing to do is, even if at times it seems the opposite, we are mostly in control of our own minds and the subsequent actions.
And yes – without ideological trappings, society can survive with ‘live and let live’. We all need to accept the fact that indoctrination is real and that parenting of the past couple of decades has been a travesty. We could have nipped this in the bud years ago, nobody cared. Thanks to modern inter-connectedness, the world is now too small at the tap of a screen to continue any of this isolationist stuff – those days are gone, forever, and they ain’t coming back. That is not to say that we should have nations without borders. The argument you made is a gross oversimplification, though. We live in 2025, and we are going to have to live in 2025 whether we like it or not, and going forward.
The pre-covid, or even pre-Obama era is not coming back, anywhere. That considered, let’s decide where we’d like to go next.
No one reduced anything to strictly biology. Are you following what she is saying?
(and most of us know what the right thing to do is) I find that an interesting statement. We do not truly understand evil (by that I will state that evil is interpreted as a culture decides). Some cultures approve of child marriage, slavery and a caste system while others find such ideologies “evil”. I do not think that the concept of evil is inherent in all as we have see sociopaths, psychopaths and sadists do their thing with no moral compass seeming to be a part of that equation. I do believe that is why there are moral codes of conduct in any successful culture, past or present. Wisdom through time, as man was made sentient, has seen the necessity of moral codes. I also believe that original cultures that did not adopt such a moral code did not succeed and we have little to no indications of their existance and, therefore, discard the idea that cultures without morals existed and failed. One caveat to that would be the biblical reference to Sodom and Gemorrah which could reference failed cultures.
This is a great distraction from the crushing debt burden our children and grandchildren will inherit.
The question should be: do you hate the other party more than you love your own family? More than you love your own country?
The USA has an unsustainable spending habit and now Congress is giving an (unpaid) tax cut to the richest Americans! The USA may be bankrupt first, but DEI is a great distraction!
Since the 1980’s each and every Republican Administration has increased the nation’s debt. Since the 1980’s each and every Democrat has reduced deficit spending. Clinton was the last to leave office with a balanced-budget. The biggest spender that ran up the debt (annual basis) was during Trump’s first term, exceeding even George W. Bush’s spending.
Be grownups and be responsible with paying down debt that your children and grandchildren will inherit!
Oh hey, it’s the real ATS, trying to make a plea to family. How was Biden’s budget, huh? We achieve those pre-pandemic spending levels they said we all wanted?
-Rabble
Ano
This is a great distraction from the crushing debt burden our children and grandchildren will inherit.
Thank you Biden & lib dems
We will only reach a sustainable economy when we rid ourselves of the entire entitlement programs of “The Great Society” and that was 100% a democrat failed anthropological experiment that has cost our nation both economically and culturally to point where it is nearly impossible to imagine a way out of this black hole of economic suicide.
I am eagerly awaiting a detailed explanation from someone here that the spat between Elmo and Trump is really Joe Biden’s fault.
Come on fellas.
Put your mind to it.
I know you can do it.
I am particularly thinking of John Say, who I fully expect to produce a 50,000 word detailed explanation.
We are waiting for you to explain why all these loyal reporters and now Biden press DEI hire are blowing the horn and making money off of selling books
On how sick he really was.
Dustoff
Non-responsive.
Grade: F
Try to stay on topic
I should have mentioned that I will be grading each response.
Worried the this stun will fail. Poor child
🤔 sociopaths?
Joe who?
@Anonymous
I *don’t* need to wait for you to explain that you are paid to post off-topic nonsense in hopes of hijacking the thread and getting paid even more dollars in the subsequent fallout. Go blow.
This clearly shows that re: the subject of Discrimination the Justices are operating in an ‘Ivory Tower’ aka fantasy world. Obviously none of them have ever experienced, been impacted by or even seen firsthand (as many of us have..) that the Brutality of EEO/DEI is alive and well, flourishing in many spaces, e.g., Corporate, Governmental, Military, Academic, etc… and creating over the years not only what many have called ‘reverse discrimination…’ but weakened systems as meritocracy has been weakened or simply killed… and… (the coup de grace..) it is almost impossible to ‘course correct’ a badly performing DEI situation.. for fear of lawsuits…
Sadly, this spat between Elmo and Trump is yet another demonstration that men are far too emotional to be trusted with leadership positions.
What about all then CNN and MSNBC folks who knew how sick Biden really was. Lying about him for the last 4 years. Talk about NO leadership.
STAY ON TOPIC!
You won’t stay on topic with what Mr. Turley writes, so why should we when responding to your tripe?
-Rabble
Hear, hear!
