|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
What a quote. There is a reason they rewrote the thing three times just to get it past judicial muster. And just barely. I’m a amateur historian, but I don’t think this one going to play well in the history books.
|
On June 27 2018 07:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 07:44 NewSunshine wrote:On June 27 2018 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 07:18 Simberto wrote:On June 27 2018 07:12 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 27 2018 06:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 05:54 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2018 05:49 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Now your position makes so much more sense. It's completely ridiculous, but at least now I can slightly understand how you reconcile your position with the reality it's disconnected from.
That's literally how the decades of state violence and oppression against vulnerable citizens was justified.
Also did someone really argue McCain isn't racist? Like McCain is far from the worst the Republicans have to offer but the guy is unabashedly racist.
[quote]
Yeah, that guy totally isn't racist. Just like the laws aren't, the police aren't and neither are the positions of the people supporting Trump. None of it is racist and it's all a way for marginalized people to get off. Because being fake oppressed and exploited is the way we enjoy life, and is no way a desperate plea for white people to check their brothers and sisters and have them treat us like equal human beings.
I can understand why people like xDaunt and Danglars would think that kind of trash, they are just absolutely and dangerously wrong. Feel free to connect the dots on why the travel ban is racist. Everyone keeps pointing to what Trump said, but let's get real: the proof is in the pudding. What does the travel ban actually do and who does it impact? And don't bother likening the travel ban to Jim Crow laws. The disparate impact is no where near the same. Is there really an argument that the travel ban does not disproportionately impacts people of the Muslim faith? Yes, there is. The travel ban affects a very, very small minority of Muslims worldwide. Jim Crow laws had broad-based impacts against the American black population. That wasn't the question. It's not about the proportion of the global population impacted, the question was about the people impacted being disproportionately Muslim. I assume you knew that and avoided the question on purpose though. Of course it is about the proportion of the global population impacted. It would be asinine to assess it any other way. The whole basis of disparate impact analysis is that one group is significantly impacted by an unjustified, facially neutral policy. So your point is that it is not relevant that the policy mostly impacts muslims (the probability of someone impacted by the policy being muslim), what is relevant it the percentage of muslims impacted? (The probability of someone who is a muslim being impacted by the policy) I'm not saying that it is entirely irrelevant that it impacts mostly Muslims, but it is absolutely incorrect to ignore the percentage of Muslims affected. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances. So, if i bomb 5 churches and murder a few hundred christians that way (and no one else), it can not be proven that i am acting out of a hate of christians, because the percentage of christians effected is miniscule, even though i only target christians? No, this would not fall under disparate impact analysis, because it's not a facially neutral policy. Try again. I don't know if you're going for internet kudos or something, but the veracity of jargon is very much beside the point, especially since you're the one introducing it to the conversation. Let me guide you back to the actual point, with a helpful re-quote: On June 27 2018 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 27 2018 06:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 05:54 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2018 05:49 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 27 2018 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 00:30 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2018 00:18 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
First, the cases were at different stages in their proceedings. The Masterpiece case had a fully developed record. This case is at preliminary, pre-discovery proceedings, and the Court only decided to lift the preliminary injunction. No decision was made on the merits. Second, this case concerns foreign policy issues, which makes it much harder to uphold the preliminary injunction. Finally, the statements used and relied upon in the Masterpiece case were really, really bad and demonstrated discriminatory animus as applied on a case by case basis. There's no record of that happening here (yet). Except for the President’s public statements on the issue. I do not find it encouraging that the conservative justices set aside all of his statements when deciding the injunction. When the full case reaches the court, I half expect them to do it again. The underlying problem with them setting aside the public statements of the president about the ban and Muslims is that it sets up a clear divide between the written justification behind the executive branches order and the public statements of the head of the executive branch. In a sense, doublethink, where the presidents says the exact opposite of what the justification for the executive order were. The full case has not been decided, but I am not encouraged by the trajectory of the court on these issues. From undoing the voter’s rights act to this, they seem to be retreating from upholding safeguards to protect the homogeneity of our nation. I will be surprised if they do anything but uphold the travel ban that was overtly created