SCOTUS rules on Travel Ban

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2018, 01:27 AM)Dill Wrote: 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.

"Muslim" is not a race.

Quote: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"?

 
As the ban clearly does not target muslims I'd say there's nothing to discount.

Quote: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.

Fair points, although I wonder how relevant they are.  Do you think the nations included in the ban should not be on the list?  Do you think there are legitimate reasons a rational person could cite for their inclusion that has nothing to do with religion?

Quote: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.

Hopefully neither, as the possible consequences of this decision cannot be rationally equated to the consequences of the two cases you just referenced.  Yes, the GOP gambled and won big.  It was an underhanded maneuver but they reaped massive benefits.  With Kennedy possibly retiring soon the consequences are even more significant.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2018, 10:15 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Why can they only interview one?  And what are you basing your 9 of 10 on?

His statement is based on studies done that have used the exact same resumes sent in for the same job, only changing the name to sound either more black or more white, and at a significant rate the resume with the whiter name received a call and the resume with the black name did not.

[jj22]

If you agree with the Muslim Ban just say so. Why cover and make excuses claiming it isn't a Muslim ban when that is what Trump called it for 19 months prior to implementing it? If you agree just say so. Take a position and stick to it.

[GMDino]

(06-27-2018, 10:13 AM)michaelsean Wrote: OK so just disagree with his opinion of what they did.  Don't make up something else about what he did.

"What he did" was say they were unflattering pictures.

Then "defended" them by saying they shouldn't use such a picture.


"I told everyone you quit beating your wife!"
"Why would you say that when I never beat my wife?!?!"
"Hey! Don't be mad at me I was defending you!"

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 10:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: His statement is based on studies done that have used the exact same resumes sent in for the same job, only changing the name to sound either more black or more white, and at a significant rate the resume with the whiter name received a call and the resume with the black name did not.

I've never seen interviews where they can only interview one person.  That would be called a hiring. And nowhere have i ever seen 9 of 10.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 10:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: "What he did" was say they were unflattering pictures.

Then "defended" them by saying they shouldn't use such a picture.


"I told everyone you quit beating your wife!"
"Why would you say that when I never beat my wife?!?!"
"Hey! Don't be mad at me I was defending you!"

Alright you seem dug in on this one.  

[GMDino]

(06-27-2018, 10:20 AM)jj22 Wrote: If you agree with the Muslim Ban just say so. Why cover and make excuses claiming it isn't a Muslim ban when that is what Trump called it for 19 months prior to implementing it?  If you agree just say so. Take a position and stick to it.

Very few will admit to their true reasons so they can appear "fair" and "unbiased".

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 10:20 AM)jj22 Wrote: If you agree with the Muslim Ban just say so. Why cover and make excuses claiming it isn't a Muslim ban when that is what Trump called it for 19 months prior to implementing it?  If you agree just say so. Take a position and stick to it.

If I agreed with a Muslim ban I'd be pretty pissed off as this doesn't cover 92% of Muslims.

[GMDino]

(06-27-2018, 10:25 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Alright you seem dug in on this one.  

Just trying to be fair.

As those who usually say they rail against this "every time" seem fine with it, someone has to point out.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2018, 10:20 AM)jj22 Wrote: If you agree with the Muslim Ban just say so. Why cover and make excuses claiming it isn't a Muslim ban when that is what Trump called it for 19 months prior to implementing it?  If you agree just say so. Take a position and stick to it.

(06-27-2018, 10:25 AM)GMDino Wrote: Very few will admit to their true reasons so they can appear "fair" and "unbiased".

First, it's not a muslim ban.  This does not become any more true the more times you repeat it.  Secondly, you can agree with the ability of the POTUS to issue this type of executive order without agreeing with the order itself.  I suppose that type of nuance is difficult for the black and white world view type.

[jj22]

(06-27-2018, 10:28 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First, it's not a muslim ban.  This does not become any more true the more times you repeat it.  Secondly, you can agree with the ability of the POTUS to issue this type of executive order without agreeing with the order itself.  I suppose that type of nuance is difficult for the black and white world view type.

So Trump and Fox News is lying to his supporters (their viewers) claiming he kept a campaign promise? Ok. I'll accept that. So exactly what did this do then if it didn't stop those traveling from countries that have attacked us on our soil (which it didn't). And isn't the Muslim ban he promised and spent the day celebrating yesterday?

Basically you are saying it's nothing, and Trump supporters were conned again. In the words of the POTUS. Sad! But they will continue to be conned until they respect themselves and quit playing the fool.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2018, 10:24 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I've never seen interviews where they can only interview one person.  That would be called a hiring. And nowhere have i ever seen 9 of 10.

He's not representing the studies well.

There is one rather famous study that is a little over a decade old. Of course, last year there was a study published that provided different evidence. The implications aren't certain at this point as these are two data sets and we need more to really dig into this further. There was an article about this that I read that did a good job of digging into it. I'll see if I still have it saved in a research folder somewhere.

