I agree--there is some verbal/legal prestidigitation going on here to avoid it being "a Muslim ban" but the fact remains that, as written, it isn't a Muslim ban. It also isn't going to do anything useful, though--Muslims coming into the country are not the number one problem we are facing at this time.
Technically, the travel ban cannot be "racist" since it does not target any specific ethnicity, only certain nations of origin.
Bullcrap. If the intent of the ban is to block people of certain ethnicities, then it is racist, no matter how they try to put lipstick on it.
The current travel ban includes both Venezuela and DPRK in addition to various Middle Eastern countries; please explain how it targets specific ethnic groups. As written, it targets specific *countries*, which is not equivalent to ethnicity. People who disagree with it wish to apply the negative connotation "racist" to it in order to generate more negative feelings about it. I disagree with the ban, myself, but my reasoning is different--it won't stop a motivated militant person from coming here, only inconvenience innocent people.
Look at the intent of the travel ban. As Donald Trump himself said "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”
His intent with the travel ban was crystal clear - to target Muslims.
It is analogous to the Jim Crow poll tax laws. Although the poll tax laws did not specifically say "black people can't vote", they were crafted to mainly disenfranchise black citizens. Just because the Jim Crow laws also affected some (mostly poor) whites doesn't change the racist intent of the laws.
SCOTUS isn't supposed to divine what the President's 'intent' was, just the constitutionality of the travel ban. The last time I checked none of the justices were licensed psychologists or claimed some kind of telepathic power...
Technically, the travel ban cannot be "racist" since it does not target any specific ethnicity, only certain nations of origin.
Bullcrap. If the intent of the ban is to block people of certain ethnicities, then it is racist, no matter how they try to put lipstick on it.
The current travel ban includes both Venezuela and DPRK in addition to various Middle Eastern countries; please explain how it targets specific ethnic groups. As written, it targets specific *countries*, which is not equivalent to ethnicity. People who disagree with it wish to apply the negative connotation "racist" to it in order to generate more negative feelings about it. I disagree with the ban, myself, but my reasoning is different--it won't stop a motivated militant person from coming here, only inconvenience innocent people.
Look at the intent of the travel ban. As Donald Trump himself said "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”
His intent with the travel ban was crystal clear - to target Muslims.
It is analogous to the Jim Crow poll tax laws. Although the poll tax laws did not specifically say "black people can't vote", they were crafted to mainly disenfranchise black citizens. Just because the Jim Crow laws also affected some (mostly poor) whites doesn't change the racist intent of the laws.
SCOTUS isn't supposed to divine what the President's 'intent' was, just the constitutionality of the travel ban. The last time I checked none of the justices were licensed psychologists or claimed some kind of telepathic power...
That's kidding, right? Judges and juries determine intent all the time. Do you know how many laws have "intent" as part of the standard? Are you saying that the Supreme Court justices cannot do a common task of lower court judges and juries?
Technically, the travel ban cannot be "racist" since it does not target any specific ethnicity, only certain nations of origin.
Bullcrap. If the intent of the ban is to block people of certain ethnicities, then it is racist, no matter how they try to put lipstick on it.
The current travel ban includes both Venezuela and DPRK in addition to various Middle Eastern countries; please explain how it targets specific ethnic groups. As written, it targets specific *countries*, which is not equivalent to ethnicity. People who disagree with it wish to apply the negative connotation "racist" to it in order to generate more negative feelings about it. I disagree with the ban, myself, but my reasoning is different--it won't stop a motivated militant person from coming here, only inconvenience innocent people.
Because you have to ask WHY a country is added to the list and not who they are listed with.
If the reason is flimsy on why they are added, then one has a right to question if other motives are at play.
And as I said prior, when this foolishness started, Trump is attempting to see what he can get away with. Nothing is preventing him from adding other countries to the travel ban once he’s been given the green light.
And remember, when this first started, Canadians, with Canadian passports, were turned away at the border because they were Muslim. Expect that type of discrimination to continue.