to target Muslims. What the president said is irrelevant when you have a facially neutral ban. The ban only applies to like seven predominantly Muslim countries that failed to comply with State Department requests for cooperation, plus North Korea (same reasons). Let's just presume for a second that Trump wants to eliminate all Muslim travel to the US. If that's the goal, the current travel ban does a pretty piss poor job of accomplishing that goal. The attacks on the ban amount to little more than a leftist temper tantrum. President Trump said something mean about Muslims, so he needs to be challenged on it. And that's fine, but the travel ban is not the proper target of liberal ire. Now maybe the plaintiffs will find evidence of discriminatory animus against Muslims in how the travel ban is being applied, but I highly doubt that will be the case. Now your position makes so much more sense. It's completely ridiculous, but at least now I can slightly understand how you reconcile your position with the reality it's disconnected from. That's literally how the decades of state violence and oppression against vulnerable citizens was justified. Also did someone really argue McCain isn't racist? Like McCain is far from the worst the Republicans have to offer but the guy is unabashedly racist. "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
Yeah, that guy totally isn't racist. Just like the laws aren't, the police aren't and neither are the positions of the people supporting Trump. None of it is racist and it's all a way for marginalized people to get off. Because being fake oppressed and exploited is the way we enjoy life, and is no way a desperate plea for white people to check their brothers and sisters and have them treat us like equal human beings. I can understand why people like xDaunt and Danglars would think that kind of trash, they are just absolutely and dangerously wrong. Feel free to connect the dots on why the travel ban is racist. Everyone keeps pointing to what Trump said, but let's get real: the proof is in the pudding. What does the travel ban actually do and who does it impact? And don't bother likening the travel ban to Jim Crow laws. The disparate impact is no where near the same. Is there really an argument that the travel ban does not disproportionately impacts people of the Muslim faith? Yes, there is. The travel ban affects a very, very small minority of Muslims worldwide. Jim Crow laws had broad-based impacts against the American black population. That wasn't the question. It's not about the proportion of the global population impacted, the question was about the people impacted being disproportionately Muslim. I assume you knew that and avoided the question on purpose though. Just because you don't like the point that's being made doesn't mean you get to re-frame it however you like. These are legal terms of art, which I'm trying to patiently explain to all of you. But frankly, this ongoing petulance is getting old, so I'm done. Believe what you will.
Okay, I'm trying to understand what your claim actually is, so tell me how I'm doing if you don't mind. Discriminatory policies can be separated into facially discriminatory policies and facially neutral policies which nonetheless have a disparate impact. If the policy doesn't explicitly discriminate (for instance, it uses some proxy), then "disparate impact analysis" is used to determine whether it has a disparate impact, but for that analysis to return a positive the policy must affect a significant portion of the members of the minority in question. If a policy cannot be fit into either category, it is, for legal purposes, not a discriminatory policy.
To use a convenient example I'm sure everyone in the thread remembers, Trump's properties in the 80's (edit: 70's I think) had facially discriminatory policies toward black prospective residents, in that all black applicants' applications were marked for disposal simply because the applicant was black. Or was it "facially neutral," since they tried to keep the policy secret? If the Nixon Justice Department had been unable to prove that there was an explicit policy of discarding black people's applications, the property management would presumably have claimed they just picked the best applicants and that'd be "facially neutral," right?
But if they couldn't prove a facially discriminatory policy, they would still have a chance to prove disparate impact. Trouble is, the vast majority of blacks have never and will never apply for an apartment in a Trump property, so it's a tiny fraction of the black population that's affected, right? Therefore no disparate impact, therefore it's nota discriminatory policy, despite the fact that not a single black applicant is being accepted.
But maybe you could argue that the total disregard for black applicants affects the whole black population, because they all lose the opportunity to live in a Trump property if they wanted to, even if most of them never will. That "loss of a chance" affects the whole black population, so if you can prove all blacks are being disregarded, you can argue for disparate impact despite the facially neutral policy.
Now let's suppose the property managers want to find a new way to discriminate legally. They decide to use a proxy for race. They try to think of the best variables to discriminate against that will correlate with race but aren't technically racial, and they settle on prior place of residence.
So they ask all their applicants where they lived last. Harlem? No way. The Bronx? I don't think so. Brooklyn? Eh, maybe, but your credit rating and recommendations better be fucking golden (I don't know NY very well, but to my knowledge those are pretty black areas, if I'm wrong my apologies). It's facially neutral, and a tiny population of American blacks live in those 3 neighborhoods, let alone blacks worldwide, so there's no disparate impact. Therefore, the policy isn't racist.
