Comcast vs Civil Rights Day

[rapbeats]

Obama should have been more forceful about nominating a justice. He didn't have to take that bullshyt from Mitch.

yeah he did. thats the rules.

 

[rapbeats]

Chemerinsky is one of the best there is, but the argument is weak. And considering the history of the "Motivating Factor" vs. "But For" tests in other parts of the law, the hype over this case is not warranted. The disparity between the standards is not drastic enough to shake the foundations of civil rights law. I fux with Tone, but he over hyped the implications of this case.

wrong. the implications of this case are real. the fact that byron lost then one his appeal on both accounts. should tell you something. why do you think comcast is willing to go this far? they are not only trying to make byron sweat so they wont have to pay up. but they surely dont want this to become a THING with people suing the ish out of them for obvious discrimination. there are people right now probably waiting in the lobby ofa court room based on this verdict. praying they side with byron so they can too bring their discrimination case up against comcast and other big boys in different industries.

 

[ogc163]

the implications of this case are real.

Yeah its a USSC case, the implications are real. But the implications are overhyped. It is not one of the most important civil rights cases in the last 100 years as Tone stated.

the fact that byron lost then one his appeal on both accounts. should tell you something.

It tells me he went through the appeals process, what else is it supposed to tell me?

why do you think comcast is willing to go this far? they are not only trying to make byron sweat so they wont have to pay up.

There can be a variety of reasons why they are willing take it this far. Like reputation, personal vendetta, and because they have the resources to fight the case.

 

[rapbeats]

Same take away I had.

There's not enough irrefutable, concrete "proof".

Just he said, she said.

no its not. i believe there are emails some where in this one. again yall. remember Bryon lost the first time vs comcast and won vs charter. then he appealed and won vs both of them. so some court some where agrees with byron. its not he said she said. they have some level of proof.what byron is asking for is that the proof doesnt have to be super high and some exact wording like i posted in the previous post. if they get an ok for this. it means other trials like it will actually go to trial. the companies will not be able to STOP something from going to trial like they were trying to do with this case. and for the record Large companies always Run to the Federal courts/supreme court because they know they are more conservative.

 

[rapbeats]

Yeah its a USSC case, the implications are real. But the implications are overhyped. It is not one of the most important civil rights cases in the last 100 years as Tone stated.



It tells me he went through the appeals process, what else is it supposed to tell me?



There can be a variety of reasons why they are willing take it this far. Like reputation, personal vendetta, and because they have the resources to fight the case.

the fact he won the appeal is not due to he just appealed. it means some court some where in the US of A agrees with his premise. its that simple.

Remember, no one has won that kind of challenge for this law in this regard vs a company this large. doing so will set new precedent. we all know these cases are PRIMARILY based on precedent if something is even allowed to get to court and be tried(if it gets that far and the people dont settle first.) big companies dont even want you thinking you could take them to court. they want to cut all dat ish out early. lol. which means they can treat you like dog ish and you cant say ish about it. take it and keep pushing. This is why the big boy companies will push this stuff into the federal courts/supreme court. they are always looking for the most conservative gigantic business friendly judges. IF it cant get to court you could never present the evidence to possibly win the case even if you have what common people would see as compelling.

 

[ogc163]

the fact he won the appeal is not due to he just appealed. it means some court some where in the US of A agrees with his premise. its that simple.

I didn't state or imply this, he appealed and one of the Circuit courts agreed with his premise. That does not mean it is one of the most important civil right cases of the last 100 years or warrants the hype provided attached to it.