HAHAHAHA. I will not even waste my timeon you Ano
* everyone knew Musk has a disorder. He’s pitching a fit because he knows major cuts are in order but alas, the job mkt.
Jonathan: The real Q is whether the DJT/Musk “romance” is DOA? Judging from the hand grenades they have been lobbing at each other in recent days it now clear the two “crazies” are in an all out war. Who knew it would end this soon and or be so vicious?
It started last Friday when Musk was shown the Oval Office door. Elon began their feud by calling DJT’s “big beautiful” budget bill a “disgusting abomination”. Elon escalated the feud by saying what everyone knows–DJT is all over the Epstein files and that is the reason they have not been released. DJT then called for the cancellation of all of Musk’s government contracts. Elon replied: “Without me, Trump would have lost the election”. Then Musk called for the impeachment of DJT. Yesterday Musk made a serious drone strike against DJT with this post asking his millions of followers: “Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?” While it’s not true 80% of the electorate is in the “middle” Musk’s threat alone could create a giant fissure among Republican voters, particularly among the MAGA crowd. If Musk were to actually create such a party it could give the Dems victories not only in the midterms but also in 2028. Hell hath no fury like Musk scorned!
So where does this all out war leave you? You have been a longtime supporter of Elon while at the same time backing most of DJT’s attempts to create autocratic rule. Now that a divorce between DJT and Musk is all but inevitable which side will you come down on? You can’t have it both ways now!
Or dennis and the rest of you libs are being played for fools.
(Who knew it would end this soon). My wise husband posted early on in this administration that the Trump/Musk liason wouldn’t last more than 6 months. Nothing new here except a platform for the progs to dance on while they sink. Of course 2 very dynamic and successful people will eventually go their own way – that is a given. Perhaps if the progs hadn’t targeted Musk because of his DOGE work exposing the fetid swamp, it might have lasted longer. But, then, we know that destruction and chaos is the mainenterprise of the progs.
I can’t comprehend how SCOTUS could even contemplate allowing ANY facet of DEI to continue.
Also, how would you undo all of the reverse discrimination that has harmed so many since the first application of affirmative action?
Everything emanating from that initial “Great Society” democrat legislation of the 60s has done far more damage than good. Also, how do we undo the “baked-in-the-cake” notion that millions believe that the government is, and will forever be, their sugar daddy.
The progs have almost destroyed our nation, our economy, and our culture. Why would SCOTUS ( minus the 3 affirmative action/DEI plants) even consider protecting the biggest grift on the American taxpayers.
Your error is in “almost”.
Is this the best IQ you’ve got?
Very best.
Let’s stay a bit positive here, we can fight to the last with a sense of honor even while the hordes of barbarians are at the gate.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “REVERSE” DISCRIMINATION ITS JUST DISCRIMINATION
The reference is majority/minority. If it’s all the same race then there isn’t a minority as an example. It’s also the basis of the current illegal migration. I’m not explaining.
I’m a biologist and staying with my tribe.
Yes!. The use of militant verbal tactics by the left should have been stopped in its tracks 35 years ago.
It traces back to some clever immigration lawyer around 1990. The Barbara Jordan (D-TX) Commission had just come out with common sense recommendations on how to curtail illegal immigration (taking place in defiance of the 1986 reform that made it illegal to hire workers without legal status). These recommendations were strong and would have worked.
The lawyer’s brainchild was to simply never make ant distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.
This verbal ju jitsu was very effective in thwarting any meaningful debate. Dems in Congress quickly adopted it, and everyone else in favor of lax immigration enforcement.
I’ve always regretted that language experts and cultural leaders did not fight back at the time against this corruption of language by activists in pursuit of a political goal. It’s much harder now to walk back from militant verbal tactics because they permeate the culture, and are used for virtue signaling. DEI, LGBTQ, equity…etc.
all Hate Crime Laws are unconstitutional. Why should certain classes of people receive MORE Protection!
Don’t get me wrong…committing crimes against black, whites, Gays, straights, jews, christians, etc should ALL BE PROSECUTED!!! But you shouldn’t receive 300 years if you kill a gay jewish black man when if you kill a straight white guy you get 8 years! Pretty clear you HATED each of them…you killed them!
Blind Justice?
The blindfold is a key element, representing the principle that justice should be blind to personal characteristics, social status, or any other factor that could introduce bias. It ensures that decisions are based solely on the evidence and the law.
Agree. And defamation law should give equal protection under the law, regardless of one’s name recognition. The Sullivan decision (SCOTUS 1964) erected a two-tiered system of reputation protection lacking any basis in the written law or Constitution, and doing it allowed character assassination to poison political discourse.
I have long awaited a SCOTUS rendering of “unconstitutional” the entire concept of Hate Speech legislation. That “yelling fire” comparison was not an appropriate defense against gutting the first amendment.
