Has the Coalition for TJ (or any other groups) considered another lawsuit?

[Anonymous]

And where are the froshmore #s? I haven't seen them shared anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

You literally picked the one week that had so many dissents issued that scotusblog wrote and article about how unusual it was:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/denials-of-review-in-five-cases-draw-dissents-from-various-justices/

Something like 10% of denials of cert have a dissent filed by a justice.

They just said it was "far from mundane", not that dissents are "rare". Citation on the 10%?

Alito and Thomas are corrupt clowns in a corrupt court. Their partisan dissent only gives more validity to the circuit court opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

You literally picked the one week that had so many dissents issued that scotusblog wrote and article about how unusual it was:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/denials-of-review-in-five-cases-draw-dissents-from-various-justices/

Something like 10% of denials of cert have a dissent filed by a justice.

They just said it was "far from mundane", not that dissents are "rare". Citation on the 10%?

Alito and Thomas are corrupt clowns in a corrupt court. Their partisan dissent only gives more validity to the circuit court opinion.

That was a post prior to that.
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

They're not corrupt just because you don't like their rulings.
I won't defend Thomas but in order for there to be corruption you have to point to a decision or opinion that you think is improperly influenced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

You literally picked the one week that had so many dissents issued that scotusblog wrote and article about how unusual it was:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/denials-of-review-in-five-cases-draw-dissents-from-various-justices/

Something like 10% of denials of cert have a dissent filed by a justice.

They just said it was "far from mundane", not that dissents are "rare". Citation on the 10%?

Alito and Thomas are corrupt clowns in a corrupt court. Their partisan dissent only gives more validity to the circuit court opinion.

That was a post prior to that.
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

They're not corrupt just because you don't like their rulings.
I won't defend Thomas but in order for there to be corruption you have to point to a decision or opinion that you think is improperly influenced.

I call them corrupt simply because they are corrupt.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-alito-94de3ccad328b421924ef3cd4696da98
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-complaints-sparked-resignation-fears-scotus
https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court
https://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-action/letters/crew-raises-alarm-to-chief-justice-roberts-over-alito-misconduct/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

You literally picked the one week that had so many dissents issued that scotusblog wrote and article about how unusual it was:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/denials-of-review-in-five-cases-draw-dissents-from-various-justices/

Something like 10% of denials of cert have a dissent filed by a justice.

They just said it was "far from mundane", not that dissents are "rare". Citation on the 10%?

Alito and Thomas are corrupt clowns in a corrupt court. Their partisan dissent only gives more validity to the circuit court opinion.

by your own admission unequivocally, sotomayor, kegan and jackson are bigger clowns, then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

You literally picked the one week that had so many dissents issued that scotusblog wrote and article about how unusual it was:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/denials-of-review-in-five-cases-draw-dissents-from-various-justices/

Something like 10% of denials of cert have a dissent filed by a justice.

They just said it was "far from mundane", not that dissents are "rare". Citation on the 10%?

Alito and Thomas are corrupt clowns in a corrupt court. Their partisan dissent only gives more validity to the circuit court opinion.

by your own admission unequivocally, sotomayor, kegan and jackson are bigger clowns, then?

No, I clearly did not say that.

Alito and Thomas are clowns because they are corrupt, RWNJ hacks. Not because they wrote a dissent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

You literally picked the one week that had so many dissents issued that scotusblog wrote and article about how unusual it was:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/denials-of-review-in-five-cases-draw-dissents-from-various-justices/

Something like 10% of denials of cert have a dissent filed by a justice.

They just said it was "far from mundane", not that dissents are "rare". Citation on the 10%?

Alito and Thomas are corrupt clowns in a corrupt court. Their partisan dissent only gives more validity to the circuit court opinion.

by your own admission unequivocally, sotomayor, kegan and jackson are bigger clowns, then?

No, I clearly did not say that.

Alito and Thomas are clowns because they are corrupt, RWNJ hacks. Not because they wrote a dissent.