 

[rapbeats]

I didn't state or imply this, he appealed and one of the Circuit courts agreed with his premise. That does not mean it is one of the most important civil right cases of the last 100 years or warrants the hype provided attached to it.

it does merit the hype. and yes its is that important. just because most of us never heard of that law prior to this and just because we may or may not believe byron is really about black folks(might be in it for himself hiding under that blackness for help). doesnt change the facts on the ground. the fact is this, if they (comcast) wins, any future lawsuits like this even on a smaller scale will not even be able to be heard in a court of law. if you cant even bring it up. unless its 1000% perfect proof(a text message, or video, email saying those exact words.) minorities will never be able to get their due in these scenarios. If byron wins. then you will see more minorities coming out the woodworks trying to get their due.

byron brought something to light i dont care why. its here. and now everyone knows about it including other big and mid sized businesses that dont want to deal with discrimination lawsuits and people who are being discriminated against in the same or similar regard that byron is. it is that important. this kind of stuff hinders minorities from being able to make X amt of dollars as a whole in these industries because racists are already the gate keepers of almost any industry you can think of in america. this aint the 1600's when there were not alot of industries even thought of yet. its 2019 almost 2020. they got a lock on darn near every industry. it means you and i will have to go thru them at some point whether we like it or not. so you would at least want to have the law on your side to combat these fools.

 

[ogc163]

doesnt change the facts on the ground. the fact is this, if they (comcast) wins, any future lawsuits like this even on a smaller scale will not even be able to be heard in a court of law. if you cant even bring it up. unless its 1000% perfect proof(a text message, or video, email saying those exact words.) minorities will never be able to get their due in these scenarios.

What are you basing this argument on? It seems hyperbolic, but I'm willing to hear an explanation of why it's logical. The "But For" vs. "Motivating Factor" standard debate has been present amongst the circuit courts in relation to employment law, and those decisions have not shaken the foundations of employment law nor stopped suits from being heard in courts.

 

[Secure Da Bag]

Thread from TLR. Shout out to @Tyrant

Post from scoutusblog about the arguments today. Discuss.

In summary, the justices seem leaning towards ruling against the 9th court ruling that as long as the plaintiff alleges racial discrimination he can bring a case and for the case to go forward. They seem to be advocating that proving race was a factor is required before a case can proceed. But from my understanding what is stated in arguments isn't always indicative on how they can rule. They tend to challenge lawyers to see how they will argue a point and then rule opposite of how their questioning is perceived in court.

Argument analysis: Justices debate, but do not resolve, pleading standard for lawsuits alleging racial discrimination in contracts
Posted Wed, November 13th, 2019 4:10 pm by Amy Howe
This morning the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a lawsuit filed by Entertainment Studios Network, a media company owned by African American entrepreneur and entertainer Byron Allen, against cable giant Comcast. ESN and the National Association of African American-Owned Media, an organization with which ESN is affiliated, argue that Comcast violated 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, a federal law barring racial discrimination in contracts, when it declined to carry channels that ESN produced. The question before the justices centered on what ESN is required to allege for its lawsuit to go forward: Is it enough, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled, that the complaint contends that race was a “motivating factor” behind the defendant’s decision, or (as Comcast maintains) must the complaint instead assert that the decision would have been different were it not for the plaintiff’s race? After an hour of oral argument, the justices seemed likely to strike down the 9th Circuit’s ruling, but it was less clear what standard they would select to replace it. It also seemed possible that ESN’s case might survive and move forward, at least for now.

There seemed to be little support among the eight justices – Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was out with what the court’s Public Information Office described as a stomach bug, but will participate in the case – for the 9th Circuit’s decision. As Justice Elena Kagan pointed out to Erwin Chemerinsky, who argued on behalf of ESN and NAAAM, the court of appeals ruled that ESN could win its case (rather than simply advancing it) if it could show that “discriminatory intent was a factor” in Comcast’s decision not to enter into a contract with ESN. “Don’t you think,” Kagan asked Chemerinsky, “the Ninth Circuit has to be reversed?” Justice Neil Gorsuch chimed in, “Don’t you agree that the Ninth Circuit was wrong?”

The debate focused primarily on what standard (if any) should be used, but there was no clear consensus. Chemerinsky endorsed a two-tiered approach, which would allow a case to go forward as long as the plaintiff alleged that race was a motivating factor in the defendant’s decision, but would only allow him to prevail if he could show that the defendant would have made a different decision were it not for the plaintiff’s race.

