What is your opinion of the decisions the Supreme Court just handed down?

[MrShaun]

They determined that student loan debt could not be paid for by the government, that individual business was not obligated to serve someone they did not agree with on the bases of sexual orientation and that affirmative action was no longer in play.

[LiamJHayden]

1. Student loans - correct. The Congress, not POTUS, has that power.

2. That was not the actual decision. The decision was a free speech issue. A business cannot be coerced into creating content that violates the owners' belief system. If a gay couple, for example, owned a car detailing business or whatever and wanted a website designed that did not include their orientation, the website designer would have been in violation of Colorado statute for refusing that service.

3. Affirmative action should not be permitted in government-run schools, but private schools should be able to use it if they want irrespective of whether they or their students get any federal aid.

[WindAtMyBack]

I agree with all of those.

But as I pointed out somewhere else, the Supreme Court did NOT rule that the government could not forgive student debt. They didn't even address that issue. They ruled that a very narrowly defined act was misapplied - nothing more.

[MrShaun]

www.google.com/.../index.html

[WindAtMyBack]

Did you read and understand that article? The court did NOT rule that the government can't forgive loans. It did not even address that issue.

[Wallythewalrus]

It has to go through congress, just like Nancy Pelosi said. It was just another political ploy by the looney left.

[normalice]

I view the current SCOTUS as illegitimate. The Federalist society paid a lot of money to pack the courts with justices that would legislate from the bench on their behalf, and that is what they got. If 9 non-federalist society justices came up with the exact same rulings, that would be fine, but the fact that the majority rulings keep being paid for makes them a business transaction, not an honest application of the constitution. That is not how rulings ought to be.

It baffles me when I keep hearing the so-called liberal media say the integrity of the court is "in question." There is no question. They Federalist judges are political operatives to the core. Their verdicts are predetermined and their excuses for them are inconsistent on the rare occasion that they aren't completely nonsensical, because they know there is nothing we can do about it.

[MysticDevice]

Student loan debt I agree with. If your education wasn't valuable enough for you to pay for, its not valuable enough for me to pay for instead.

Businesses should not be allowed to descriminate based on sex or orientation. Whether the owner agrees or not. That violates the idea of equal rights.

I still don't actually know what affirmative action is so no comment.

[genericname85]

businesses are not obliged tos erve someone they do not agree with? that's straight up fascist legislation. i fully agree with the other 2.

[MrShaun]

So do you believe every business is required to serve every customer?

[genericname85]

i believe businesses should neither discriminate by race, by origin, by sex, by world view/religion nor opinion.
i think a business should be allowded not to serve a customer who does not show proper public behavior or a customer who breaks the law.

not serving a customer cause you disagree with their opinion on something is fascist nazi shit that should never be legally allowed.

[Wallythewalrus]

So, do you agree social media sites shouldn't censor people they don't agree with? By your standard, that is a first ammendment violation.

[genericname85]

@Wallythewalrus that depends. if they just wanna be a "plattform provider", then they can't do that. if they wanna do that, they should fall under the juristiction of an editor with all the liability that comes with that.

[Wallythewalrus]

They can censor because they are privately owned. The first ammendment protects against GOVERNMENT censorship. The government cannot tell force a privately owned bakery to bake a cake for a wedding that goes against their religious beliefs.

[genericname85]

@Wallythewalrus so you don't understand the difference between a Plattform provider and an editor. Can't blame you. Government doesn't either. But that law does exit. It's just not enforced, which I find bad.

If you have a forum where you prohibit certain opinions, You have to take legal responsibility for that. So for example if you're running an alternative medicine forum and you censor main stream medical opinions, you should be liable for the harm that comes to people because of your censorship

[Wallythewalrus]

Do you mean plattform provider vs publisher? If you do, there is no distinction between the two in sec. 230. Courts use the term "provider" as a term for website. It is never mentioned in sec.230.

[Wallythewalrus]

Also, a social media website is neither a distributor or publisher of information. If they were, they wouldn't have 230 protection.

[genericname85]

@Wallythewalrus no i mean editor not publisher. if you edit information, it now becomes your liability. if you just provide a plattform and you keep the hands off the information, then the individual person who posted the information is liable.

like for example whatsapp is not liable for whatever text you're sending to someone. but businesses like facebook should be liable for the messages posted on the website, cause they heavily edit what can be on the site and what can't. not by legal standards but by their opinion.

and therefore i'm saying: either edit all you want AND be liable for your opinion or leave your hands off, keep freedom of speech and then it hink you should not be liable for what is said on your plattform.

[genericname85]

so like if you're just "enforcing law" by removing hatespeech or whatever, that's a gray area. but that's not what happens on these sites. they straight up use their plattform to psy op people. so they should be liable for the results.

[genericname85]

but we strayed quite far from the topic. i think allowing businesses to "not serve customers based on opinions" is a very dangerous precident that initiates fascism. cause that's exactly how german fascism started in the 1930s.

imagine being admitted to a hospital and not being treated cause you posted "there's only 2 genders" on twitter.

[genericname85]

that's not a world i wanna live in.

[Wallythewalrus]

I definitely get what you're saying. However, "editor" isn't mentioned in 230 as a way to lose protection. Congress actually had hearings about it. One side said, once you edit how info is distributed, by putting disclaimers on it or outright censoring it, you become a publisher and should lose all protection. The other side said, it only applies if a platform, itself, is the original source of the info or if they publish info from an outside source. Courts have ruled that editing info falls within the jurisdiction of protection under 230. As far as the SCOTUS ruling. It isn't about being black, gay, Mexican... it's about the government saying a gay couples right to marry each other, trumps a Christian's religious freedom. It would still be a rights violation if they said they won't bake them cookies because they're gay.

[Slingblade1126]

@Wallythewalrus You're being to nice to this guy! He said you don't "understand the difference between a platform provider and an editor". Neither of which exist under sec.230, which I'm assuming he's arguing about? Trust me, don't argue law with Wally. Also, don't preach about "fascism" when you obviously have no idea what the SCOTUS ruled. They actually ruled against fascism. If you want me to explain, I will.

[Dargil]

That is not what it said.. it said I cannot be compelled to make statements in violation of my religious speech. Since you are using cliche labels, how about sexist, racist, ageist, anti-artist,... Keep
em cumin.

[mommymommymommy]

I've lost all faith in the supreme court

This isn't about right vs. left, this is about right vs wrong, and they have completely shit on the country

What republicans do best

[RealMarek]

You need to read the decisions. They do not make the broad changes you say they make.

[exitseven]

They followed the Constitution and made 3 good decisions.

[backdoorman]

All good decisions in my opinion.

[Sammy786]

All good.