I agree--there is some verbal/legal prestidigitation going on here to avoid it being "a Muslim ban" but the fact remains that, as written, it isn't a Muslim ban. It also isn't going to do anything useful, though--Muslims coming into the country are not the number one problem we are facing at this time.
@Mathsorcerer - I guess you think Jim Crow laws weren't racist, then?
No, those were racist--they were intended to keep black Southerners (former slaves and the immediate descendants of slaves) as second-class citizens. This travel ban is different--misguided, but not racist.
Technically, the travel ban cannot be "racist" since it does not target any specific ethnicity, only certain nations of origin.
Bullcrap. If the intent of the ban is to block people of certain ethnicities, then it is racist, no matter how they try to put lipstick on it.
The current travel ban includes both Venezuela and DPRK in addition to various Middle Eastern countries; please explain how it targets specific ethnic groups. As written, it targets specific *countries*, which is not equivalent to ethnicity. People who disagree with it wish to apply the negative connotation "racist" to it in order to generate more negative feelings about it. I disagree with the ban, myself, but my reasoning is different--it won't stop a motivated militant person from coming here, only inconvenience innocent people.
Look at the intent of the travel ban. As Donald Trump himself said "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”
His intent with the travel ban was crystal clear - to target Muslims.
It is analogous to the Jim Crow poll tax laws. Although the poll tax laws did not specifically say "black people can't vote", they were crafted to mainly disenfranchise black citizens. Just because the Jim Crow laws also affected some (mostly poor) whites doesn't change the racist intent of the laws.
SCOTUS isn't supposed to divine what the President's 'intent' was, just the constitutionality of the travel ban. The last time I checked none of the justices were licensed psychologists or claimed some kind of telepathic power...
That's kidding, right? Judges and juries determine intent all the time. Do you know how many laws have "intent" as part of the standard? Are you saying that the Supreme Court justices cannot do a common task of lower court judges and juries?
You're just trolling, right?
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide on the constitutionality of laws. That's it. They don't decide the innocence or guilt of parties, they don't put people in prison and they're not supposed to divine the reasoning behind a law. They rule on whether it's constitutional. Period!
The Jim Crow laws would clearly be unconstitutional. Travel bans should not be. They don't involve US citizens. I'm not even sure why the SCOTUS was involved in this...
No, those were racist--they were intended to keep black Southerners (former slaves and the immediate descendants of slaves) as second-class citizens. This travel ban is different--misguided, but not racist.
Both Trump's travel ban and Jim Crow poll tax laws used "legal prestidigitation" to not be explicitly racist, but both had racist intent - to target a specific ethnic/racial group.
I mean, we're in the middle of a trade war, fighting with tariffes and now he asks Europeans (among others) to cut all oil import from Iran. Well he's not been friendly, he's behave in a quite antagonistic manner. Don't think it's the best moment to ask for favours.
Trump wants allies to stop getting oil from Iran by November. Hmm what else is happening in November, anything important in the United States?
Could getting into a conflict with Iran be a type of "Reichstag fire" incident around the midterms to boost support for Trump during a conflict?
Trump would love to call out his political rivals and other American citizens as not being patriotic enough over a war he blunders in to. War gets votes right?
No, those were racist--they were intended to keep black Southerners (former slaves and the immediate descendants of slaves) as second-class citizens. This travel ban is different--misguided, but not racist.
Both Trump's travel ban and Jim Crow poll tax laws used "legal prestidigitation" to not be explicitly racist, but both had racist intent - to target a specific ethnic/racial group.
Jim Crow poll tax was on US citizens. Travel ban is not. They aren't even close to being the same...
This travel ban was described by Trump as a watered down PC version of his "total ban of all Muslims until we can figure out what the hell is going on".
The reason as written is national security reasons. The Supreme Court says its okay to do it because as written it is based on vague national security interests totally ignoring the statements and intent of racist and religious discrimination verbalized and written by the President.
The Supreme Court says its OK if you promise to discriminate if you clean up the language later and claim national security interests you will be rubber-stamped.