The oj Simpson trial comes to mind. Fuhrman may have been a racist but they failed to prove the evidence was planted because he was racist. Oj wasn’t ever tried for a criminal murder of two people. Worst mistrial ever.
*. I don’t think there’s a greater majority/minority example by religion than 16 million Jewish people v. 1 billion Islamic people currently and there are violent protests happening at Ivy league universities currently, 12 supporters burned, 2 embassy workers murdered do you? Death to America, death to Israel? Surely it’s just hyperbole. Let’s get on with it…
Maybe Congress should draft a new law called the Merit Rule. Ya know, the American citizen most qualified, most knowledgeable to perform the job, duties or best grades get the position. All regardless of age, color, physical issues or whatever they “think” they are. Why does it work in the NFL, MLB or NBA you never hear complaints from them?
I can contemplate a great deal of concern when a family business cannot hire members of their own because a better qualified candidate wanted a job that was given to “someone’s sister’s kid”, so to speak.
You point out a tricky problem with a pure meritocracy, one which will be hard to overcome with EOE Law.
In hiring decisions, there is always going to be the “trust” factor, which gives advantage to someone already known to the hiring manager, or someone referred by a trusted colleague.
I don’t think those considerations are going to be eradicated.
@ whimsicalmama – There should be no concern when dealing with a family business, usually the position that’s given to your sisters kid is not published to the public. Once your sister’s kid fvcks up and loses clients you’ll give him/her a shovel, broom or suggest he/she is far to smart for the position and show them the door.
I created a family business back in 2003. I am 74 now and I have my oldest son and his daughter running the business so I am well aware that “family member” doesn’t always equate to best qualified. But there are other factors such as a generational business that creates a sense of stability and reliability that a cold, impartial corporation cannot muster, especially in a small town. It is a positive when a customer knows that 3 generations are still working towards a goal – it bespeaks of family culture and imparts a sense of trust. I do not think that over-reaching government interference in how small business are run is a positive. The less government involves itself in who does what, the better. Let the cream rise to the top naturally.
The Equal Opportunity Employment Act is already law. It has been for 50 years.
The problem is enforcement. You have to sue to challenge unfair discrimination. Way too many employers now bury in their Employment Contract a clause where the person hired agrees to Arbitration (gives up their right to sue). Those clauses aren’t legally binding (because they circumvent the law), but they work to intimidate and discourage the assertion of individual legal rights.
For example, in Silicon Valley, starting in the 2000s many foreign-born CEOs who received venture capital brazenly violated EOE Law by hiring nationals preferentially from their home country (China, India, Russia). They took the meaning of the EOE Law not to apply to anyone like themselves. They got away with it.
This now will change. KBJ has laid down the law.
*. Sounds great but he’s a member of the KKK dues paying or an Islamic jihadist or a cocaine addict….
I was pleasantly surprised when this decision was announced because I had heard so little about it. I am happy to see it rendered and with a 9-0 majority. Slowly but, hopefully, surely we are making progress to the eventual point where a person is judged by the strength of their character and not by the color of their skin, or bed partner, or “victim” status or anything else inconsequential. Maybe Martin Luther King Jr’s dream is still alive and attainable. I sincerely hope so. For most of us this is common sense and frees us as individuals seeking work or individuals looking for new employees to only check appropriate boxes like experience, skill, training, presentation, merit. Imagine what you can do with a work force like that. Hiring can be fun again (well must of the time)
On the other hand this is likely to be treated in the Ivy League like a black monolith that is so inscrutable that it’s meaning can not be determined. It will likely require Trustee subcommittee investigations, student body government activism for the victims, protests, new head coverings. And then they will still get it wrong.
Shouldn’t we find it ironic that it would need be conservative Republicans that support MLK’s dream while the prog/left renders it useless?
No, they’ll just change the name and acronym .
DEI is more garbage from the commie left. Anyone confused over what sex they are should drop their underwear and look down! You have a penis are a vagina, it is that simple. No medical fee for this visit.
This case and the SCOTUS unanimous opinion highlights the growing attempt by Judges in the Federal District and Circuits to legislate from the bench. The basis for the claim that the Judicial Branch is attempting to overthrow not only the Executive Branch but the Legislative Branch. The rouge Federal Judiciary must be eliminated from the United States of America!
You might get rid of DEA in the workplace, but it is firmly embedded in the minds of many judges, who will rule in its favor for years to come. There is no cure for a partisan judge.
When you say “many judges”, is the % who will brazenly defy a Supreme Court ruling 1%?….3%….5%?
This is a historic decision, and 9-0.
