Is the Supreme Courtroom Actually That Divided? The Information Say No.
by Billy Binion, Motive, June 5, 2025.
Excerpt:
The gist is easy. That situation centered “on what seems to many to be an existential risk to democracy,” the journal wrote, which is “the far-right shift of the Supreme Courtroom, and the conservative motion’s plans to commandeer it.”
That critique has continued for a while now. Some choices immediately from the Courtroom assist present, as soon as once more, why it’s neither truthful nor correct.
First up was Ames v. Ohio Division of Youth Providers, wherein the justices reversed a decrease courtroom choice and sided with a lady who mentioned she was the sufferer of reverse discrimination, ruling that members of a majority group wouldn’t have to clear a better bar to show such claims. The opinion, written by Jackson, was unanimous.
Right here’s the cash quote from Justice Jackson’s opinion:
The Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule requires plaintiffs who’re members of a majority group to bear an extra burden at the first step. However the textual content of Title VII’s disparate-treatment
provision attracts no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. The supply focuses on people quite than teams, barring discrimination towards “any particular person” due to protected traits. Congress left no room for courts to impose particular necessities on majority-group plaintiffs alone.
DRH remark: I disagree with the idea of “reverse discrimination.” It’s discrimination, plain and easy.
Is the ABA’s Accreditation Monopoly Coming to an Finish?
by Jonathan H. Adler, Civitas Institute, June 2, 2025.
Excerpts:
The American Bar Affiliation (ABA) is the nation’s largest legal professionals’ group. Whereas representing solely a small fraction of legal professionals, additionally it is the only accrediting physique for regulation colleges. Whereas universities usually are accredited by regional accrediting organizations, the ABA’s Part of Authorized Schooling and Admissions to the Bar is the one recreation on the town. Federal scholar loans are solely out there to accredited establishments, and the overwhelming majority of states require a level from an ABA-accredited college to take the bar examination. Might this quickly change?
As the price of authorized schooling continues to rise and technological adjustments threaten to remodel the supply of authorized companies, the ABA’s de facto monopoly on authorized accreditation is beneath siege. Texas and Florida, the states with the third and fourth-most legal professionals within the nation, are each contemplating whether or not to cease requiring bar candidates to have attended an ABA-accredited college. On the identical time, the Trump Administration is pushing to develop accreditation choices. An April Government Order directed the Division of Schooling to step up scrutiny of present accrediting establishments whereas concurrently expediting approval of latest accreditors in order “to extend competitors and accountability in selling high-quality, high-value tutorial applications centered on scholar outcomes.”
And:
Whether or not the ABA sees itself as a cartel immediately, a lot of its accreditation conduct aligns with what a self-interested cartel would do. Accordingly, lots of the ABA’s accreditation necessities give attention to pricey inputs, such because the variety of books within the library or the variety of full-time, tenured school, that haven’t any demonstrated relationship to a scholar’s means to cross the bar or change into an efficient lawyer. These necessities, nonetheless, have helped inflate the price of acquiring a regulation diploma and stifled innovation in authorized schooling.
Nathan Fielder’s 737 Stunt Concerned Elaborate Workaround of Ridiculous 1,500-Hour Rule
by Christian Britschgi, Motive, June 5, 2025.
Excerpt:
What might be mentioned for Fielder’s thought is that it might be at the very least as efficient because the 1,500-hour rule (which is to say, in no way) and far less expensive.
No different nation on the earth requires airline pilots to rack up as a lot flight time because the U.S. at the moment does.
Neither the Federal Aviation Administration (which regulates aviation security) nor the Nationwide Transportation Security Board (which investigates crashes) has discovered anyrelationship between the 1,500-hour rule and improved security.
(The 2 pilots within the Colgan catastrophe notably had over 1,500 hours of expertise every.)
Critics cost that the 1,500-hour rule reduces security by forcing pilots to spend limitless hours performing routine flights on the expense of time spent coaching in additional productive simulators.
Regional airways complain that it’s made recruiting pilots far more tough, resulting in a scarcity of pilots and lowered regional airline service.
DRH remark: A greater method to practice pilots, on a profit and price per hour foundation, is to have them fly simulators for lots of hours. Why? As a result of simulators can simulate. That’s, they will put the trainee in an emergency state of affairs that he most likely won’t ever see in his 1,500 flight hours. And, furthermore, it may possibly accomplish that for a lot of emergency conditions. This level was made to a great pal of mine by a retired American Airways pilot who teaches trainees.
The Mediscare Marketing campaign, CBO Model
Editorial, Wall Avenue Journal, June 5, 2025 (June 6 print model.)
Excerpts:
Begin with CBO’s estimate that 5.2 million able-bodied adults on Medicaid would lose protection owing to the invoice’s work necessities. This contradicts the Democratic declare that few able-bodied folks on Medicaid don’t work. However in any case, the work requirement might spur some to search out gainful non-public employment that gives medical health insurance. That’s one laudable purpose of the invoice.
DRH remark: It seems from this quote that the CBO assumed that none of those able-bodied adults would get jobs. That’s wonderful. It’s onerous to imagine that the CBO could be so dense. I haven’t checked the CBO examine. I’ll later.
The CBO forecast additionally consists of 1.4 million undocumented migrants who would lose protection, primarily as a result of the invoice reduces federal matching funds for states that reach Medicaid to illegals. The invoice additionally bars ObamaCare subsidies for a lot of non-permanent immigrants and asylum seekers, which CBO estimates would scale back protection by a million.
DRH remark: That is good, not unhealthy. I’ve all the time advocated, together with considerably increasing the variety of immigrants allowed, that the federal government not subsidize their well being care and/or medical health insurance. And no matter the federal government does about authorized immigration, it shouldn’t subsidize well being care or medical health insurance for unlawful immigrants.
Word: The accompanying image was carried out by ChatGPT.