Justice Roberts said the Korematsu decision that declared the internment of Japanese-American citizens during World War II was “gravely wrong the day it was decided,” and not good law. But the logic between that situation and this one is the same. Both today and in 1944, the government could point to a some veneer of evidence for its policy. In both eras, moreover, discriminatory intent could be hidden by expanding the scope of a policy to cover others beyond the targeted minorities.
The orders at issue in Korematsu, for example, also reached German and Italian citizens. The executive order at issue in Trump v. Hawaii reached some Venezuelans and North Koreans.
The result of today’s decision is that discrimination on racial and religious grounds is now de facto permissible.
@Mathsorcerer - I guess you think Jim Crow laws weren't racist, then?
Insinuating that other forumites are racist or friendly to racism is against the Site Rules.
Accusing other forumites of trolling is also against the Site Rules. If you feel that someone is trolling, report the comment via the "Flag" button at the lower right corner of the comment in question and the moderating team will review the case.
A good rule of thumb is that if your comment is about a political issue, feel free to post it. If your comment is about another forumite, don't.
Unless the comment is positive, of course. There are no rules against complimenting people.
Justice Sotomayor notes in her dissent to the SCOTUS ruling just a few weeks ago in its *Masterpiece Cakeshop* decision a few stray comments from members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission constituted clear evidence of bias against the cakeshop owner's sincerely-held religious beliefs, the majority here decides that then-candidate Trump's explicit calls for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" are legally irrelevant.
What the conservative majority is doing is to interpret each case in whichever way suits the conservative cause. The Supreme Court is interpreting the law arbitrarily and unequally. The legitimacy of the court is already compromised by the theft of the seat now occupied by Gorsuch.
If the GOP continues to get its way, there wont be a USA left.
Justice Sotomayor notes in her dissent to the SCOTUS ruling just a few weeks ago in its *Masterpiece Cakeshop* decision a few stray comments from members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission constituted clear evidence of bias against the cakeshop owner's sincerely-held religious beliefs, the majority here decides that then-candidate Trump's explicit calls for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" are legally irrelevant.
What the conservative majority is doing is to interpret each case in whichever way suits the conservative cause. The Supreme Court is interpreting the law arbitrarily and unequally. The legitimacy of the court is already compromised by the theft of the seat now occupied by Gorsuch.
If the GOP continues to get its way, there wont be a USA left.
It also seems to have come up in the California case about a religious crisis pregnancy center having to follow a State law that requires them to simply mention abortion as a medical option available elsewhere. Once again, Christian supremacy is coming into play here. Abortion providers in a plethora of States are required to tell their patients certain things, and those laws have been upheld since Casey. Now, however, when a State law does the exact opposite of that (flipping the tables if you will), the First Amendment rights of the center are being violated.
Mind you, I think requiring these anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers what they have to say is probably IS a bridge too far. But ONLY if abortion providers aren't mandated to do exactly that in other cases all across the country, which are then upheld by this very court. Once again, it proves two things: #1 if you present yourself as a Christian organization, there is essentially no leeway this court will not give you and #2 is that the conservatives on this court (and frankly Republicans in general) only care about "State's rights" when it is convenient. This charade that they are for federalism and treat all cases equally simply must end. This is, based on everything we have seen this session, a court that is defined by it's ingrained religious beliefs. We have 3 concrete examples of it in the just the last month, where the majority contradicts itself at every turn.
Justice Sotomayor notes in her dissent to the SCOTUS ruling just a few weeks ago in its *Masterpiece Cakeshop* decision a few stray comments from members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission constituted clear evidence of bias against the cakeshop owner's sincerely-held religious beliefs, the majority here decides that then-candidate Trump's explicit calls for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" are legally irrelevant.
What the conservative majority is doing is to interpret each case in whichever way suits the conservative cause. The Supreme Court is interpreting the law arbitrarily and unequally. The legitimacy of the court is already compromised by the theft of the seat now occupied by Gorsuch.
If the GOP continues to get its way, there wont be a USA left.
It also seems to have come up in the California case about a religious crisis pregnancy center having to follow a State law that requires them to simply mention abortion as a medical option available elsewhere. Once again, Christian supremacy is coming into play here. Abortion providers in a plethora of States are required to tell their patients certain things, and those laws have been upheld since Casey. Now, however, when a State law does the exact opposite of that (flipping the tables if you will), the First Amendment rights of the center are being violated.
