"Lay off the white folks first."
-
wrote on 16 Aug 2022, 18:27 last edited by
I actually welcome cases like this so that Scotus can remind everyone that the amendment that forbids racial discrimination means what it says.
-
I actually welcome cases like this so that Scotus can remind everyone that the amendment that forbids racial discrimination means what it says.
wrote on 16 Aug 2022, 19:31 last edited by@jon-nyc said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
I actually welcome cases like this so that Scotus can remind everyone that the amendment that forbids racial discrimination means what it says.
How do you suppose the leftward members of the current court would decide, in a case like this?
-
wrote on 16 Aug 2022, 20:36 last edited by
It’s a mysterie
-
wrote on 16 Aug 2022, 21:36 last edited by Horace
@jon-nyc said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
It’s a mysterie
Yeah. But I suppose the value of conservative politics is so ubiquitous that it can be taken for granted, as it’s shat upon for the ugly ways in which it sometimes has to be manifested.
-
@jon-nyc said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
I actually welcome cases like this so that Scotus can remind everyone that the amendment that forbids racial discrimination means what it says.
How do you suppose the leftward members of the current court would decide, in a case like this?
wrote on 16 Aug 2022, 22:07 last edited by@Horace said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@jon-nyc said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
I actually welcome cases like this so that Scotus can remind everyone that the amendment that forbids racial discrimination means what it says.
How do you suppose the leftward members of the current court would decide, in a case like this?
I don't see that they have a choice. How could you possibly defend this on any constitutional baasis?
-
@Horace said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@jon-nyc said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
I actually welcome cases like this so that Scotus can remind everyone that the amendment that forbids racial discrimination means what it says.
How do you suppose the leftward members of the current court would decide, in a case like this?
I don't see that they have a choice. How could you possibly defend this on any constitutional baasis?
wrote on 16 Aug 2022, 22:42 last edited by@Mik said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@Horace said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@jon-nyc said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
I actually welcome cases like this so that Scotus can remind everyone that the amendment that forbids racial discrimination means what it says.
How do you suppose the leftward members of the current court would decide, in a case like this?
I don't see that they have a choice. How could you possibly defend this on any constitutional baasis?
If an issue is blatantly and transparently unconstitutional, how does it get to the supreme court? Any discussion of how the supreme court might decide, includes the assumption that the issue is sufficiently ambiguous to get there. Ask jon why he thinks this issue could ever make it to the supreme court. I suspect the answer will be that it has enough cultural valence. And that same valence will color the decisions of the justices. They are, after all, chosen for their cultural reliability. Adherence to the constitution is a nice thing to talk about having, but the left expects that to be negotiable in the privacy of chambers.
-
@Mik said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@Horace said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@jon-nyc said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
I actually welcome cases like this so that Scotus can remind everyone that the amendment that forbids racial discrimination means what it says.
How do you suppose the leftward members of the current court would decide, in a case like this?
I don't see that they have a choice. How could you possibly defend this on any constitutional baasis?
If an issue is blatantly and transparently unconstitutional, how does it get to the supreme court? Any discussion of how the supreme court might decide, includes the assumption that the issue is sufficiently ambiguous to get there. Ask jon why he thinks this issue could ever make it to the supreme court. I suspect the answer will be that it has enough cultural valence. And that same valence will color the decisions of the justices. They are, after all, chosen for their cultural reliability. Adherence to the constitution is a nice thing to talk about having, but the left expects that to be negotiable in the privacy of chambers.
wrote on 16 Aug 2022, 22:51 last edited by@Horace said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
negotiable in the privacy of chambers.
A negotiation that now includes democrats protesting on the justices front lawns.
It's not just the constitution anymore.
-
wrote on 16 Aug 2022, 23:08 last edited by
So wait, they want to send the white people home to sit on the couch while making the black people work? Sounds a lot like the 1800s….
-
@Mik said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@Horace said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@jon-nyc said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
I actually welcome cases like this so that Scotus can remind everyone that the amendment that forbids racial discrimination means what it says.
How do you suppose the leftward members of the current court would decide, in a case like this?
I don't see that they have a choice. How could you possibly defend this on any constitutional baasis?