Exactly, and the court had found no evidence of harm done since the process is race-blind and Asian enrollment remained at a historic high, so the case was laughed out of court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

You literally picked the one week that had so many dissents issued that scotusblog wrote and article about how unusual it was:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/denials-of-review-in-five-cases-draw-dissents-from-various-justices/

Something like 10% of denials of cert have a dissent filed by a justice.

They just said it was "far from mundane", not that dissents are "rare". Citation on the 10%?

Alito and Thomas are corrupt clowns in a corrupt court. Their partisan dissent only gives more validity to the circuit court opinion.

That was a post prior to that.
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

They're not corrupt just because you don't like their rulings.
I won't defend Thomas but in order for there to be corruption you have to point to a decision or opinion that you think is improperly influenced.

I call them corrupt simply because they are corrupt.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-alito-94de3ccad328b421924ef3cd4696da98
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-complaints-sparked-resignation-fears-scotus
https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court
https://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-action/letters/crew-raises-alarm-to-chief-justice-roberts-over-alito-misconduct/

None of this is corruption.
Alito's exercise of free speech by flying a flag is not corruption.
Trump talking to Alito about somebody he will about to hire is not corruption.
I won't defend Thomas but his votes are about the most predictable votes on the supreme court. The allegation seems to be that they were effectively paying him to not retire.
And NONE of these touch on the affirmative action case.

Sotomayor gets money from colleges in speaking fees.
Colleges and libraries are also prodded to buy Sotomayor's books.
This includes colleges that submitted amicus briefs to the affirmative action case.
Should she have recused herself from the affirmative action case?

Kagan works for Harvard as a paid visiting professor, should she have recused herself from the affirmative action case?

Your standards for what constitutes corruption seems to depend on whether or not you agree with their rulings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

You literally picked the one week that had so many dissents issued that scotusblog wrote and article about how unusual it was:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/denials-of-review-in-five-cases-draw-dissents-from-various-justices/

Something like 10% of denials of cert have a dissent filed by a justice.

They just said it was "far from mundane", not that dissents are "rare". Citation on the 10%?

Alito and Thomas are corrupt clowns in a corrupt court. Their partisan dissent only gives more validity to the circuit court opinion.

by your own admission unequivocally, sotomayor, kegan and jackson are bigger clowns, then?

No, I clearly did not say that.

Alito and Thomas are clowns because they are corrupt, RWNJ hacks. Not because they wrote a dissent.

Exactly, and the court had found no evidence of harm done since the process is race-blind and Asian enrollment remained at a historic high, so the case was laughed out of court.

And as soon as the court takes the case and overturns the 4th circuit, you will suddenly decide that there are 6 corrupt justices on the court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

You literally picked the one week that had so many dissents issued that scotusblog wrote and article about how unusual it was:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/denials-of-review-in-five-cases-draw-dissents-from-various-justices/

Something like 10% of denials of cert have a dissent filed by a justice.

They just said it was "far from mundane", not that dissents are "rare". Citation on the 10%?

Alito and Thomas are corrupt clowns in a corrupt court. Their partisan dissent only gives more validity to the circuit court opinion.

by your own admission unequivocally, sotomayor, kegan and jackson are bigger clowns, then?

No, I clearly did not say that.

Alito and Thomas are clowns because they are corrupt, RWNJ hacks. Not because they wrote a dissent.

Exactly, and the court had found no evidence of harm done since the process is race-blind and Asian enrollment remained at a historic high, so the case was laughed out of court.

And as soon as the court takes the case and overturns the 4th circuit, you will suddenly decide that there are 6 corrupt justices on the court.

Nope! Even the extreme partisan hacks on SCOTUS wouldn't touch it because it has 0 merit just like the old process which people had gamed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

I know! Thomas takes obvious bribes even, and nobody seems to care.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

You literally picked the one week that had so many dissents issued that scotusblog wrote and article about how unusual it was:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/denials-of-review-in-five-cases-draw-dissents-from-various-justices/

Something like 10% of denials of cert have a dissent filed by a justice.

They just said it was "far from mundane", not that dissents are "rare". Citation on the 10%?