Mind you, I think requiring these anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers what they have to say is probably IS a bridge too far. But ONLY if abortion providers aren't mandated to do exactly that in other cases all across the country, which are then upheld by this very court. Once again, it proves two things: #1 if you present yourself as a Christian organization, there is essentially no leeway this court will not give you and #2 is that the conservatives on this court (and frankly Republicans in general) only care about "State's rights" when it is convenient. This charade that they are for federalism and treat all cases equally simply must end. This is, based on everything we have seen this session, a court that is defined by it's ingrained religious beliefs. We have 3 concrete examples of it in the just the last month, where the majority contradicts itself at every turn.
California made that requirement because they found that more than 200 faith based centers used lies and deceit in their advertising and counseling practices. Their intent was to confuse or intimidate women. So lying is okay if you are a Christian.
John Oliver did a segment on this a couple months ago. Anti-abortion centers pretend to be "Women's Health Centers" when they don't have doctors and their whole goal is to trick, confuse and intimidate women to have babies. Sick.
Justice Sotomayor notes in her dissent to the SCOTUS ruling just a few weeks ago in its *Masterpiece Cakeshop* decision a few stray comments from members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission constituted clear evidence of bias against the cakeshop owner's sincerely-held religious beliefs, the majority here decides that then-candidate Trump's explicit calls for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" are legally irrelevant.
What the conservative majority is doing is to interpret each case in whichever way suits the conservative cause. The Supreme Court is interpreting the law arbitrarily and unequally. The legitimacy of the court is already compromised by the theft of the seat now occupied by Gorsuch.
If the GOP continues to get its way, there wont be a USA left.
It also seems to have come up in the California case about a religious crisis pregnancy center having to follow a State law that requires them to simply mention abortion as a medical option available elsewhere. Once again, Christian supremacy is coming into play here. Abortion providers in a plethora of States are required to tell their patients certain things, and those laws have been upheld since Casey. Now, however, when a State law does the exact opposite of that (flipping the tables if you will), the First Amendment rights of the center are being violated.
Mind you, I think requiring these anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers what they have to say is probably IS a bridge too far. But ONLY if abortion providers aren't mandated to do exactly that in other cases all across the country, which are then upheld by this very court. Once again, it proves two things: #1 if you present yourself as a Christian organization, there is essentially no leeway this court will not give you and #2 is that the conservatives on this court (and frankly Republicans in general) only care about "State's rights" when it is convenient. This charade that they are for federalism and treat all cases equally simply must end. This is, based on everything we have seen this session, a court that is defined by it's ingrained religious beliefs. We have 3 concrete examples of it in the just the last month, where the majority contradicts itself at every turn.
California made that requirement because they found that more than 200 faith based centers used lies and deceit in their advertising and counseling practices. Their intent was to confuse or intimidate women. So lying is okay if you are a Christian.
John Oliver did a segment on this a couple months ago. Anti-abortion centers pretend to be "Women's Health Centers" when they don't have doctors and their whole goal is to trick, confuse and intimidate women to have babies. Sick.
Yeah, it sure is sick to bring babies into this world. It's so much better to abort them.
Oh I'm sorry, did I step on your moral high-ground? I'm supposed to feel sorry for a dime-a-dozen killdeer but turn a blind-eye to abortion. I call BS...
No, those were racist--they were intended to keep black Southerners (former slaves and the immediate descendants of slaves) as second-class citizens. This travel ban is different--misguided, but not racist.
Both Trump's travel ban and Jim Crow poll tax laws used "legal prestidigitation" to not be explicitly racist, but both had racist intent - to target a specific ethnic/racial group.
Jim Crow poll tax was on US citizens. Travel ban is not. They aren't even close to being the same...
They may not be exactly the same, but I think the parallels are pretty close .
The constitution is not just for US citizens. In principle it provides the same rights to everybody, although there are a number of provisions specifically stating otherwise - examples of that include rights to vote, hold most federal jobs and run for political office.