The interesting thing about this logic is that the intent or public statements of the policy makers have no legal bearing. They could be giving public press conferences or testifying in court saying they don't allow people from those neighborhoods specifically because there are so many blacks there, and the policy still isn't technically discriminatory. It's facially neutral, and the majority of blacks aren't affected, so it passes legal muster.
Do I have it right? Or did I miss some key distinction?
|
I have a feeling that all these takes on how Trump doesn't have the power granted him by Congress because of past statements would be reconciled if you'd simply read the ~38 pages of the opinion, or fuck even the syllabus. ]Just read the damn thing already. Then you might know more of what kind of arguments you must counter on facial neutrality, constraints on executive authority, and the national security justification.
"But he said some mean things about Muslims once" is a great whataboutism, to be sure. "That means he has no legal power to do this thing because he was such a jerk about it" is a poor refuge.
|
On June 27 2018 09:24 Danglars wrote:I have a feeling that all these takes on how Trump doesn't have the power granted him by Congress because of past statements would be reconciled if you'd simply read the ~38 pages of the opinion, or fuck even the syllabus. ]Just read the damn thing already. Then you might know more of what kind of arguments you must counter on facial neutrality, constraints on executive authority, and the national security justification. "But he said some mean things about Muslims once" is a great whataboutism, to be sure. "That means he has no legal power to do this thing because he was such a jerk about it" is a poor refuge.
A lot of Trump supporters consider this ban the fulfillment of a key campaign promise (the Muslim ban). Would you consider them mistaken?
|
On June 27 2018 09:24 Danglars wrote:I have a feeling that all these takes on how Trump doesn't have the power granted him by Congress because of past statements would be reconciled if you'd simply read the ~38 pages of the opinion, or fuck even the syllabus. ]Just read the damn thing already. Then you might know more of what kind of arguments you must counter on facial neutrality, constraints on executive authority, and the national security justification. "But he said some mean things about Muslims once" is a great whataboutism, to be sure. "That means he has no legal power to do this thing because he was such a jerk about it" is a poor refuge.
For the people who think SCOTUS is keeping the president in check, sure. But for those of us that believe it hasn't/won't, making a case that gets SC majority agreement isn't the measure of validity. The "strict" interpretation of shitty bigoted laws isn't everyone's measure of moral or ethical behavior.
|
I find that the 2nd and 3rd versions of the ban are actually worse than the 1st one from a humanist perspective, some of those citizenships are banned entry for the sole purpose of making the ban pass by not being 100% Muslim. Not because Trump has any worries that North Korean defectors or Venezuelan refugees will blow something up, not because his voters give a shit about barring those people, but purely collateral thrown in just to be able to discriminate against the target he designated beforehand. They're there for no other reason than bureaucracy.
As for suggesting that this SC decision somehow makes Trump's intent not the one that he stated multiple times, appealing to a politically appointed authority to give credence to your position is scraping the bottom of the barrel of arguments. We have a long history of countries legally committing injustices, atrocities even. They only get to decide what is or isn't temporarily considered constitutional, not what is or isn't real.
|
On June 27 2018 09:24 Danglars wrote:I have a feeling that all these takes on how Trump doesn't have the power granted him by Congress because of past statements would be reconciled if you'd simply read the ~38 pages of the opinion, or fuck even the syllabus. ]Just read the damn thing already. Then you might know more of what kind of arguments you must counter on facial neutrality, constraints on executive authority, and the national security justification. "But he said some mean things about Muslims once" is a great whataboutism, to be sure. "That means he has no legal power to do this thing because he was such a jerk about it" is a poor refuge.
It was one of his campaign promises that he repeated over and over. It takes a special level of intellectual dishonesty to frame the argument that he said it once. Especially to people you discussed the prospect of the ban with previously numerous times.
And framing this as a unanimous decision with no dissenting arguments of merit is also disingenuous. This was a 5-4 decision. On June 27 2018 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 09:24 Danglars wrote:I have a feeling that all these takes on how Trump doesn't have the power granted him by Congress because of past statements would be reconciled if you'd simply read the ~38 pages of the opinion, or fuck even the syllabus. ]Just read the damn thing already. Then you might know more of what kind of arguments you must counter on facial neutrality, constraints on executive authority, and the national security justification. "But he said some mean things about Muslims once" is a great whataboutism, to be sure. "That means he has no legal power to do this thing because he was such a jerk about it" is a poor refuge. For the people who think SCOTUS is keeping the president in check, sure. But for those of us that believe it hasn't/won't, making a case that gets SC majority agreement isn't the measure of validity. The "strict" interpretation of shitty bigoted laws isn't everyone's measure of moral or ethical behavior.
