SCOTUS rules on Travel Ban

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 05:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And you are saying that the white race has a much larger percentage of superior individuals.  

So your position is that people with more money are superior individuals. 

[*bfine32*]

Anybody hear anything about the travel ban?

[*PhilHos*]

(06-28-2018, 05:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anybody hear anything about the travel ban?

I did. I heard it was consitutional.

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 05:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anybody hear anything about the travel ban?

Yes. And I don't agree that it's institutional racism.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 05:27 PM)Beaker Wrote: So your position is that people with more money are superior individuals. 

Well, the myth of equality of opportunity relies on the myth that we operate as a meritocracy.

[*bfine32*]

(06-28-2018, 05:30 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I did. I heard it was consitutional.

(06-28-2018, 05:30 PM)Beaker Wrote: Yes. And I don't agree that it's institutional racism.

This is as I thought.

Why are folks hijacking my thread with the same tired arguments?

[*PhilHos*]

(06-28-2018, 05:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is as I thought.

Why are folks hijacking my thread with the same tired arguments?

Because some people can't argue against the majority's opinion? 

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2018, 05:27 PM)Beaker Wrote: So your position is that people with more money are superior individuals. 

If opportunity is equal then yes.

You are the one that said superior financial results were based on work ethic and pursuing opportunities at a higher level, not me.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 05:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is as I thought.

Why are folks hijacking my thread with the same tired arguments?

Because I called it institutional racism and someone decided to argue that institutional racism didn't exist. It devolved from there. That's where it really got off the rails.

[*bfine32*]

(06-28-2018, 05:33 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Because some people can't argue against the majority's opinion? 

As I thought.........Squirrel!!

[*PhilHos*]

(06-28-2018, 05:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I thought.........Squirrel!!

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 05:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If opportunity is equal then yes.

You are the one that said superior financial results were based on work ethic and pursuing opportunities at a higher level, not me.

That's the second time in this thread that you've attributed something you said to me. I never referred to any financial results. I simply cited that we should be striving for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome and referenced individual differences in pursuit of opportunity. You and Bels brought up the whole unequal distribution of wealth topic. 

But it does not surprise me that a rich lawyer equates superiority with financial gain. I disagree with you on that point too.

The whole reason I chimed in on this thread was when the OP positioned the travel ban as an example of institutional racism. I disagree with that. Post #204 sums up my feelings on the subject.

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 05:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because I called it institutional racism and someone decided to argue that institutional racism didn't exist. It devolved from there. That's where it really got off the rails.

I don't think you and I will ever see eye to eye on the concept of institutional racism because we both see it as serving widely different purposes. But I respect your opinion even if I do not agree with you. But I think we both agree that racism should not be tolerated.

[Dill]

(06-28-2018, 12:42 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: False equivalency as the travel ban is not interning anyone nor confiscating their property.  You enjoy the analogy because it is an extreme one that you think lends weight to your argument.  To us rational folks we view it as the extreme attempt to equate a travel ban with the forcible internment and property theft of a specific ethnic group.  It's a fail analogy and few are buying into it outside the liberal bubble..

Being "outside the liberal bubble" was not a good place to be in 1944, and I don't think it is now.

Deploying a circular definition of rationality doesn't establish any points you are trying to make, and least of all your own "rationality." Why not just stick to the legal issues and leave imputation of motives aside?

Whence comes "extremist" labeling of my post? Also circular? I clarified some points of the SCOTUS decision on Trump vs Hawaii based upon an existing structural analogy between all types of illegal discrimination.  "Forcible internment" and "property theft" are not the basis of the dissent, nor of the structural analogy I discussed, hence not the basis of some "false equivalency" or"failed analogy" made by me or the dissenting justices.  The dissent is based upon 1) a reading of the Establishment Clause, and 2) and a challenge to the majority's application of the "rational basis scrutiny."  The analogy to Korematsu was in the Government's failure of due diligence in representing a supposed threat to national security and the animus behind it.  The question of whether the analogy is valid is a question of whether animus and misrepresentation can be found in the process of developing Trump's Proclamation No. 9645.

(06-28-2018, 12:42 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure.  Except in your analogy we're talking about all women.  Since the travel ban affects a minute percentage of the world's muslim population you cannot make a logical argument that the travel ban is a muslim ban.  If the intent of the ban is to exclude muslims, then it's doing a horrible job if it.  Can you think of no plausible reason for a travel ban from the listed countries other than islamic faith?  I'm willing to bet you could.

