SCOTUS rules on Travel Ban

[GMDino]

(06-27-2018, 10:59 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

Matt explained it best.

Trump called for, and ran a campaign where he promised, a "Muslim Ban".  He called it a "Muslim Ban" even while it was being rejected in the lower courts using his own words against him.

The SCOTUS ruled that his "Muslim Ban" was not one as it was not written as a "Muslim Ban" but rather as a "Travel Ban".

So we have to assume Trump still believes it is a "Muslim Ban" as that is what he wanted and promised.

That doesn't make the decision of the court wrong.  It's just the facts.

[jj22]

(06-27-2018, 11:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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?

The argument that they haven't had anyone attack us on our soil. And if this was about making America safer, or those with state sponsored terrorism, then what is the purpose if those countries that have attacked us, and sponsor terrorist, are exempt. That's the clearest I can say it. I understand there are those that disagree. But I stand by it.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2018, 11:08 AM)michaelsean Wrote: 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.  

This gets into the argument that was before the court. Can what Trump said be used to identify (unlawful) discriminatory intent within the policy, even if it was not written with that explicitly included. It's not so much about taking him at his word; I don't think any of the Justices doubted Trump's word or most of us on here for that matter. The decision is whether or not Trump's word really matters if the policy is facially neutral. The answer they came to was no.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2018, 11:12 AM)jj22 Wrote: The argument that they haven't had anyone attack us on our soil.  And if this was about making America safer, or those with state sponsored terrorism, then what is the purpose if those countries that have attacked us, and sponsor terrorist, are exempt. That's the clearest I can say it. I understand there are those that disagree. But I stand by it.

ISIS has attacked us on our own soil, by their own admission and by that of the attackers.  So, by your own standards, Syria should absolutely be included on this list.  Also, I don't think waiting for an attack to take place on US soil is a good standard for inclusion on such a list.  Waiting for Americans to be killed before taking action seems like bad policy to me in a general sense.  Honestly, you argument sounds more like you're advocating for more countries to be included than against the efficacy of the current ban.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 11:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: ISIS has attacked us on our own soil, by their own admission and by that of the attackers.  So, by your own standards, Syria should absolutely be included on this list.  Also, I don't think waiting for an attack to take place on US soil is a good standard for inclusion on such a list.  Waiting for Americans to be killed before taking action seems like bad policy to me in a general sense.  Honestly, you argument sounds more like you're advocating for more countries to be included than against the efficacy of the current ban.

We, the collective we, seem to have lost that.  We are so eager to paint someone as evil that we run right to that rather than argue how the policy is good or bad.  In this particular case everyone is trying so hard to paint Trump as a racist or bigot, they ignore the argument against the ban based on its merits.  

[jj22]

(06-27-2018, 11:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: ISIS has attacked us on our own soil, by their own admission and by that of the attackers.  So, by your own standards, Syria should absolutely be included on this list.  Also, I don't think waiting for an attack to take place on US soil is a good standard for inclusion on such a list.  Waiting for Americans to be killed before taking action seems like bad policy to me in a general sense.  Honestly, you argument sounds more like you're advocating for more countries to be included than against the efficacy of the current ban.

My argument is I don't mind the ban if it makes us safer. Not stopping those who come in to our country from those countries that have attacked us seems counterproductive. That's my only point. ISIS has taken responsibility for random acts against us mostly by AMERICANS who may sympathize with them in some cases, and in most they are just claiming responsibility after the fact, but had nothing to do with the planning or supporting of these attackers from within.

I support a ban against immigration from those countries that have attacked us. You are advocating more bans since you are trying to prevent an attack, which means everyone should be banned. Because you never know.

[Beaker]

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

Unless the interviewer is D"Andre Leroy Williams.

Then does Anna Sue get to claim institutional racism?

[Beaker]

(06-27-2018, 09:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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?

The concept that there is institutional racism does nothing to create a more equitable society, nor does it in any way afford equal protection. In fact, it does more to increase racial tensions and separation. 

Again, racism is bad. Equal protection is good. But let's strive for them based upon actual incidents and events of racism that we can all use as examples for equality....not some made up monster in the ether.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2018, 12:09 PM)Beaker Wrote: The concept that there is institutional racism does nothing to create a more equitable society, nor does it in any way afford equal protection. In fact, it does more to increase racial tensions and separation. 

Again, racism is bad. Equal protection is good. But let's strive for them based upon actual incidents and events of racism that we can all use as examples for equality....not some made up monster in the ether.

The concept of institutional racism helps to explain a cause of racial disparities in society and government and allow us to find ways we can craft policies to create a more equitable society. It creates tensions because people get defensive instead of recognizing that there are actual systems at play that are discriminatory and not explicit, and we must work to address those.