If an issue is blatantly and transparently unconstitutional, how does it get to the supreme court? Any discussion of how the supreme court might decide, includes the assumption that the issue is sufficiently ambiguous to get there. Ask jon why he thinks this issue could ever make it to the supreme court. I suspect the answer will be that it has enough cultural valence. And that same valence will color the decisions of the justices. They are, after all, chosen for their cultural reliability. Adherence to the constitution is a nice thing to talk about having, but the left expects that to be negotiable in the privacy of chambers.
wrote on 16 Aug 2022, 23:09 last edited by@Horace said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
If an issue is blatantly and transparently unconstitutional, how does it get to the supreme court?
The only answer I can provide is that it might get to the Supreme Court through the usual steps -- that is, John White Teacher sues the school board and loses, and he appeals, and loses, and then -- what, the District Court? and loses, and then the Supremes, if they choose to hear it.
If constitutionality is that blatant and transparent, it will likely be shot down either by the SCOTUS or more likely (?) much earlier. But if the lawyers for either side can dredge up enough case law to argue constitutionality unto the next millenium, maybe constitutionality will not emerge as transparently as you would think.
:man-shrugging:
-
@Horace said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@jon-nyc said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
I actually welcome cases like this so that Scotus can remind everyone that the amendment that forbids racial discrimination means what it says.
How do you suppose the leftward members of the current court would decide, in a case like this?
I don't see that they have a choice. How could you possibly defend this on any constitutional baasis?
wrote on 16 Aug 2022, 23:49 last edited by@Mik said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@Horace said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@jon-nyc said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
I actually welcome cases like this so that Scotus can remind everyone that the amendment that forbids racial discrimination means what it says.
How do you suppose the leftward members of the current court would decide, in a case like this?
I don't see that they have a choice. How could you possibly defend this on any constitutional baasis?
In practice something this blatant wouldn’t get through district court and the Union wouldn’t try to appeal.
-
@Horace said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@jon-nyc said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
I actually welcome cases like this so that Scotus can remind everyone that the amendment that forbids racial discrimination means what it says.
How do you suppose the leftward members of the current court would decide, in a case like this?
I don't see that they have a choice. How could you possibly defend this on any constitutional baasis?
wrote on 17 Aug 2022, 00:04 last edited by@Mik said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@Horace said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@jon-nyc said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
I actually welcome cases like this so that Scotus can remind everyone that the amendment that forbids racial discrimination means what it says.
How do you suppose the leftward members of the current court would decide, in a case like this?
I don't see that they have a choice. How could you possibly defend this on any constitutional baasis?
Where there's a will, there's a way...
-
@Mik said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@Horace said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@jon-nyc said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
I actually welcome cases like this so that Scotus can remind everyone that the amendment that forbids racial discrimination means what it says.
How do you suppose the leftward members of the current court would decide, in a case like this?
I don't see that they have a choice. How could you possibly defend this on any constitutional baasis?
Where there's a will, there's a way...
wrote on 17 Aug 2022, 00:11 last edited by@Jolly said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@Mik said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@Horace said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
@jon-nyc said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
I actually welcome cases like this so that Scotus can remind everyone that the amendment that forbids racial discrimination means what it says.
How do you suppose the leftward members of the current court would decide, in a case like this?
I don't see that they have a choice. How could you possibly defend this on any constitutional baasis?
Where there's a will, there's a way...
A culture-war case getting to the supreme court, is like an aspiring doctor getting into medical school. The tough challenges are met getting there. Once there, it's almost a done deal. The justices will vote as they were hired to vote. It is pure fantasy to think there could not exist a legal justification for either side. Those justifications already existed as prerequisite for the case getting to scotus.
-
wrote on 17 Aug 2022, 00:17 last edited by
I still fail to see the fundamental difference with Affirmative Action…
-
I still fail to see the fundamental difference with Affirmative Action…
wrote on 17 Aug 2022, 00:24 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
still fail to see the fundamental difference with Affirmative Action…
You need to Bakke up...
-
I still fail to see the fundamental difference with Affirmative Action…
wrote on 17 Aug 2022, 00:27 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in "Lay off the white folks first.":
I still fail to see the fundamental difference with Affirmative Action…
At a certain level of resolution they’re the same - present discrimination to achieve certain group outcomes. But I think the method of discrimination is perceived differently. To not get promoted is one thing, to get fired is another.