SCOTUS rules against Biden student loan handout

[Ken]

The AP style book change was one that came out of a political movement after the BLM riots of 2020. It is obviously aligned with a political movement, and choosing to follow it shows personal alignment with that political movement.

Do you capitalize Amish? or Hispanic? or Asian or Jewish or Mennonite?

Yes, and they have been for a long time. Whereas the custom was not to capitalise colours. Is there a particular reason to start?

Amish, Hispanic, Jewish, and Mennonite are all ethnic terms. Asian refers to a continent. African-American is obviously something that should be capitalised as it is two continents.

Black and white, on the other hand, are common nouns and are not ethnic groups, and it has never been the custom to capitalise them in reference to race or colour.

Words have multiple meanings. White and black are colors but they are also racial categories or designations of ethnic ancestry. Black people are not actually black and White people are not actually white. But you knew that.

This is nothing new. The NYT began to capitalize the N in Negro back in 1930 which is simply black in Spanish. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesm ... eNumber=20

It seems appropriate to be consistent in how we refer to a person's ancestry: Asian, Indigenous, European, African, Muslim, and yes Black and White.

But you do you.

[HondurasKeiser]

No, actually every other country limits Judicial tenure. The US is the only one that is different in that it doesn't.

I've always been concerned about unaccountable life-long tenure to public positions of immense responsibility. Whether we are talking about Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Clarence Thomas or anyone else.

Yes, so what? Our system works just fine and I see few if any modern examples of justices past their prime. There are no Feinsteins or Fettermans on the Court nor have there been that I can recall.
Additionally, a little lexical and legal research shows that yours is a misreading of Article III. The “good behavior” phrasing comes in from the Common Law and means lifetime tenure in modern parlance.

That is the way that it is interpreted. But it doesn't explicitly say that and hasn't actually ever been litigated.

Well yes it does explicitly say that because what that phrase meant at the time of its writing and were it to be litigated who do you suppose would make the final call?

[ohio jones]

I think it’s that way in the current AP stylebook. Sometimes I do and sometimes I don’t. It depends on my level of energy.

i wonder what the ap stylebook has to say about rationing uppercase letters so they can be expended when referring to THOMAS SOWELL.

[ohio jones]

One thing we do know is that if Trump is re-elected he has already announced that he will not appoint any Blacks or Hispanics to the Supreme Court.

It isn't about that. It is about the fact that Trump announced he will only consider white people for the Supreme Court. Which seems prejudicial to me.

When and where did Trump say either of these things? I wasn’t able to find anything like this.

In 2017 Trump released a list of 26 potential Supreme Court nominees and announced that he would ONLY be picking justices from this list. Here is his 2017 list: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/br ... ourt-list/

On that list there was one Hispanic justice (Federico Moreno) and one Black justice (Robert Young) who are ages 71 and 72, respectively. So absolutely everyone involved knew those were throw-away names and not candidates who Trump would actually ever pick for SCOTUS. No president ever nominates anyone over age 70 for the supreme court. The remainder of the list was composed of 20 white men and 4 white women. So it was clear to everyone involved that Trump was announcing he was only going to be picking Justices from a list of 20 white men and 4 white women. Which he did. His 3 picks came straight from that list.

He actually announced his list before the 2016 elections saying, If you elect me I will select my SCOTUS nominees only from this list.

In other words, the supposed discrimination in his announcement was de facto and not de jure. Which makes it perfectly legal, as you state in the other thread.

[Ken]

When and where did Trump say either of these things? I wasn’t able to find anything like this.

In 2017 Trump released a list of 26 potential Supreme Court nominees and announced that he would ONLY be picking justices from this list. Here is his 2017 list: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/br ... ourt-list/

On that list there was one Hispanic justice (Federico Moreno) and one Black justice (Robert Young) who are ages 71 and 72, respectively. So absolutely everyone involved knew those were throw-away names and not candidates who Trump would actually ever pick for SCOTUS. No president ever nominates anyone over age 70 for the supreme court. The remainder of the list was composed of 20 white men and 4 white women. So it was clear to everyone involved that Trump was announcing he was only going to be picking Justices from a list of 20 white men and 4 white women. Which he did. His 3 picks came straight from that list.

He actually announced his list before the 2016 elections saying, If you elect me I will select my SCOTUS nominees only from this list.

In other words, the supposed discrimination in his announcement was de facto and not de jure. Which makes it perfectly legal, as you state in the other thread.

I never claimed Trump was doing anything illegal in this instance. But yes.

[Josh]

Words have multiple meanings. White and black are colors but they are also racial categories or designations of ethnic ancestry. Black people are not actually black and White people are not actually white. But you knew that.

This is nothing new. The NYT began to capitalize the N in Negro back in 1930 which is simply black in Spanish. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesm ... eNumber=20

It seems appropriate to be consistent in how we refer to a person's ancestry: Asian, Indigenous, European, African, Muslim, and yes Black and White.

But you do you.

White and black don't refer to ancestry, geography, and aren't ethnic descriptors. Some people whose families have been in Africa for half a millenium are white people, and some people whose families have been in Europe for centuries are black people. They are literally just ways to describe colour.

And it wasn't seen as necessary to capitalise black (but not white) in the AP style guide until the 2020 BLM riots, so capitalising it is clearly just a political statement. It would be nice if you folks who choose to capitalise it could at least be honest about why you do so, instead of hiding behind things like "I'm being consistent" or "I follow the AP style guide".

[Ken]

Words have multiple meanings. White and black are colors but they are also racial categories or designations of ethnic ancestry. Black people are not actually black and White people are not actually white. But you knew that.

This is nothing new. The NYT began to capitalize the N in Negro back in 1930 which is simply black in Spanish. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesm ... eNumber=20

It seems appropriate to be consistent in how we refer to a person's ancestry: Asian, Indigenous, European, African, Muslim, and yes Black and White.

But you do you.

White and black don't refer to ancestry, geography, and aren't ethnic descriptors. Some people whose families have been in Africa for half a millenium are white people, and some people whose families have been in Europe for centuries are black people. They are literally just ways to describe colour.

And it wasn't seen as necessary to capitalise black (but not white) in the AP style guide until the 2020 BLM riots, so capitalising it is clearly just a political statement. It would be nice if you folks who choose to capitalise it could at least be honest about why you do so, instead of hiding behind things like "I'm being consistent" or "I follow the AP style guide".

All living languages change and evolve. Only dead languages don't. Accusing others of dishonesty or of having motives that seem to offend you isn't a good look Josh.

But like I said, you do you.