Your statements are similar to those in the school of thought that if we just ignore race the problem of racism will go away eventually. Racism isn't only an occurrence in explicit, acute incidents. There is a systemic presence of racial discrimination that exists in our institutions that must be addressed. Racial segregation is stronger in some places right now than it was pre-Brown v. Board of Education. Black defendants are incarcerated at higher rates and for harsher sentences than white defendants for the exact same crimes. These are just two verifiable symptoms of institutionalized racism. They are not the results of explicit racism that takes place in a single event, they are rooted in extant policies that allow for this discrimination to continue into present day as a holdover from a time when it was more acceptable. How else do you explain these phenomena if not for institutionalized racism?

[Beaker]

(06-27-2018, 12:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The concept of institutional racism helps to explain a cause of racial disparities in society and government 

Your statements are similar to those in the school of thought that if we just ignore race the problem of racism will go away eventually. 

The concept of institutional racism explains nothing. It assigns blame for failures to a nebulous idea. If the real reason you failed is because somebody was racist, then that can be addressed. 

I have said all along that racism is bad, and equal protection is good. Specific incidents of racism should be attacked....no matter what race the victim is. And we should view and refer to each others as equals....as humans. Not as white Americans, or African Americans, or Asians, etc. Morgan Freeman made a great point when asked how we could help to reduce racism. He said stop referring to me as a black man, and you as a white man, just call me a man. That doesn't mean ignore it or don't talk about it...but quit labelling each other in ways that create separation.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2018, 12:30 PM)Beaker Wrote: The concept of institutional racism explains nothing. It assigns blame for failures to a nebulous idea. If the real reason you failed is because somebody was racist, then that can be addressed. 

I have said all along that racism is bad, and equal protection is good. Specific incidents of racism should be attacked....no matter what race the victim is. And we should view and refer to each others as equals....as humans. Not as white Americans, or African Americans, or Asians, etc. Morgan Freeman made a great point when asked how we could help to reduce racism. He said stop referring to me as a black man, and you as a white man, just call me a man. That doesn't mean ignore it or don't talk about it...but quit labelling each other in ways that create separation.

The problem is that our brains will always create those labels. Those labels have been around for a long time and they have created differences in society that cannot be overcome without continuing to recognize them.

So you didn't answer my question to you in that post about how do you explain the phenomena I presented without institutional racism.

[BmorePat87]

Interesting ruling. Rhetoric and words of policy makers do not matter as long as the policy is written in a way that appears neutral.

[*bfine32*]

(06-27-2018, 12:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Interesting ruling. Rhetoric and words of policy makers do not matter as long as the policy is written in a way that appears neutral.

Reminds me of the Peter Strzok txt finding of non-bias. Folks will take issue with one case or the other based on other factors than just the merit of the case.

For me I see Srtzok as someone who was just talking big to a lover and Trump just talking big to voters.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 12:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Interesting ruling. Rhetoric and words of policy makers do not matter as long as the policy is written in a way that appears neutral.

Well for me more than the appearance of being neutral is that it involves 8% of Muslims.  

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 11:15 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This gets into the argument that was before the court. Can what Trump said be used to identify (unlawful) discriminatory intent within the policy, even if it was not written with that explicitly included. It's not so much about taking him at his word; I don't think any of the Justices doubted Trump's word or most of us on here for that matter. The decision is whether or not Trump's word really matters if the policy is facially neutral. The answer they came to was no.

The Supreme Court recognized that Trump is a liar who will say anything to fire up his base.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2018, 02:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The Supreme Court recognized that Trump is a liar who will say anything to fire up his base.

That is certainly one way to look at the ruling.

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 12:01 PM)Beaker Wrote: Unless the interviewer is D"Andre Leroy Williams.

Then does Anna Sue get to claim institutional racism?

The problem is that white people control a grossly disproportionate amount of power and wealth.  It is hard for Leroy Williams to ever be the interviewer if the people in charge are mostly white.

A white person can not complain about a system being against them when they control a disproportionate amount of the power in that system.

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 12:30 PM)Beaker Wrote: The concept of institutional racism explains nothing. It assigns blame for failures to a nebulous idea. If the real reason you failed is because somebody was racist, then that can be addressed. 

There are multiple scientific studies that have shown that identical job applications get treated differently depending on if the name is "ethnic" or not.  Also studies showing the same results with housing applications.  Plenty of examples of police using racial profiling.

So how do you suggest we "address" these issues if we are not allowed to talk about them?  How will pretending these facts don't exist fix anything?

[*PhilHos*]

(06-27-2018, 02:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem is that white people control a grossly disproportionate amount of power and wealth.  It is hard for Leroy Williams to ever be the interviewer if the people in charge are mostly white.

Right, because all white people are racist.

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 08:38 AM)Beaker Wrote: 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. 

That was not my question.

Do poor white kids in underfunded rural schools not even try because they are told they are disadvantaged?