SCOTUS rules on Travel Ban

[*michaelsean*]

(06-26-2018, 09:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: Since you already went off topic....what's wrong with the looks on their face?

Hopefully the board's moral guide on appearance posts will comment on this.

Damn man he was trying to cross the aisle a bit. Applaud the effort.

[fredtoast]

(06-26-2018, 03:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  I, for one, am glad to see an ending to legislating from the bench.

You ever notice how people only call it "legislating from the bench" when the couyrt rules against them?

[fredtoast]

(06-26-2018, 07:23 PM)Beaker Wrote: Pretending there is "institutionalized racism" simply furthers the victim hood culture of whatever group you are saying it is affecting. The idea that there is some nebulous "cards stacked against you before you even play the game" monster out there fosters a defeatest mentality. Why even try when there is the specter of this unfairness that will prevent you from getting ahead?

Is that why poor white kids in underfunded rural school systems don't even try?

[GMDino]

(06-26-2018, 05:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The media isn't doing any favors, either.  If you look at the story in the link, check out the photo they chose of Sotomayor and Ginsburg.  Certainly, they could have chosen a more professional, respectful looking image, than one featuring them with cartoonish, gargoyle like grimaces on their faces.  A picture of them at an unrelated event, no less.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sotomayor-and-ginsburg-issue-scathing-dissent-of-scotus-travel-ban-decision/ar-AAzctPw?ocid=spartandhp

(06-26-2018, 10:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Damn man he was trying to cross the aisle a bit. Applaud the effort.

Then why even mention their looks.

Some people have a problem with that on the board...though I see they haven't shown up to make another stirring defense as they have with others.

Sad.

[*bfine32*]

(06-26-2018, 11:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You ever notice how people only call it "legislating from the bench" when the couyrt rules against them?

Never really noticed that. Let's try an experiment:

Do you agree with today's ruling?

Do you think SCOUTUS legislated from the bench?

[fredtoast]

(06-26-2018, 11:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Never really noticed that. Let's try an experiment:

Do you agree with today's ruling?

Do you think SCOUTUS legislated from the bench?

I never accuse the court of "legislating from the bench" no matter how they rule.  I understand how the system works.

[*bfine32*]

(06-27-2018, 12:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I never accuse the court of "legislating from the bench" no matter how they rule.  I understand how the system works.

So you're answer to the 2 questions asked were.....

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 12:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So you're answer to the 2 questions asked were.....

Post #35

(06-26-2018, 06:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Trump's administration wrote a law that was legal, 

Don't really have a big problem with this. 

Post #46

(06-27-2018, 12:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I never accuse the court of "legislating from the bench" no matter how they rule.  I understand how the system works.

[Dill]

(06-26-2018, 12:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Hearing Ken (of @popehat fame) talk about this ruling, it is a lot about how what the policymaker says (i.e. Trump's comments about it being a Muslim ban) are applied for judicial scrutiny of a policy when it is neutral on its face. With this ruling, the court has said it doesn't matter as long as the policy is written in a neutral way.

But they overturned Koramatsu vs the US today too, didn't they?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/26/supreme-court-overrules-korematsu-case-hated-civil-libertarians/734630002/

In doing that, they have to argue that the "face test" is not valid when racial bias factored into the formation of law/policy and knowledge thereof is suppressed.

I think that was Sotomayor's point too--all Trump's explicit talk of banning Muslims, then suddenly judges must discount that if the policy is written to exclude the word "Muslim"?  

LOL according to Hugo Black, the Japanese were interned because we were at war with Japan, not because of race.  What about Italians and Germans and Romanians and Bulgarians in 1944? Might as well ask today "What about Saudi Arabia and Morocco" and a few dozen other countries not included in the Trump ban. President has the power, blah blah, precedent, blah blah, national security.

Yes, the appeal to national security in a state of emergency is another point of contact between the two cases--only WWII was a real state of emergency.  Anyway, the appeal to national security is much favored by leaders of all stripes, since it can reduce all the usual policy friction offered by democratic institutions.

I'm wondering how Trump's ban will look down the historical road--another Korematsu? Plessy vs Ferguson?  A lot will depend on the kind of country we become.  Very consequential, blocking Obama's right to appoint a justice.