But several justices regarded such an approach as problematic. Gorsuch suggested that it would be “unusual” for the Supreme Court to “apply different legal standards at different stages of the same case.” Justice Samuel Alito asked whether a case that acknowledges that it could not meet the more stringent standard “at the end of the day” should be allowed “to go forward to its inevitable doom?”

Chief Justice John Roberts regarded the difference between the two standards as “somewhat academic.” He told Miguel Estrada, who argued on behalf of Comcast, that even when there is “racial animus” during the process of negotiating a contract, it could still be hard to show that the defendant would have reached a different result were it not for the plaintiff’s race. At the same time, Roberts continued, “it’s also hard to ignore the part” that racism may have played, and it “may be a reasonable allegation” that the racism continued, even if it only showed up clearly at one point in the process.

Other justices seemed to seize on this point, suggesting that the answer is not a standard that focuses on whether racism was a “motivating factor” or the primary influence on the defendant’s decision, but instead a more holistic look at the plaintiff’s contentions. Kagan acknowledged that “you don’t want people throwing around baseless allegations,” but she also emphasized that courts would be deciding whether the case can move forward before fact-finding, at which point the “plaintiff isn’t going to know everything else that could have been in the defendant’s mind.” The solution, she proposed, would be to allow the complaint to proceed “as long as the plaintiff comes forward with sufficient allegations” to show that racism was involved in the defendant’s decision.

Justice Stephen Breyer seemed to agree. He asked Morgan Ratner, the assistant to the U.S. solicitor general who argued on behalf of the federal government in support of Comcast, “If we’re talking about pleadings, what’s the difference?” If the plaintiff provides evidence, Breyer queried, that the defendant “used race improperly to deny” him the contract, “who cares whether they say it was a motivating factor or whether they say it was a but-for?”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh echoed this thought. Stressing that discrimination cases “are not usually thrown out at the motion-to-dismiss stage,” and that you instead “usually have the ultimate legal test in mind,” he asked Chemerinsky to weigh in on a test that would “look at the facts alleged in the complaint to see” “whether you could plausibly infer from those facts” that the plaintiff could prevail.

Kavanaugh reiterated that “it’s pretty rare to throw out” discrimination complaints after a motion to dismiss, observing that the complaint only needs to pass “a pretty low bar” – suggesting that ESN’s complaint would survive even if the Supreme Court were to vacate the 9th Circuit’s ruling in its favor. And Alito suggested that, even if ESN’s complaint were subjected to a tougher standard, the company had still alleged enough facts for its case to be able to move forward.

Today’s oral argument focused almost entirely on the text, history and operation of Section 1981, with relatively little discussion of the broader implications of the court’s ruling. But the business community and civil rights groups are watching this case closely. Estrada touched briefly on the potential consequences of a ruling in favor of ESN, telling the justices that if the 9th Circuit’s ruling is affirmed, it will be “vastly easier” for employees to obtain damages under Section 1981 than under the “carefully tailored regime” that Congress created in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for employment discrimination cases. For their part, ESN and its supporters told the justices in their briefs that a ruling for Comcast would “shut the doors to the federal courts” for many African American businesses.

A decision in the case is expected by summer

 

[Secure Da Bag]

@Nicole0416 @Stringer Cochran thoughts?

 

[Nicole0416_718_929_646212]

@Nicole0416 @Stringer Cochran thoughts?

Higher Learning

I don’t like this section. Can we move this over to The Root? Been reading through this thread and about the case though.

 

[88m3]

I like how OP put DACA down

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Byron Allen speaks with Roland Martin AFTER his argument at the Supreme Court

 

[Secure Da Bag]

This might be the 1st time I've seen Roland Martin this quiet for this long.

 

[Meta Reign]

Byron Allen speaks with Roland Martin AFTER his argument at the Supreme Court

Roland Martin is a certified c00n. Dude spent the whole time trying to defend Comcast. Allen articulated his point well, Martin completely ignored it.