The difference lies I think in the fact that, historically, immigration has been regarded by the court as a matter of national security and foreign policy, which should be overseen by Congress and not SCOTUS (see for instance Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, where the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to expel noncitizens who were former Communists). Interestingly, this distinction only makes sense if immigration is regarded as a matter of civil (administrative) law rather than criminal. It's true that immigration penalties are civil in origin, but in the US (though not all countries) criminal penalties have been tacked on as well - which is why Trump was able to use the federal justice system to split families up. Given that, it no longer seems really appropriate for SCOTUS to regard immigration law as an area they won't touch - but I won't hold my breath waiting for them to decide that.
I feel I have to apologize for feeling the screeches of Hitler on the left sound eerily like the screeches of Anti-Christ on the right. I'm stuck in the Goddamned middle...
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide on the constitutionality of laws. That's it. They don't decide the innocence or guilt of parties, they don't put people in prison and they're not supposed to divine the reasoning behind a law. They rule on whether it's constitutional. Period!
Not quite period. SCOTUS does have a role in whether something is constitutional, although that's a role it invented for itself in Marbury v. Madison (1803). It also though has original jurisdiction over some types of cases in addition to general appellate jurisdiction (though it only agrees to exercise that in a limited number of cases). Here is a summary of their role.
As touched on in previous responses, the reasoning behind a law can be crucial to its constitutionality - just as the reasoning behind a person's actions can determine whether those are a criminal offense or not.
I feel I have to apologize for feeling the screeches of Hitler on the left sound eerily like the screeches of Anti-Christ on the right. I'm stuck in the Goddamned middle...
Don't apologize, please - this thread would be boring indeed if everyone shared the same outlook . More importantly, I think it's good for everyone to be exposed to different viewpoints. As you know, I'm an advocate of evidence-based policy making and for that to function properly there needs to be a process of testing and challenging what the evidence is. Even after that there's always going to be considerable latitude in how you respond to the evidence, so there's always going to be a role for the party system. In an ideal world though, politicians would have enough understanding of and empathy with the other side's viewpoint that they can see them as helping ensure solutions best meet the needs and desires of the country as a whole (as opposed to being an enemy that must be obliterated).
I always take pains to point out in my fascism and authoritarian warnings that Germany in 1933 is not the same as what Germany became by 1941. The world still came to the Olympics in 1936. As I heard someone say today, you don't just flip a switch into authoritarianism, you slowly slide into it, until one day everyone wakes up and it's too late.
I feel I have to apologize for feeling the screeches of Hitler on the left sound eerily like the screeches of Anti-Christ on the right. I'm stuck in the Goddamned middle...
Don't apologize, please - this thread would be boring indeed if everyone shared the same outlook . More importantly, I think it's good for everyone to be exposed to different viewpoints. As you know, I'm an advocate of evidence-based policy making and for that to function properly there needs to be a process of testing and challenging what the evidence is. Even after that there's always going to be considerable latitude in how you respond to the evidence, so there's always going to be a role for the party system. In an ideal world though, politicians would have enough understanding of and empathy with the other side's viewpoint that they can see them as helping ensure solutions best meet the needs and desires of the country as a whole (as opposed to being an enemy that must be obliterated).
I like your views @Grond0. Unfortunately politicians seem to have high charisma but use intelligence and wisdom as their dump stats. Voters seem to value high charisma but eschew intelligence and wisdom. It's a phenomenon that our founding fathers tried to mitigate with the democratic republic form of government. That seems to be unraveling in the present times however. My far right family members seem to think revolution is on the horizon and the left-leaning folks I see on this forum also lead me to believe they would welcome this as well. I'm of the opinion that nothing good will come of this and after reading the CNN article on Russian trolling it just seems like they're deliberately fanning the flames of polarization. We're making it far too easy for them in this current climate...
Edit: My family thinks it would be great if California and New York would secede from the Union. The left on this forum seem to think it'd be great to shut up the rural states and non-urban voters. If this continues The Hunger Games books are going to look like prophecy!