[Beaker]

(06-26-2018, 07:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is plenty out there when looking at the criminal justice system, our immigration system, and a host of other things. The way in which we prioritize white countries over others for immigration or the way in which black people are treated more harshly in the criminal justice system than white people. This is all institutionalized racism, and only the tip of the iceberg. Institutional racism isn't about a single act, it is about a system in place that treats people unfairly because of their race. This exists, and pretending it doesn't means we will never address the problems that cause legitimate inequity in our society.

I agree that racism exists. I dont agree in that there is institutionalized racism. That is a made up concept designed to subjugate the class that is identified as the target.

As I said, show me incidents of racism and I will fight them with you. 

[Beaker]

(06-26-2018, 11:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Is that why poor white kids in underfunded rural school systems don't even try?

To claim their situation is the result of "institutionalized racism" would be just as ridiculous as blaming it on the plight of poor black kids in underfunded urban schools. 

[*michaelsean*]

(06-26-2018, 11:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: Then why even mention their looks.

Some people have a problem with that on the board...though I see they haven't shown up to make another stirring defense as they have with others.

Sad.

Surely you are aware that sites, campaigns etc will purposely use unflattering photographs.  Sunset thinks they did that here.  His intentions were good.

[GMDino]

(06-27-2018, 12:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I never accuse the court of "legislating from the bench" no matter how they rule.  I understand how the system works.

Yes but your goal isn't to be facetious and snarky.

The usual suspect attack judges for decisions they disagree with and applaud them for ones the agree with and then deny they ever accused the courts of being biased when they get a "win".

"Win" being defined as anything that they think was right.

[GMDino]

(06-27-2018, 09:03 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Surely you are aware that sites, campaigns etc will purposely use unflattering photographs.  Sunset thinks they did that here.  His intentions were good.

It was unnecessary to discuss the looks of the two women in the article.

If a site deliberately chooses to use something in order to make the women look "bad" we should ignore it.

Discussing that red herring at all just distracts from the subject at hand.

Notably we have the usual suspects who claim that they will not defend such things complicit in their silence.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 09:17 AM)GMDino Wrote: It was unnecessary to discuss the looks of the two women in the article.

If a site deliberately chooses to use something in order to make the women look "bad" we should ignore it.

Discussing that red herring at all just distracts from the subject at hand.

Notably we have the usual suspects who claim that they will not defend such things complicit in their silence.

He wasn't talking about their looks he was talking about how they were captured in the photograph.  He was attempting to defend them so no the "usual suspects" need not come by.

[GMDino]

(06-27-2018, 09:25 AM)michaelsean Wrote: He wasn't talking about their looks he was talking about how they were captured in the photograph.  He was attempting to defend them so no the "usual suspects" need not come by.

And, again, I didn't see anything wrong with "their looks" in that photo.  They look like two women of their age.

Are you saying the "defense" was "they shouldn't post pictures of these women that make them look ugly"...when they don't look ugly in them?

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2018, 08:34 AM)Beaker Wrote: I agree that racism exists. I dont agree in that there is institutionalized racism. That is a made up concept designed to subjugate the class that is identified as the target.

As I said, show me incidents of racism and I will fight them with you. 

A made up concept designed to subjugate a people by trying to create a more equitable society where they are afforded equal protection under the law?

[jj22]

(06-27-2018, 08:34 AM)Beaker Wrote: I agree that racism exists. I dont agree in that there is institutionalized racism. That is a made up concept designed to subjugate the class that is identified as the target.

As I said, show me incidents of racism and I will fight them with you. 

Institutional Racism...

When you have two equally qualified applicants Shaniqua Monique Jenkins, and Anna Sue White, but can only choose one to interview.

Who do you think gets the Interview?

9 times out of 10 it's Anna....

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 09:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: And, again, I didn't see anything wrong with "their looks" in that photo.  They look like two women of their age.

Are you saying the "defense" was "they shouldn't post pictures of these women that make them look ugly"...when they don't look ugly in them?

OK so just disagree with his opinion of what they did.  Don't make up something else about what he did.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 10:11 AM)jj22 Wrote: Institutional Racism...

When you have two equally qualified applicants Shaniqua Monique Jenkins, and Annabelle Sue White, but can only choose one to interview.

Who do you think gets the Interview?

9 times out of 10 it's Anna....

Why can they only interview one?  And what are you basing your 9 of 10 on?