If my hypothetical law were address only to, say hairdressers or secretaries, then it would not include all women, yet still discriminate against women. One could not argue that it was not discriminatory because it did a "bad job" of including all women. In any case, "all" is not the test of discrimination in law, or one could argue that race played no role in Korematsu because it only affected a small proportion of Asians in the U.S.

Recognizing this, the dissent reminds the court of how, in cases involving the Establishment Clause, considering a history of animus in construction of a law is already "settled law."  Trump promised a Muslim ban, complained that the current executive order has been "watered down," and insisted that he is nevertheless keeping his campaign process. Roberts et al. dismissed that as a concern. To agree with Roberts is to take at face value Trump administration claims the travel ban suddenly has nothing to do with religion because they say it doesn't.

(06-28-2018, 12:42 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, he could.  Except he did not.  The dissenting opinion is just that, the minority opinion.  Sotomoyar can make whatever claim she wants, her opinion is the minority one, which in the SCOTUS, does not carry legal weight.  If the travel ban is later determined to be unconstitutional then we'll revisit this conversation.  As of now it hasn't, thus we needn't.

Or it could be state sponsors of terrorism or countries unable to adequately vet visa applicants.  Does it include all such countries?  No, I don't believe so.  That doesn't change the fact that the countries on the list can logically be described as such.

Some astonishing comments here.  The dissenting justices in Korematsu, who also made "whatever claim they wanted," would now find those claims embraced by the majority and minority in Trump vs Hawaii--except their reminder that presidential authority should not be beyond scrutiny, even in matters of national security.  Their minority dissent carried enough legal weight to become a basis for overruling Korematsu.

Could be. And it could be that existing restrictions on travel from the countries in question already manage that problem. Breyer's dissent points to the only effective change in travel policy from the targeted countries--namely that the number of visas granted to people who meet the Proclamations own criteria of legitimate entry have dropped dramatically. His anecdote about the deathly sick Yemeni girl denied a visa--until the matter became public--is telling. So, in effect, and as the Amici filled in dissent make clear, Muslims are being banned.  Not really the case with North Korea, because restrictions already in place meant few if any North Koreans traveled to the U.S. before 9645.  Little change there.

One cannot establish directly from the fact that countries on the travel ban list can be "logically described" as threats to national security that  Trump's travel ban is therefore not primarily about religious animus--especially if one dismisses evidence of the both the development and practice of the ban.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-28-2018, 11:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Being "outside the liberal bubble" was not a good place to be in 1944, and I don't think it is now.

Inane attempts to equate the current right with fascism is why your arguments fall on largely deaf ears.  There's no comparison beyond your own hysteria.

Quote:Deploying a circular definition of rationality doesn't establish any points you are trying to make, and least of all your own "rationality." Why not just stick to the legal issues and leave imputation of motives aside?

Indubitably my good sir.  Let us stick the the confabulation so imminently propagated by those intent on impugning the motivations of our adversarial ideological opponents.  I implore you with the utmost probity.  

Quote:Whence comes "extremist" labeling of my post? Also circular? I clarified some points of the SCOTUS decision on Trump vs Hawaii based upon an existing structural analogy between all types of illegal discrimination.  "Forcible internment" and "property theft" are not the basis of the dissent, nor of the structural analogy I discussed, hence not the basis of some "false equivalency" or"failed analogy" made by me or the dissenting justices.  The dissent is based upon 1) a reading of the Establishment Clause, and 2) and a challenge to the majority's application of the "rational basis scrutiny."  The analogy to Korematsu was in the Government's failure of due diligence in representing a supposed threat to national security and the animus behind it.  The question of whether the analogy is valid is a question of whether animus and misrepresentation can be found in the process of developing Trump's Proclamation No. 9645.

Flowery tap dancing doesn't change the fact that a direct comparison is inane.  It is the utter false equivalency as the intent, outcome and severity of both are not comparable.  

Quote:If my hypothetical law were address only to, say hairdressers or secretaries, then it would not include all women, yet still discriminate against women. One could not argue that it was not discriminatory because it did a "bad job" of including all women. In any case, "all" is not the test of discrimination in law, or one could argue that race played no role in Korematsu because it only affected a small proportion of Asians in the U.S.

Only if there were no logical reason to single out said hairdressers or secretaries.  Your complete failure to address the logical reasons such nations could be subject to a travel ban reveals your own knowledge of the utter speciousness of your position.

Quote:Recognizing this, the dissent reminds the court of how, in cases involving the Establishment Clause, considering a history of animus in construction of a law is already "settled law."  Trump promised a Muslim ban, complained that the current executive order has been "watered down," and insisted that he is nevertheless keeping his campaign process. Roberts et al. dismissed that as a concern. To agree with Roberts is to take at face value Trump administration claims the travel ban suddenly has nothing to do with religion because they say it doesn't.

