06-29-2018, 12:49 AM
(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?
