U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday called for a response from a Virginia school

[Anonymous]

Repeating your lies repeatedly doesn’t make your political stunt valid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this not portend that, one way or the other, the racially motivated change in the TJ admission policy is eventually going to be invalidated by the Supreme Court? It’s a conservative court and, while Roberts sometimes sides with the liberals, the fact that he got the matter on the “shadow docket” seems to suggest he has some sympathy for the plaintiffs.

The fact that he got the stay application is just a reflection that he is assigned to applications from the 4th circuit.

The fact that he asked for a response is an indication that someone on the court is taking the application seriously but doesn’t necessarily indicate which way they will break on the stay.

However, most of these (99%?) emergency applications are rejected summarily so the fact that this case (vacating stay) is going to be reviewed is a sign.

The partisan hacks the GOP has appointed to the court love this kind of thing.

Sure, only the justices on the Supreme Court appointed by the GOP are partisan...

They seem to have more justices with spouses trying to overthrow the government.

And credible allegations that were swept under the rug to ram their nomination through the Senate makes me question legitimacy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else hope FCPS loses and responds just just pulling the county out of TJ?

+1000. It’s a disgrace they allow so much of their bandwidth to be devoted to fighting about a single school. So many other schools get ignored completely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this not portend that, one way or the other, the racially motivated change in the TJ admission policy is eventually going to be invalidated by the Supreme Court? It’s a conservative court and, while Roberts sometimes sides with the liberals, the fact that he got the matter on the “shadow docket” seems to suggest he has some sympathy for the plaintiffs.

The fact that he got the stay application is just a reflection that he is assigned to applications from the 4th circuit.

The fact that he asked for a response is an indication that someone on the court is taking the application seriously but doesn’t necessarily indicate which way they will break on the stay.

However, most of these (99%?) emergency applications are rejected summarily so the fact that this case (vacating stay) is going to be reviewed is a sign.

The partisan hacks the GOP has appointed to the court love this kind of thing.

Sure, only the justices on the Supreme Court appointed by the GOP are partisan...

They seem to have more justices with spouses trying to overthrow the government.

And credible allegations that were swept under the rug to ram their nomination through the Senate makes me question legitimacy

Yep. One on a stolen seat, one on sexual assault allegations, and one rammed through after violating their own bullish!t rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this not portend that, one way or the other, the racially motivated change in the TJ admission policy is eventually going to be invalidated by the Supreme Court? It’s a conservative court and, while Roberts sometimes sides with the liberals, the fact that he got the matter on the “shadow docket” seems to suggest he has some sympathy for the plaintiffs.

The fact that he got the stay application is just a reflection that he is assigned to applications from the 4th circuit.

The fact that he asked for a response is an indication that someone on the court is taking the application seriously but doesn’t necessarily indicate which way they will break on the stay.

However, most of these (99%?) emergency applications are rejected summarily so the fact that this case (vacating stay) is going to be reviewed is a sign.

The partisan hacks the GOP has appointed to the court love this kind of thing.

Sure, only the justices on the Supreme Court appointed by the GOP are partisan...

They seem to have more justices with spouses trying to overthrow the government.

And credible allegations that were swept under the rug to ram their nomination through the Senate makes me question legitimacy

Yep. One on a stolen seat, one on sexual assault allegations, and one rammed through after violating their own bullish!t rule.

You mad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this not portend that, one way or the other, the racially motivated change in the TJ admission policy is eventually going to be invalidated by the Supreme Court? It’s a conservative court and, while Roberts sometimes sides with the liberals, the fact that he got the matter on the “shadow docket” seems to suggest he has some sympathy for the plaintiffs.

The fact that he got the stay application is just a reflection that he is assigned to applications from the 4th circuit.

The fact that he asked for a response is an indication that someone on the court is taking the application seriously but doesn’t necessarily indicate which way they will break on the stay.

However, most of these (99%?) emergency applications are rejected summarily so the fact that this case (vacating stay) is going to be reviewed is a sign.

The partisan hacks the GOP has appointed to the court love this kind of thing.

Sure, only the justices on the Supreme Court appointed by the GOP are partisan...

They seem to have more justices with spouses trying to overthrow the government.