It doesn't because no rational person could argue otherwise.  The reasons given are plain and straightforward.  You haven't even attempted to address them, instead obfuscation behind a soporific cloud of deflective mendacity.

Quote:Some astonishing comments here.  The dissenting justices in Korematsu, who also made "whatever claim they wanted," would now find those claims embraced by the majority and minority in Trump vs Hawaii--except their reminder that presidential authority should not be beyond scrutiny, even in matters of national security.  Their minority dissent carried enough legal weight to become a basis for overruling Korematsu.

Sure, some seventy years later.  I guess we'll have to stick around to see if the same holds true in this instance.  As I've already pointed out the tenuousness of your, what I will generously call, points, I wouldn't hold your breath.

Quote:Could be. And it could be that existing restrictions on travel from the countries in question already manage that problem. Breyer's dissent points to the only effective change in travel policy from the targeted countries--namely that the number of visas granted to people who meet the Proclamations own criteria of legitimate entry have dropped dramatically. His anecdote about the deathly sick Yemeni girl denied a visa--until the matter became public--is telling. So, in effect, and as the Amici filled in dissent make clear, Muslims are being banned.  Not really the case with North Korea, because restrictions already in place meant few if any North Koreans traveled to the U.S. before 9645.  Little change there.

Muslims are being banned in the sense that some of the countries on the list are majority muslim.  Odd that you don't even consider religious or ethnic minorities from said countries.  Shame on you for not contemplating the fate of such oppressed people.  As the ban does not extend to but the merest fraction of muslim majority countries your argument is left sputtering under the weight of it's own suppositions.

Quote:One cannot establish directly from the fact that countries on the travel ban list can be "logically described" as threats to national security that  Trump's travel ban is therefore not primarily about religious animus--especially if one dismisses evidence of the both the development and practice of the ban.

One most certainly can, under the criteria already presented.  That you disagree does not render such criteria invalid by your fiat.  The simple fact remains that your interpretation lost.  You find some solace in the idea of eventual historical vindication.  If you require such succor then who am I to deprive you of your adult binky?

In the meantime, could you educate us all on Al Kuds day?

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2018, 09:36 PM)Beaker Wrote: That's the second time in this thread that you've attributed something you said to me. I never referred to any financial results.

Actually that is all we have been talking about.

(06-28-2018, 10:07 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The only way your argument holds water is if you are claiming that certain races are more willing than others to seek opportunity. If equality of opportunity were true, and you hold onto the idea of racial equality, then if the racial makeup of a country is 55%, 30%, 10%, and 5%, then the wealthiest top 20% should match that racial makeup. If the opportunity is equal to all people in the country, including based on race, then each socioeconomic strata should contain a nearly identical racial makeup to society. That is unless you believe certain races are more likely to succeed for some other reason.

(06-28-2018, 10:15 AM)Beaker Wrote: That would be equality of outcome. You are assuming the motivational level of all individuals within each group would be an identical distribution also. And we know that is not the case.

So tell me again how you never referred to financial results.  And please provide links to where you defined success as something other than financial.

I'll wait.

[Beaker]

(06-29-2018, 12:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually that is all we have been talking about.




So tell me again how you never referred to financial results.  And please provide links to where you defined success as something other than financial.

I'll wait.

Doesn't your post provide the evidence that Bels brought up wealth distribution, and I referred to working towards equality of opportunity....just like I said? And weren't you the one who specifically defined wealth accumulation as the measure of success for the purposes of this conversation? Your wait is over.

[fredtoast]

(06-29-2018, 02:57 PM)Beaker Wrote: Doesn't your post provide the evidence that Bels brought up wealth distribution, and I referred to working towards equality of opportunity....just like I said? And weren't you the one who specifically defined wealth accumulation as the measure of success for the purposes of this conversation? Your wait is over.

We had a long debate about economic inequality and you NEVER mentioned anything else until your argument was exposed as nothing more than whites being the superior race.

Even now you have failed to even attempt to define success in any other way.  So here is your chance.  When you were talking about "pursuing opportunity" what exactly did you mean?  Opportunity to what?  Be a good person?  Who among us has said that here is a difference between the races in "being good people"?  Who are you arguing with?  The only thing any of us has talked about throughout this entire discussion was distribution of economics and wealth.  

[Dill]

(06-29-2018, 12:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In the meantime, could you educate us all on Al Kuds day?