I see that a number of Democratic States have issued a lawsuit against the policy of family separation.
Part of the lawsuit refers to the closing of borders, so that asylum seekers have no opportunity to make a legal application. I'm surprised that this aspect of the Trump policy hasn't received more attention up to now, given it's apparent illegality (under US and international law) as well as inhumanity.
Another aspect of the lawsuit refers to Trump's recent Executive Order mandating family detention. The lawsuit points out that Executive Order directly contradicts the terms of the Flores Settlement. Jeff Sessions has applied for relief from the provisions of that Settlement, but if that is not granted it seems likely that the previous policy of family separation would be reinstated (presumably along with another rash of tweets proclaiming the need to get rid of legal processes entirely).
A third major aspect of the lawsuit is to require the administration to reunite the families that have already been broken up. Frankly I still find it hard to believe that it could require a court order to prevent the administration from keeping the children of asylum-seekers deported for the crime of crossing the border - but that does seem to be where we are at the moment.
I've only skimmed the text so far, but that just points up the fact that the issues are almost entirely to do with federal matters. The lawsuit is complaining that there are consequential infringements on States rights, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. While I don't object to trying this angle out it seems more of a publicity stunt than a legal procedure and I suspect will get thrown out for procedural reasons. Meanwhile I think there are other lawsuits progressing on the basis of federal abuse of power (such as closing border crossings without good reason), which seem more likely to succeed.
I feel I have to apologize for feeling the screeches of Hitler on the left sound eerily like the screeches of Anti-Christ on the right. I'm stuck in the Goddamned middle...
Don't apologize, please - this thread would be boring indeed if everyone shared the same outlook . More importantly, I think it's good for everyone to be exposed to different viewpoints. As you know, I'm an advocate of evidence-based policy making and for that to function properly there needs to be a process of testing and challenging what the evidence is. Even after that there's always going to be considerable latitude in how you respond to the evidence, so there's always going to be a role for the party system. In an ideal world though, politicians would have enough understanding of and empathy with the other side's viewpoint that they can see them as helping ensure solutions best meet the needs and desires of the country as a whole (as opposed to being an enemy that must be obliterated).
I like your views @Grond0. Unfortunately politicians seem to have high charisma but use intelligence and wisdom as their dump stats. Voters seem to value high charisma but eschew intelligence and wisdom. It's a phenomenon that our founding fathers tried to mitigate with the democratic republic form of government. That seems to be unraveling in the present times however. My far right family members seem to think revolution is on the horizon and the left-leaning folks I see on this forum also lead me to believe they would welcome this as well. I'm of the opinion that nothing good will come of this and after reading the CNN article on Russian trolling it just seems like they're deliberately fanning the flames of polarization. We're making it far too easy for them in this current climate...
Edit: My family thinks it would be great if California and New York would secede from the Union. The left on this forum seem to think it'd be great to shut up the rural states and non-urban voters. If this continues The Hunger Games books are going to look like prophecy!
Not wanting rural states and non-urban voters have MORE say than those in cities is not the same as wanting them to shut-up. I've done the math on Wyoming and California in this thread a half-dozen times, and not even in regards to the Senate, but in regards to the House, which is supposed to reflect the actual population. If we wanted them to shut-up, Democrats would be attempting to pass laws across the country making it hard for white farmers to vote. Except that never, ever happens. Not even once. Meanwhile, it would take me 5 or 6 hours to list all the examples in the past decade of specific Republican policies that are aimed on making sure as few African-Americans and young people vote as possible. Stuff as blatant as passing a voter ID law and then DELIBERATELY closing DMV offices in minority areas, or, in some cases, purposefully changing the hours of those offices to make them almost impossible to visit. Purging of voter rolls with interstate cross-check. There are ZERO examples of Democrats trying to make it harder for people to vote in recent memory. So, I just have to disagree with this assessment that liberals want to shut anyone up for the only perspective that really matters, which is the voice of your vote.