People often forget that slavery, segregation and the Jim Crow laws were perfectly legal. They don’t seem to grasp the concept that similar laws could be legal again. That the court is just another extension of political power, tasked with keeping the two othe branches in line. There is no guarantee they will do that job well.
|
Unfortunately, the only way to reverse such travel bans is to elect another president. The law and constitution is clear that the president can bar any types of people from entering the country.
|
On June 27 2018 09:47 gobbledydook wrote:
Unfortunately, the only way to reverse such travel bans is to elect another president. The law and constitution is clear that the president can bar any types of people from entering the country.
Pretty sure congress can reign in that power, as they are also an equal branch that controls the budget of the executive branch.
|
On June 27 2018 09:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 09:24 Danglars wrote:I have a feeling that all these takes on how Trump doesn't have the power granted him by Congress because of past statements would be reconciled if you'd simply read the ~38 pages of the opinion, or fuck even the syllabus. ]Just read the damn thing already. Then you might know more of what kind of arguments you must counter on facial neutrality, constraints on executive authority, and the national security justification. "But he said some mean things about Muslims once" is a great whataboutism, to be sure. "That means he has no legal power to do this thing because he was such a jerk about it" is a poor refuge. It was one of his campaign promises that he repeated over and over. It takes a special level of intellectual dishonesty to frame the argument that he said it once. Especially to people you discussed the prospect of the ban with previously numerous times. And framing this as a unanimous decision with no dissenting arguments of merit is also disingenuous. This was a 5-4 decision. Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 27 2018 09:24 Danglars wrote:I have a feeling that all these takes on how Trump doesn't have the power granted him by Congress because of past statements would be reconciled if you'd simply read the ~38 pages of the opinion, or fuck even the syllabus. ]Just read the damn thing already. Then you might know more of what kind of arguments you must counter on facial neutrality, constraints on executive authority, and the national security justification. "But he said some mean things about Muslims once" is a great whataboutism, to be sure. "That means he has no legal power to do this thing because he was such a jerk about it" is a poor refuge. For the people who think SCOTUS is keeping the president in check, sure. But for those of us that believe it hasn't/won't, making a case that gets SC majority agreement isn't the measure of validity. The "strict" interpretation of shitty bigoted laws isn't everyone's measure of moral or ethical behavior. People often forget that slavery, segregation and the Jim Crow laws were perfectly legal. They don’t seem to grasp the concept that similar laws could be legal again. That the court is just another extension of political power, tasked with keeping the two othe branches in line. There is no guarantee they will do that job well.
Funny thing is I'm pretty sure xDaunt is one of few people here familiar (and iirc agrees with) the argument that slavery actually wasn't constitutional and that it took a willful neglect by the entirety of our political "checks and balances" to facilitate in the first place. Additionally that the 13th amendment didn't abolish slavery constitutionally but gave slavery conditional constitutional protection.
That's part of why I don't believe he's sincerely making these arguments but instead hoping to sway gullible and ignorant people with an argument he knows is fallacious.
It's also pretty half-assed as far as his typical approach to something like this when he actually believes it.
|
On June 27 2018 09:47 gobbledydook wrote:
Unfortunately, the only way to reverse such travel bans is to elect another president. The law and constitution is clear that the president can bar any types of people from entering the country.
that doesn' treally follow at all; since this was a 5-4 ruling, and therefore could be overturned pretty easily. Also, that 4 justices ruled it's not constitutional would make your claim that it "clearly is" quite doubtful.
and we all know the ruling wasn't done because it's truly constitutional (which it isn't), but because some on the court want to pick their battles.
|
On June 27 2018 09:47 gobbledydook wrote:
Unfortunately, the only way to reverse such travel bans is to elect another president. The law and constitution is clear that the president can bar any types of people from entering the country.
The constitution vests immigration law power within the Congress. They gave the President the power to decide later.