Edit 1: Here is the abstract from the older study (Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination, 2004):

Quote:We study race in the labor market by sending fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perceived race, resumes are randomly assigned African-American- or White-sounding names. White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. Callbacks are also more responsive to resume quality for White names than for African-American ones. The racial gap is uniform across occupation, industry, and employer size. We also find little evidence that employers are inferring social class from the names. Differential treatment by race still appears to still be prominent in the U. S. labor market.

Edit 2: Abstract from more recent study (Race and gender effects on employer interest in job applicants: new evidence from a resume field experiment, 2015):

Quote:We sent nearly 9000 fictitious resumes to advertisements for job openings in seven major cities in the United States across six occupational categories. We randomly assigned names to the resumes that convey race and gender but for which a strong socio-economic connotation is not implicated. We find little evidence of systematic employer preferences for applicants from particular race and gender groups.

Still looking for the article, now realizing this was longer ago than I thought.

Edit 3: Finally found the article! http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-bias-hiring-0504-biz-20160503-story.html

[jj22]

(06-27-2018, 10:42 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: He's not representing the studies well.

There is one rather famous study that is a little over a decade old. Of course, last year there was a study published that provided different evidence. The implications aren't certain at this point as these are two data sets and we need more to really dig into this further. There was an article about this that I read that did a good job of digging into it. I'll see if I still have it saved in a research folder somewhere.

Edit 1: Here is the abstract from the older study (Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination, 2004):

I'm not representing a specific study. But he clearly knows what i am saying which is why he isn't saying anything about the actual point made because he can't. Shrugs. He can keep focusing on the "interview process" of my statement (as if I was arguing that the interview process was somehow wrong) but that's because he has nothing else. I see through that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2018, 10:33 AM)jj22 Wrote: So Trump and Fox News is lying to his supporters (their viewers) claiming he kept a campaign promise? Ok. I'll accept that. So exactly what did this do then if it didn't stop those traveling from countries that have attacked us on our soil (which it didn't). And isn't the Muslim ban he promised and spent the day celebrating yesterday?

Basically you are saying it's nothing, and Trump supporters were conned again. In the words of the POTUS. Sad! But they will continue to be conned until they respect themselves and quit playing the fool.

You're comprehension of my post is poor.  As for the ban, it's a ban on countries that are either state sponsors of terrorism, like Iran, or have governments that are incapable of properly vetting applicants, like Iraq and Somalia.  You can disagree with the effectiveness of the ban but I haven't seen a credible argument against the inclusion of the banned nations.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 10:48 AM)jj22 Wrote: I'm not representing a specific study.  But he clearly knows what i am saying which is why he isn't saying anything about the actual point made because he can't. Shrugs.

Yes I can.  You are wrong.  I'm aware of both the study from a while ago and the new study. The former study came up with a 50% difference.  The new study came up with no difference and included Latino names.  The difference being the second study relied more on last names so it's not as clear cut.  You just made up a number.

[jj22]

(06-27-2018, 10:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're comprehension of my post is poor.  As for the ban, it's a ban on countries that are either state sponsors of terrorism, like Iran, or have governments that are incapable of properly vetting applicants, like Iraq and Somalia.  You can disagree with the effectiveness of the ban but I haven't seen a credible argument against the inclusion of the banned nations.

State sponsors of terrorist? Then why not Saudi Arabia? Turkey? and Egypt? None of which is covered in the ban, all of which has had people attack Americans on our soil from 1975-2015.......

[*bfine32*]

If it is a Muslim ban then why are the countries with the highest population not on the list?

This is a typical left tactic. A ruling/ law doesn't go their way so it must be labeled as bigoted in nature.

[jj22]

Why are you slamming the "left" for calling it what Trump called it for 1.5years? Or are you slamming Trump too? Too much spin, not enough common sense. These are Trumps (not the left) words. Why attack the left? Either you agree with Trump and his Muslim ban, or you don't. Just say it. Acting like it's a term made up by the Left, just doesn't work outside of maybe Fox, but they aren't even trying to spin it as something else. Hannity gleefully called it a Muslim ban last night..... But keep claiming it's the left's term.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2018, 10:54 AM)jj22 Wrote: State sponsors of terrorist? Then why not Saudi Arabia? Turkey? and Egypt? None of which is covered in the ban, all of which has had people attack Americans on our soil from 1975-2015.......

Pointing out others that could be included on the list is not the same as arguing against those that are.  Kindly stick to the question answered, what argument can you produce for the exclusion of the nations included on this list?

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 11:04 AM)jj22 Wrote: Why are you slamming the "left" for calling it what Trump called it for 1.5years? Or are you slamming Trump too?

So you are taking his word on this one? Personally I don't believe much of what the guy says, but apparently you take him at his word.  No matter what he said it would be, the facts say it is not a Muslim ban.