And credible allegations that were swept under the rug to ram their nomination through the Senate makes me question legitimacy

There was nothing credible. No way you get to bring up high school for someone of that age. There is no way to tell if the person is lying or has made it up. Frankly many of our memories that far back are not correct and/or made up. That's just to far to take seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this not portend that, one way or the other, the racially motivated change in the TJ admission policy is eventually going to be invalidated by the Supreme Court? It’s a conservative court and, while Roberts sometimes sides with the liberals, the fact that he got the matter on the “shadow docket” seems to suggest he has some sympathy for the plaintiffs.

The fact that he got the stay application is just a reflection that he is assigned to applications from the 4th circuit.

The fact that he asked for a response is an indication that someone on the court is taking the application seriously but doesn’t necessarily indicate which way they will break on the stay.

However, most of these (99%?) emergency applications are rejected summarily so the fact that this case (vacating stay) is going to be reviewed is a sign.

The partisan hacks the GOP has appointed to the court love this kind of thing.

Sure, only the justices on the Supreme Court appointed by the GOP are partisan...

They seem to have more justices with spouses trying to overthrow the government.

And credible allegations that were swept under the rug to ram their nomination through the Senate makes me question legitimacy

Yep. One on a stolen seat, one on sexual assault allegations, and one rammed through after violating their own bullish!t rule.

Yup. And are will defend all three appointments to the death.

[Anonymous]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042522zor_k536.pdf

Nothing from SCOTUS today. Starting to open up the possibility that the Class of 2025 could be seated prior to Roberts ruling on the stay order, which would render the motion irrelevant and would leave the matter to the Fourth Circuit as concerns the Class of 2027.

Wholly reasonable that decisions could be released this Friday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042522zor_k536.pdf

Nothing from SCOTUS today. Starting to open up the possibility that the Class of 2025 could be seated prior to Roberts ruling on the stay order, which would render the motion irrelevant and would leave the matter to the Fourth Circuit as concerns the Class of 2027.

Wholly reasonable that decisions could be released this Friday.

Yessss-screw C4TJ. Let’s gooooooooo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042522zor_k536.pdf

Nothing from SCOTUS today. Starting to open up the possibility that the Class of 2025 could be seated prior to Roberts ruling on the stay order, which would render the motion irrelevant and would leave the matter to the Fourth Circuit as concerns the Class of 2027.

Wholly reasonable that decisions could be released this Friday.

2026, rather.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042522zor_k536.pdf

Nothing from SCOTUS today. Starting to open up the possibility that the Class of 2025 could be seated prior to Roberts ruling on the stay order, which would render the motion irrelevant and would leave the matter to the Fourth Circuit as concerns the Class of 2027.

Wholly reasonable that decisions could be released this Friday.

Yessss-screw C4TJ. Let’s gooooooooo

+1

My kid just wants to know one way or another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042522zor_k536.pdf

Nothing from SCOTUS today. Starting to open up the possibility that the Class of 2025 could be seated prior to Roberts ruling on the stay order, which would render the motion irrelevant and would leave the matter to the Fourth Circuit as concerns the Class of 2027.

Wholly reasonable that decisions could be released this Friday.

Yessss-screw C4TJ. Let’s gooooooooo

+1

My kid just wants to know one way or another.

It's l like C4TJ is bent on ruining this for everyone if they don't get their way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042522zor_k536.pdf

Nothing from SCOTUS today. Starting to open up the possibility that the Class of 2025 could be seated prior to Roberts ruling on the stay order, which would render the motion irrelevant and would leave the matter to the Fourth Circuit as concerns the Class of 2027.

Wholly reasonable that decisions could be released this Friday.

Yessss-screw C4TJ. Let’s gooooooooo

+1

My kid just wants to know one way or another.

It's l like C4TJ is bent on ruining this for everyone if they don't get their way.

C4TJ can go to hell. They don't care about any of these kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

They use facially neutral proxies for race. This is clear and not under dispute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042522zor_k536.pdf

Nothing from SCOTUS today. Starting to open up the possibility that the Class of 2025 could be seated prior to Roberts ruling on the stay order, which would render the motion irrelevant and would leave the matter to the Fourth Circuit as concerns the Class of 2027.

Wholly reasonable that decisions could be released this Friday.

Yessss-screw C4TJ. Let’s gooooooooo

+1

My kid just wants to know one way or another.

It's l like C4TJ is bent on ruining this for everyone if they don't get their way.

C4TJ can go to hell. They don't care about any of these kids.

Nope. Just trying to score points for the GOP.