Your cynical reaction makes me wonder whether you can even take a “W”?
“There is no cure for a partisan judge.”
Oh, there are numerous cures for such. Unfortunately, most of them forgo a society bound by law, which would reflect ultimate desperation with the idea of repairing our system from within. That said, it might unfortunately be required if things go on as they have been.
There are laws to stop such judges; our congressional leaders are just too pansy to use them.
-Rabble
The cure would be removal based on inability to stay impartial. The real question is whether we have the guts to clean up that particular swamp…all the way up to the 3 partisan supreme court justices who openly display their ideologies.
There are many cures
One is to ignore them
That btw would not be a constitutional crisis
The constitution does not require obedience to judicial edicts particularly those outside the jurisdiction of the courts
Tradition dictates obedience
We should not lightly discard that tradition
It will be hard to get back once discarded
But disobeying a judge that is acting outside their jurisdiction is not a constitutional issue
ITs about time . The Right Decision with 9-0 agreement. But the DEI crowd will nt give up, including those businesses and universities who were strong supporters of DEI. They still try to hide their programs etc for DEI and they are being exposed. It was refreshing the Supreme Court came out 9-0. Lets hope the message is received and understood, especially with the unqualified left wing Judges.
Anon: Yes, you are correct and some already have gone to great lengths to preserve DEI. But, consider the cost of doing this. By “protecting” (i.e., favoring) groups over individual persons through DEI, they are running up against the SCOTUS decision protecting individuals. Thus, any individual who prevails in a discrimination suit will henceforth be a serious financial liability for a company, school, or other enterprise that wants to preserve DEI. One again, the invisible hand of the free market will force proper behavior.
Sometimes, a jockey just needs to show a horse the whip, and it gets the message. The same may be said for this case. The “extra” rule for majority persons was a barrier preventing them from pursuing claims of discrimination in the workplace. With it removed, the majority and minority candidates are now on the same level in competing for jobs and have equal rights, when needed, to pursue discrimination claims. As an employer weighs the choices before her, she must now consider the ramifications of all the candidates, not just the minority ones that were de facto favored under the old rules. Yesterday’s decision by the SCOTUS should keep things on an even keel going forward and forever halt the DEI nonsense in its tracks. Kudos to our nine justices for standing up for the rule of law and our democratic principles.
That’s all Secretariat needed! Don’t think he was hit once winning the Belmont Stakes in 2:24 which in the immortal words a record that may stand forever
D Bill: Great comment! Let’s hope the SCOTUS decision has the same effect and also stand forever, just like Secretariat’s record.
A faint glimmer of hope: might this presage the beginning of a return to rational thought at the Court, divorced from woke and politically based illusions? It is particularly interesting that the Ames opinion was authored by the Justice who at her Senate confirmation hearing could not — or would not — define what a “woman” is.
OK. Every human infant learns the difference between man and woman before language skills even develop. There are many of these prelingual concepts. Can you define “grasping” with your hand? No, but you could show me what it means. That’s not the same as stating a “definition”.
Justice Jackson was put in a clever verbal trap by Sen. Blackburn at the confirmation hearing. She should have simply replied, “I can point to several women present, and so can you and everyone else in the room, does that help?”
Why not give unqualified praise to KBJ for writing this historic opinion?
Conservatives should be all conveying the expectation that this historic decision will be followed by lower court judges (if that’s what you want to see happen). Winners set the expectations for others to follow.
Losers spew cynicism and doubt by lowering expectations in their own minds first, and then expressing them publicly.
An
Why not give unqualified praise to KBJ for writing this historic opinion?
***************
Simple. KBJ is not that smart, and she proves it. Every-time she speaks.
History has shown us want a women is. Not some DEI hire.
The opinion is both obvious and correct
It is disturbing that anyone would call it historic
It is disturbing that there was a circuit split
I would further note that even the CRA is irrelevant
This appears to be a government job
Therefore the 14th amendment applies
The provisions of the CRA that apply to private actors are unconstitutional
The government may not discriminate
Private actors may
Discrimination is likely to be a bad idea and counter productive
But government may not interfere in private contracts
“Can you define “grasping” with your hand? No . . .”
Huh?
“Grasping” is the action form of “grasp,” which means: “to get a hold of something.”
“. . . but you could show me what it means.”
How do you know that you’re showing what grasping means unless you can explain what it means, i.e., define it?
There’s no such thing as “reverse” discrimination. It’s discrimination, plain and simple. Similarly, there’s no such thing as a trans “woman.” The guy may be a female impersonator, but he’s not a woman. Don’t allow the far-left to control the language.
Tin
More proof just how confused the left really is
Women have been on the planet for a long time, yet in 2025 the dem/lib think women are something else.