Alito and Thomas are corrupt clowns in a corrupt court. Their partisan dissent only gives more validity to the circuit court opinion.

That was a post prior to that.
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

They're not corrupt just because you don't like their rulings.
I won't defend Thomas but in order for there to be corruption you have to point to a decision or opinion that you think is improperly influenced.

I call them corrupt simply because they are corrupt.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-alito-94de3ccad328b421924ef3cd4696da98
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-complaints-sparked-resignation-fears-scotus
https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court
https://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-action/letters/crew-raises-alarm-to-chief-justice-roberts-over-alito-misconduct/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

You literally picked the one week that had so many dissents issued that scotusblog wrote and article about how unusual it was:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/denials-of-review-in-five-cases-draw-dissents-from-various-justices/

Something like 10% of denials of cert have a dissent filed by a justice.

They just said it was "far from mundane", not that dissents are "rare". Citation on the 10%?

Alito and Thomas are corrupt clowns in a corrupt court. Their partisan dissent only gives more validity to the circuit court opinion.

by your own admission unequivocally, sotomayor, kegan and jackson are bigger clowns, then?

No, I clearly did not say that.

Alito and Thomas are clowns because they are corrupt, RWNJ hacks. Not because they wrote a dissent.

Exactly, and the court had found no evidence of harm done since the process is race-blind and Asian enrollment remained at a historic high, so the case was laughed out of court.

sockpuppeting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

You literally picked the one week that had so many dissents issued that scotusblog wrote and article about how unusual it was:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/denials-of-review-in-five-cases-draw-dissents-from-various-justices/

Something like 10% of denials of cert have a dissent filed by a justice.

They just said it was "far from mundane", not that dissents are "rare". Citation on the 10%?

Alito and Thomas are corrupt clowns in a corrupt court. Their partisan dissent only gives more validity to the circuit court opinion.

by your own admission unequivocally, sotomayor, kegan and jackson are bigger clowns, then?

No, I clearly did not say that.

Alito and Thomas are clowns because they are corrupt, RWNJ hacks. Not because they wrote a dissent.

Exactly, and the court had found no evidence of harm done since the process is race-blind and Asian enrollment remained at a historic high, so the case was laughed out of court.

sockpuppeting!

it might be a bot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

You literally picked the one week that had so many dissents issued that scotusblog wrote and article about how unusual it was:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/denials-of-review-in-five-cases-draw-dissents-from-various-justices/

Something like 10% of denials of cert have a dissent filed by a justice.

They just said it was "far from mundane", not that dissents are "rare". Citation on the 10%?

Alito and Thomas are corrupt clowns in a corrupt court. Their partisan dissent only gives more validity to the circuit court opinion.

by your own admission unequivocally, sotomayor, kegan and jackson are bigger clowns, then?

No, I clearly did not say that.

Alito and Thomas are clowns because they are corrupt, RWNJ hacks. Not because they wrote a dissent.

Exactly, and the court had found no evidence of harm done since the process is race-blind and Asian enrollment remained at a historic high, so the case was laughed out of court.

And as soon as the court takes the case and overturns the 4th circuit, you will suddenly decide that there are 6 corrupt justices on the court.

Nobody will take that case. It's a loser. Even our partisan corrupt SCOTUS wouldn't touch it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

You literally picked the one week that had so many dissents issued that scotusblog wrote and article about how unusual it was:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/denials-of-review-in-five-cases-draw-dissents-from-various-justices/

Something like 10% of denials of cert have a dissent filed by a justice.

They just said it was "far from mundane", not that dissents are "rare". Citation on the 10%?

Alito and Thomas are corrupt clowns in a corrupt court. Their partisan dissent only gives more validity to the circuit court opinion.

by your own admission unequivocally, sotomayor, kegan and jackson are bigger clowns, then?

No, I clearly did not say that.

Alito and Thomas are clowns because they are corrupt, RWNJ hacks. Not because they wrote a dissent.

Exactly, and the court had found no evidence of harm done since the process is race-blind and Asian enrollment remained at a historic high, so the case was laughed out of court.

sockpuppeting!

I's factual.