The Royal pronoun again lol.  Al Quds day is your hobby horse; I've see no evidence anyone else would be interested in the subject. But I'll go off topic for a moment to address a response specifically to you, to explain why no one really needs to be "educated" about Al Quds Day, and certainly not on this thread.  (No one else need read this. Seriously.)

When Western intel professionals go about assessing the threat level posed by Iran, they certainly do pay attention to what political actors there say about Israel.  If a general says "Israel will not exist in 25 years" or a Revolutionary Guard writes that the "Zionist entity" should be destroyed, the professionals take notice. But because they are professionals, they consider a bit more closely than laypersons. They ask: what is the status of the speaker--i.e., does he actually speak for the regime? What did the speaker mean--e.g., is he speaking of killing Israelis or getting rid of the ethnic state, much as people wanted the end of apartheid South Africa? What is the venue--is it an interview with a foreign reporter, a speech at a campaign rally, the parliament? Who is the audience--is the statement more about shoring up support at home, confounding political opponents, solidarity with groups in Lebanon or Yemen, or actually addressing Israel, say as a response to Israeli air strikes in Syria? And also, are the statements internally contested in any way, say by political opponents, the "liberal media" there, or even subtly by silence from the Supreme Leader.

Further, how the speaker is embedded in Iranian institutions--Military commander, member of parliament, party leader, member of the judiciary or the Council of Guardians--is significant. Even John Bolton recognizes that Iranian politics is fragmented and competitive. Maverick groups like thep Revolutionary Guard often speak "out of turn," so to speak, and out of line with official policy.

Most importantly, intel professionals assess whether anything follows from such statements.  E.g., if the CiC of the Iranian military threatens to reduce Tel Aviv to rubble and jets are scrambled, there is concern.  If nothing happens on the ground, then likely the statement is just rhetoric.

Finally, they find it important to entertain competing hypothesis explaining Iranian behavior towards Israel--including a general ethical concern for the well being of Palestinians. Analysis comes before judgment.

This procedure holds for other kinds of threats as well. Statements of political actors are matched with data from the ground, for example, have produced recurring assessments that the current Iranian government is rational in managing nuclear policy, responsive to outside pressure, and not at present committed to obtaining a nuclear bomb.

Laypersons often find this sort of analysis tedious and uninteresting. Understandably. But things that do excite many laypersons--say a Breitbart article on Al Quds day http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2018/06/01/london-police-we-cant-stop-hezbollah-flags-flying-on-al-quds-march/--may be tedious and uninteresting to intel professionals. For them, a day set aside in 1979 for Muslims worldwide to express their solidarity with Palestinians has diminishing rewards for assessing Iranian foreign policy--even if participants sometimes shout "death to America."

I am not an intel professional, but I do like to follow their discussions, country reports, and assessments and respect their method, like that demonstrated in this estimate from 2007. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%20Pubs/20071203_release.pdf
Thus I would not likely enjoy a discussion of Al Quds Day with someone whose goal would be--Breitbart style--to make it representative of Iranian policy or "Islam" in general, someone who treats Iran as a monolith directly and primarily knowable through the most controversial statements of some leaders. My efforts to introduce counter perspectives and complicating information drawn from actual intel estimates would only be tagged as inane, lying deflection, boring, predictable, and typical of my "ilk."

"How Al Quds day is celebrated" would make a good segment for Fox news.  It could be canned for the moment, then when the next conflict with Iran emerges, as it will with Bolton and Trump responsible for national security, it could be replayed daily as commentators like Sebastien Gorka explain the threat to "our ally" for Fox viewers. But no one will go there who wants to understand Iran and its government, or the Middle East conflict in general, or is serious about assessing any threat level posed by Iran.

[Dill]

(06-29-2018, 12:49 AM)TSociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I clarified some points of the SCOTUS decision on Trump vs Hawaii based upon an existing structural analogy between all types of illegal discrimination.  "Forcible internment" and "property theft" are not the basis of the dissent, nor of the structural analogy I discussed, hence not the basis of some "false equivalency" or"failed analogy" made by me or the dissenting justices.  The dissent is based upon 1) a reading of the Establishment Clause, and 2) and a challenge to the majority's application of the "rational basis scrutiny."  The analogy to Korematsu was in the Government's failure of due diligence in representing a supposed threat to national security and the animus behind it.  The question of whether the analogy is valid is a question of whether animus and misrepresentation can be found in the process of developing Trump's Proclamation No. 9645.

Flowery tap dancing doesn't change the fact that a direct comparison is inane.  It is the utter false equivalency as the intent, outcome and severity of both are not comparable.