Now, apparently people regret that, though it's taking a very funny form. "But what if he..." is a very naked attempt to sneak past the issue of justifying the reduction of the powers bestowed on a President if he says very nasty thing. And these past couple pages waste a lot of words saying what reduces to "Beats me!" The Supreme Court actually weighed the idiotic argument that he's using his authority for all the wrong reasons and blasted it into the stratosphere.
|
The president was not given absolute power to dictate who can and cannot come to this country. Any law or executive order must have a justification for existing. National security is a valid justification, but also can be used a thin veil to hide more odious reasons.
In the case of Trump, it’s more like someone sprayed weak air freshener in the general direction of the shit pile that is the travel ban. Which was enough for the conservative justices to side with Trump on this third attempt to freshen up the turd pile.
|
On June 27 2018 09:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 09:37 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2018 09:24 Danglars wrote:I have a feeling that all these takes on how Trump doesn't have the power granted him by Congress because of past statements would be reconciled if you'd simply read the ~38 pages of the opinion, or fuck even the syllabus. ]Just read the damn thing already. Then you might know more of what kind of arguments you must counter on facial neutrality, constraints on executive authority, and the national security justification. "But he said some mean things about Muslims once" is a great whataboutism, to be sure. "That means he has no legal power to do this thing because he was such a jerk about it" is a poor refuge. It was one of his campaign promises that he repeated over and over. It takes a special level of intellectual dishonesty to frame the argument that he said it once. Especially to people you discussed the prospect of the ban with previously numerous times. And framing this as a unanimous decision with no dissenting arguments of merit is also disingenuous. This was a 5-4 decision. On June 27 2018 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 27 2018 09:24 Danglars wrote:I have a feeling that all these takes on how Trump doesn't have the power granted him by Congress because of past statements would be reconciled if you'd simply read the ~38 pages of the opinion, or fuck even the syllabus. ]Just read the damn thing already. Then you might know more of what kind of arguments you must counter on facial neutrality, constraints on executive authority, and the national security justification. "But he said some mean things about Muslims once" is a great whataboutism, to be sure. "That means he has no legal power to do this thing because he was such a jerk about it" is a poor refuge. For the people who think SCOTUS is keeping the president in check, sure. But for those of us that believe it hasn't/won't, making a case that gets SC majority agreement isn't the measure of validity. The "strict" interpretation of shitty bigoted laws isn't everyone's measure of moral or ethical behavior. People often forget that slavery, segregation and the Jim Crow laws were perfectly legal. They don’t seem to grasp the concept that similar laws could be legal again. That the court is just another extension of political power, tasked with keeping the two othe branches in line. There is no guarantee they will do that job well. Funny thing is I'm pretty sure xDaunt is one of few people here familiar (and iirc agrees with) the argument that slavery actually wasn't constitutional and that it took a willful neglect by the entirety of our political "checks and balances" to facilitate in the first place. Additionally that the 13th amendment didn't abolish slavery constitutionally but gave slavery conditional constitutional protection. That's part of why I don't believe he's sincerely making these arguments but instead hoping to sway gullible and ignorant people with an argument he knows is fallacious. It's also pretty half-assed as far as his typical approach to something like this when he actually believes it.
Uh, no. Slavery very clearly was constitutional notwithstanding abolitionist measures taken to circumscribe it at the convention.