What liberals are understandably mad about is that in 2 of the last 5 elections, the person with less votes (in the most recent case FAR less votes) managed to sneak in based on our antiquated electoral system. Since this hasn't even happened to conservatives even ONE time, much less two, they don't have a hell of alot of frame of reference for how it feels. So what you have is Trump, who probably more than any President in history is governing STRICTLY for his base (he doesn't even make a pretense that the rest of us are anything but his enemies), and a situation of what is essentially minority rule.
I have no idea why your right-leaning family would be concerned about needing a revolution, being as they have been handed exactly who they want in all positions of government. That is the #1 thing I can't wrap my head around. Despite getting less votes, they got power anyway. They are in charge of everything. Shit, when Obama and the Democrats held power from 2008-2010, those of us on the left were practically overjoyed. It felt great. That dynamic doesn't seem to be in play on the right. We still have rallies where the high-point is calling for the jailing of his political opponent 20 MONTHS after she left the public stage. I have never seen a group of people so angry after claiming total victory. It's just a never-ending black hole of perceived slights.
I feel I have to apologize for feeling the screeches of Hitler on the left sound eerily like the screeches of Anti-Christ on the right. I'm stuck in the Goddamned middle...
Don't apologize, please - this thread would be boring indeed if everyone shared the same outlook . More importantly, I think it's good for everyone to be exposed to different viewpoints. As you know, I'm an advocate of evidence-based policy making and for that to function properly there needs to be a process of testing and challenging what the evidence is. Even after that there's always going to be considerable latitude in how you respond to the evidence, so there's always going to be a role for the party system. In an ideal world though, politicians would have enough understanding of and empathy with the other side's viewpoint that they can see them as helping ensure solutions best meet the needs and desires of the country as a whole (as opposed to being an enemy that must be obliterated).
I like your views @Grond0. Unfortunately politicians seem to have high charisma but use intelligence and wisdom as their dump stats. Voters seem to value high charisma but eschew intelligence and wisdom. It's a phenomenon that our founding fathers tried to mitigate with the democratic republic form of government. That seems to be unraveling in the present times however. My far right family members seem to think revolution is on the horizon and the left-leaning folks I see on this forum also lead me to believe they would welcome this as well. I'm of the opinion that nothing good will come of this and after reading the CNN article on Russian trolling it just seems like they're deliberately fanning the flames of polarization. We're making it far too easy for them in this current climate...
Edit: My family thinks it would be great if California and New York would secede from the Union. The left on this forum seem to think it'd be great to shut up the rural states and non-urban voters. If this continues The Hunger Games books are going to look like prophecy!
Not wanting rural states and non-urban voters have MORE say than those in cities is not the same as wanting them to shut-up. I've done the math on Wyoming and California in this thread a half-dozen times, and not even in regards to the Senate, but in regards to the House, which is supposed to reflect the actual population. If we wanted them to shut-up, Democrats would be attempting to pass laws across the country making it hard for white farmers to vote. Except that never, ever happens. Not even once. Meanwhile, it would take me 5 or 6 hours to list all the examples in the past decade of specific Republican policies that are aimed on making sure as few African-Americans and young people vote as possible. Stuff as blatant as passing a voter ID law and then DELIBERATELY closing DMV offices in minority areas, or, in some cases, purposefully changing the hours of those offices to make them almost impossible to visit. Purging of voter rolls with interstate cross-check. There are ZERO examples of Democrats trying to make it harder for people to vote in recent memory. So, I just have to disagree with this assessment that liberals want to shut anyone up for the only perspective that really matters, which is the voice of your vote.
What liberals are understandably mad about is that in 2 of the last 5 elections, the person with less votes (in the most recent case FAR less votes) managed to sneak in based on our antiquated electoral system. Since this hasn't even happened to conservatives even ONE time, much less two, they don't have a hell of alot of frame of reference for how it feels. So what you have is Trump, who probably more than any President in history is governing STRICTLY for his base (he doesn't even make a pretense that the rest of us are anything but his enemies), and a situation of what is essentially minority rule.
