SCOTUS rules on Travel Ban

[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.