|
United States42278 Posts
On June 27 2018 06:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 05:54 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2018 05:49 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 27 2018 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 00:30 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2018 00:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:
Except that they set aside all Trump’s statements on Muslims during the campaign as irrelevant. But apparently the commission’s statements about religion were very important in the Masterpiece case. It would seem that all religions are not treated equally in the eyes conservatives Justices. Especially when it comes to government officials disparaging those religion. A more cynical person would question if those justices view disparaging statements about their own religion as more serious than disparaging statements about other religions. First, the cases were at different stages in their proceedings. The Masterpiece case had a fully developed record. This case is at preliminary, pre-discovery proceedings, and the Court only decided to lift the preliminary injunction. No decision was made on the merits. Second, this case concerns foreign policy issues, which makes it much harder to uphold the preliminary injunction. Finally, the statements used and relied upon in the Masterpiece case were really, really bad and demonstrated discriminatory animus as applied on a case by case basis. There's no record of that happening here (yet). Except for the President’s public statements on the issue. I do not find it encouraging that the conservative justices set aside all of his statements when deciding the injunction. When the full case reaches the court, I half expect them to do it again. The underlying problem with them setting aside the public statements of the president about the ban and Muslims is that it sets up a clear divide between the written justification behind the executive branches order and the public statements of the head of the executive branch. In a sense, doublethink, where the presidents says the exact opposite of what the justification for the executive order were. The full case has not been decided, but I am not encouraged by the trajectory of the court on these issues. From undoing the voter’s rights act to this, they seem to be retreating from upholding safeguards to protect the homogeneity of our nation. I will be surprised if they do anything but uphold the travel ban that was overtly created to target Muslims. What the president said is irrelevant when you have a facially neutral ban. The ban only applies to like seven predominantly Muslim countries that failed to comply with State Department requests for cooperation, plus North Korea (same reasons). Let's just presume for a second that Trump wants to eliminate all Muslim travel to the US. If that's the goal, the current travel ban does a pretty piss poor job of accomplishing that goal. The attacks on the ban amount to little more than a leftist temper tantrum. President Trump said something mean about Muslims, so he needs to be challenged on it. And that's fine, but the travel ban is not the proper target of liberal ire. Now maybe the plaintiffs will find evidence of discriminatory animus against Muslims in how the travel ban is being applied, but I highly doubt that will be the case. Now your position makes so much more sense. It's completely ridiculous, but at least now I can slightly understand how you reconcile your position with the reality it's disconnected from. That's literally how the decades of state violence and oppression against vulnerable citizens was justified. Also did someone really argue McCain isn't racist? Like McCain is far from the worst the Republicans have to offer but the guy is unabashedly racist. "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
Yeah, that guy totally isn't racist. Just like the laws aren't, the police aren't and neither are the positions of the people supporting Trump. None of it is racist and it's all a way for marginalized people to get off. Because being fake oppressed and exploited is the way we enjoy life, and is no way a desperate plea for white people to check their brothers and sisters and have them treat us like equal human beings. I can understand why people like xDaunt and Danglars would think that kind of trash, they are just absolutely and dangerously wrong. Feel free to connect the dots on why the travel ban is racist. Everyone keeps pointing to what Trump said, but let's get real: the proof is in the pudding. What does the travel ban actually do and who does it impact? And don't bother likening the travel ban to Jim Crow laws. The disparate impact is no where near the same. Is there really an argument that the travel ban does not disproportionately impacts people of the Muslim faith? Yes, there is. The travel ban affects a very, very small minority of Muslims worldwide. Jim Crow laws had broad-based impacts against the American black population.
If a jam sandwich contains a very small minority of total jam in the world it's still a jam sandwich. It's about what it contains, not the volume compared to the total potential volume extant in the world. A jam sandwich contains jam. A Muslim ban bans Muslims.
|
|
|
That will be a nice change of pace in a safe seat. Teach other democrats to show up for debates.
|
On June 27 2018 10:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 09:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 27 2018 09:37 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2018 09:24 Danglars wrote:I have a feeling that all these takes on how Trump doesn't have the power granted him by Congress because of past statements would be reconciled if you'd simply read the ~38 pages of the opinion, or fuck even the syllabus. ]Just read the damn thing already. Then you might know more of what kind of arguments you must counter on facial neutrality, constraints on executive authority, and the national security justification. "But he said some mean things about Muslims once" is a great whataboutism, to be sure. "That means he has no legal power to do this thing because he was such a jerk about it" is a poor refuge. It was one of his campaign promises that he repeated over and over. It takes a special level of intellectual dishonesty to frame the argument that he said it once. Especially to people you discussed the prospect of the ban with previously numerous times. And framing this as a unanimous decision with no dissenting arguments of merit is also disingenuous. This was a 5-4 decision. On June 27 2018 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 27 2018 09:24 Danglars wrote:I have a feeling that all these takes on how Trump doesn't have the power granted him by Congress because of past statements would be reconciled if you'd simply read the ~38 pages of the opinion, or fuck even the syllabus. ]Just read the damn thing already. Then you might know more of what kind of arguments you must counter on facial neutrality, constraints on executive authority, and the national security justification. "But he said some mean things about Muslims once" is a great whataboutism, to be sure. "That means he has no legal power to do this thing because he was such a jerk about it" is a poor refuge. For the people who think SCOTUS is keeping the president in check, sure. But for those of us that believe it hasn't/won't, making a case that gets SC majority agreement isn't the measure of validity. The "strict" interpretation of shitty bigoted laws isn't everyone's measure of moral or ethical behavior. People often forget that slavery, segregation and the Jim Crow laws were perfectly legal. They don’t seem to grasp the concept that similar laws could be legal again. That the court is just another extension of political power, tasked with keeping the two othe branches in line. There is no guarantee they will do that job well. Funny thing is I'm pretty sure xDaunt is one of few people here familiar (and iirc agrees with) the argument that slavery actually wasn't constitutional and that it took a willful neglect by the entirety of our political "checks and balances" to facilitate in the first place. Additionally that the 13th amendment didn't abolish slavery constitutionally but gave slavery conditional constitutional protection. That's part of why I don't believe he's sincerely making these arguments but instead hoping to sway gullible and ignorant people with an argument he knows is fallacious. It's also pretty half-assed as far as his typical approach to something like this when he actually believes it. Uh, no. Slavery very clearly was constitutional notwithstanding abolitionist measures taken to circumscribe it at the convention.
