Whyte Flopper Guys / Gals... Cannot Answer "...Research shows that Black-women-founded companies have received far less than even ONE PERCENT of all venture-capital funding in recent years...."

Okay, so tonight, the parade of dumb Tangerine appointee opinions rolls. . . ever onward -- in Florida.

The ultra-right panel of the Eleventh Circuit (two of three on the panel were appointed by Trump) just held that some whyte gals and guys whining about a $20,000 GIFT / grant program, run by a private VC fund -- designed to address long term discrimination in venture funding levels / outcomes -- involving businesses owned by women of color. . . is invidious reverse discrimination.

Preposterous. Never mind that the program is essentially a gift giving (entirely voluntary; unenforceable by the donee). Never mind that whyte owned businesses receive billions daily, nation-wide -- in venture funding, where women of color are not even invited to make a formal, in person pitch. Never mind that these "whyte plaintiffs" cannot even show that they APPLIED for one of the gifts.

Never mind all of that -- as the dissent cogently points out. . . the Eleventh Circuit rewards these "silly flopping whiners". Here's the better of the argument, from the dissent (and the one that will almost certainly prevail at the Supremes):

. . .No one doubts the sincerity of an Arsenal (soccer) player’s desire to beat Tottenham. But he can’t be allowed to try to win by flopping on the field, faking an injury near Tottenham’s goal. For those not in the know, the object of flopping is to manufacture a foul that the player hasn’t actually experienced to manipulate the referee into inappropriately exercising his power to award a penalty kick in the box, where it’s likely to result in a goal. Referees’ vigilance prevents players who have a sincere desire to defeat their opponents -- but who try to do so through manufactured fouls -- from commandeering referees to improperly exercise their adjudicatory authority to award unwarranted penalty kicks.

Article III’s standing requirement -- which comes from the Constitution’s limitation on the Judiciary to hear only “[c]ases” and “[c]ontroversies” -- prevents the legal version of flopping. . . .

None of American Alliance’s members have [even] applied for the Fearless Strivers Grant Contest. So [per force] they haven’t been rejected and can’t claim they’ve already suffered an injury. . . .

Yes it will be appealed to the Supremes, and in the mean time, the VC firm -- called Fearless Fund, here. . . will restructure the gifting so that there is no visible version of color vetting.

These are clear "expressive elements": the idea of PRIVATE gift-giving for social purposes. The panel's cramped insistence on the application being an "enforced contract" places the form well over the substance. It will fail.

The VC firm absolutely has the right to make charitable gifts to anyone it chooses (that's core First Amendment activity) -- and if whyte ppl do decide to formally make applications. . . the VC will of course consider them, and likely -- and properly. . . refer them on, to. . . Goldman Sachs. Where their billions await. This is. . . $20,000. Damn.

So it goes -- this is a. . . nothing burger from some far right Trump appointees. Sheesh -- out.

नमस्ते