In a previous post I explained how the law treats types of discrimination as categorically the same, subject to legal analogy, even if one case is about race and another about religion; that holds even if one case is about forced internment and another about visa regulation. In the italics above I explain the legal basis of the Trump dissent. Calling this "flowery tap dancing" may mean you have not followed the argument as a legal argument.  In any case, you neither ask for clarification nor respond to it as a legal argument, ignoring the stated basis of dissent and grounds for analogy to Korematsu, and continuing instead to assert the issue is all about an analogy to "forced internment."  Its like two dudes in the forum were arguing about which is "worse," internment or visa denial--with no reference to any court decision or legal classification--and you stepped in to set them straight claiming "a direct comparison is inane" and "utter false equivalency." 

You argued a talking point of the Trump defense: "it can't be a Muslim ban if it doesn't ban all Muslims."  I have shown that, as far as the law is concerned, it certainly can. A law may violate laws banning discrimination without being written to apply to ALL members of a race, religion, etc.  

(06-29-2018, 12:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Only if there were no logical reason to single out said hairdressers or secretaries.  Your complete failure to address the logical reasons such nations could be subject to a travel ban reveals your own knowledge of the utter speciousness of your position.

It doesn't because no rational person could argue otherwise.  The reasons given are plain and straightforward.  You haven't even attempted to address them, instead obfuscation behind a soporific cloud of deflective mendacity.

Sure, some seventy years later.  I guess we'll have to stick around to see if the same holds true in this instance.  As I've already pointed out the tenuousness of your, what I will generously call, points, I wouldn't hold your breath.

Quote: Wrote:One cannot establish directly from the fact that countries on the travel ban list can be "logically described" as threats to national security that  Trump's travel ban is therefore not primarily about religious animus--especially if one dismisses evidence of the both the development and practice of the ban.

One most certainly can, under the criteria already presented.  That you disagree does not render such criteria invalid by your fiat.  The simple fact remains that your interpretation lost.  You find some solace in the idea of eventual historical vindication.  If you require such succor then who am I to deprive you of your adult binky?

I have addressed the "logical reasons such nations could be subject to travel ban" in two posts now.  There is no "logical reason" to single out the Muslim countries in the ban when 1) other countries pose the same level or greater threat, but are not on the ban, 2) existing vetting already does the job; and 3) the only effect so far has been to drastically reduce Muslim visas from those countries of people who meet the stated criteria for exceptions. This is the basis of Breyer's dissent, so it is his "cloud of soporific . . . deflective mendacity" that you are actually addressing.  

So it may be "plain and straightforward" that Somalia, like Pakistan, cannot vet its citizens, but it is not plain and straightforward that Somalia is on the ban list and Pakistan is not.  To raise that question is not to ''ignore" the threat posed by Somalia.  Again, it's like two dudes in the forum were just arguing about whether visa restrictions should be required for countries like Somalia--no reference to a legal case or existing restrictions--and you step in to diffuse the "cloud of soporific mendacity" by stating what "no rational person" could deny.

Reviewing the legal premises of both majority and dissenting opinions, then reminding you of the sordid and dodgy evolution of the travel ban is not to argue by "fiat."  Stating the ban just isn't about Muslims because a Trump lawyer says so is arguing by fiat.

So you have not really established the "tenuousness" of my points.  You have simply iignored their legal framing as "obfuscation," and continued to offer unsupported one-liners (arguing by fiat) based more upon your thesaurus than the SCOTUS ruling, and thrown in some bald assertions that I am "deflective" and lying.  I can dissect and refute bad arguments as fast as you can post them, but I'm not seeing the reward in that, if you make no effort to really follow the legal argument.

(06-29-2018, 12:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why not just stick to the legal issues and leave imputation of motives aside?

Inane attempts to equate the current right with fascism is why your arguments fall on largely deaf ears.  There's no comparison beyond your own hysteria.

Indubitably my good sir.  Let us stick the the confabulation so imminently propagated by those intent on impugning the motivations of our adversarial ideological opponents.  I implore you with the utmost probity. 

LOL I'll take that as a "no."  And are those royal "deaf ears"? It would dampen my "hysteria" quite a bit if you could actually cite/quote any "inane attempts to equate the current right with facism." Is some point made on another thread driving your responses on this thread off topic? If our past disagreements are predictive, pointing out unsupported claims and hyperbolic rhetoric won't prevent you from pouring it on now.  

I responded to your original post because it looked like, this time around, you might stay focused on the topic and leave off the ad hominem. But seems that you cannot.  Show me that you can focus on the argument/implications of Trump vs Hawaii, not your mental construction of me and whatever demons still haunt you from past threads, and I will continue with you. But I won't respond to ad hominem and quippery.