Really? I don't think that's what you said before but now I'm curious.
Under what interpretation are you supposing this? That owning people (denying them constitutional/human rights) was constitutional or that acting (legally speaking) as if slaves weren't people was constitutional?
In other news:
(CNN)The last time New York Rep. Joe Crowley faced a primary challenge, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a teenager.
Now 28 years old, the Bronx-born activist on Tuesday will close out a fiery progressive campaign to unseat the 10-term incumbent, who currently ranks fourth among House Democrats and would, if Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi left her post, be among the favorites to win the job.
Crowley has outraised Ocasio-Cortez, a Latina and member of the Democratic Socialists of America, by a jarring 10-to-1 margin, but her bid to represent the 14th Congressional District was super-charged with the release of an online ad late last month produced by a pair of fellow DSA members, a two-minute viral sensation that begins with Ocasio-Cortez saying, "Women like me aren't supposed to run for office."
Anyone familiar with New York's machine politics would be hard-pressed to dismiss the line as common campaign rhetoric. For 14 years, no Democrat has attempted unseat Crowley, who chairs the Queens County Democrats. Defeat on Tuesday would turn the party on its head -- an upset with implications for Democrats nationwide that would recall, as optimistic progressives routinely note, former GOP Majority Leader Eric Cantor's loss to the insurgent, tea party-backed Dave Brat in June 2014.
...Ocasio-Cortez runs defiantly to his left -- with universal health care, a federal jobs guarantee and the abolition of ICE headlining her demands...
Ocasio-Cortez has also been at the front lines -- literally so, last weekend, when she traveled to join protests at an ICE detention center in Texas -- of the progressive backlash against the Trump administration's border and immigration policies. Ocasio-Cortez has been a vocal proponent of the push to abolish the agency, an issue she ties back to her district's diverse population.
Results with ~85% of precincts reporting:
Democratic Primary
CANDIDATE-------------------VOTE-------------PCT.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 12,857_______ 57.6%
Joe Crowley* ___________9,448_______42.4
www.nytimes.com
As the article suggests this is a pretty big deal for the New York Democratic party and the Democratic party in general. It's the first "untouchable" to fall to a much more actively progressive and engaged challenger with "socialist" in their affiliation.
Cuomo (who endorsed Crowley) has a progressive challenger of his own, while she lags in polls this victory will undoubtedly bode well for her race.
|
On the disparate impact thing, was Jim Crow not actually disparate impact then? I mean, it only effected black people in America. There were still a lot more black people in Africa, right? And those people weren't effected by Jim Crow laws. That was still struck down for disparate impact, right? I'm not too familiar with the rulings that struck it down.
It seems like someone would have to really contort themselves intellectually to say that Trump's muslim ban isn't a muslim ban because it doesn't effect all muslims and then there are a couple other non-muslim nations tossed in.
|
On June 27 2018 11:04 Plansix wrote:
That will be a nice change of pace in a safe seat. Teach other democrats to show up for debates.
Fuck that it should show centrist Dems to not be fearful to run in Progressive platforms. Medicare for all, legalization and so on.
But we already know how establishment Dems will respond. More PAC funding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