I have no idea why your right-leaning family would be concerned about needing a revolution, being as they have been handed exactly who they want in all positions of government. That is the #1 thing I can't wrap my head around. Despite getting less votes, they got power anyway. They are in charge of everything. Shit, when Obama and the Democrats held power from 2008-2010, those of us on the left were practically overjoyed. It felt great. That dynamic doesn't seem to be in play on the right. We still have rallies where the high-point is calling for the jailing of his political opponent 20 MONTHS after she left the public stage. I have never seen a group of people so angry after claiming total victory. It's just a never-ending black hole of perceived slights.
The US is not a democracy and never has been. The 'majority' rules BS is not an issue unless your party is on the opposite end of it. Sorry but that's a fact. I would never hear one complaint from you or @smeagolheart if Clinton had won with 48% of the vote. You'd likely be raving about how enlightened our founding fathers were for having the wisdom to foresee this eventuality...
Oh, and my family is scared by how thin their margin is and see their 'majority' slipping away. That's the reason for their desperation. They can't see any middle ground which is pretty much the same as the far left as far as I'm concerned. Thus Hitler vs. Anti-Christ cage match, winner take all.
I feel I have to apologize for feeling the screeches of Hitler on the left sound eerily like the screeches of Anti-Christ on the right. I'm stuck in the Goddamned middle...
Don't apologize, please - this thread would be boring indeed if everyone shared the same outlook . More importantly, I think it's good for everyone to be exposed to different viewpoints. As you know, I'm an advocate of evidence-based policy making and for that to function properly there needs to be a process of testing and challenging what the evidence is. Even after that there's always going to be considerable latitude in how you respond to the evidence, so there's always going to be a role for the party system. In an ideal world though, politicians would have enough understanding of and empathy with the other side's viewpoint that they can see them as helping ensure solutions best meet the needs and desires of the country as a whole (as opposed to being an enemy that must be obliterated).
I like your views @Grond0. Unfortunately politicians seem to have high charisma but use intelligence and wisdom as their dump stats. Voters seem to value high charisma but eschew intelligence and wisdom. It's a phenomenon that our founding fathers tried to mitigate with the democratic republic form of government. That seems to be unraveling in the present times however. My far right family members seem to think revolution is on the horizon and the left-leaning folks I see on this forum also lead me to believe they would welcome this as well. I'm of the opinion that nothing good will come of this and after reading the CNN article on Russian trolling it just seems like they're deliberately fanning the flames of polarization. We're making it far too easy for them in this current climate...
Edit: My family thinks it would be great if California and New York would secede from the Union. The left on this forum seem to think it'd be great to shut up the rural states and non-urban voters. If this continues The Hunger Games books are going to look like prophecy!
Not wanting rural states and non-urban voters have MORE say than those in cities is not the same as wanting them to shut-up. I've done the math on Wyoming and California in this thread a half-dozen times, and not even in regards to the Senate, but in regards to the House, which is supposed to reflect the actual population. If we wanted them to shut-up, Democrats would be attempting to pass laws across the country making it hard for white farmers to vote. Except that never, ever happens. Not even once. Meanwhile, it would take me 5 or 6 hours to list all the examples in the past decade of specific Republican policies that are aimed on making sure as few African-Americans and young people vote as possible. Stuff as blatant as passing a voter ID law and then DELIBERATELY closing DMV offices in minority areas, or, in some cases, purposefully changing the hours of those offices to make them almost impossible to visit. Purging of voter rolls with interstate cross-check. There are ZERO examples of Democrats trying to make it harder for people to vote in recent memory. So, I just have to disagree with this assessment that liberals want to shut anyone up for the only perspective that really matters, which is the voice of your vote.
What liberals are understandably mad about is that in 2 of the last 5 elections, the person with less votes (in the most recent case FAR less votes) managed to sneak in based on our antiquated electoral system. Since this hasn't even happened to conservatives even ONE time, much less two, they don't have a hell of alot of frame of reference for how it feels. So what you have is Trump, who probably more than any President in history is governing STRICTLY for his base (he doesn't even make a pretense that the rest of us are anything but his enemies), and a situation of what is essentially minority rule.
I have no idea why your right-leaning family would be concerned about needing a revolution, being as they have been handed exactly who they want in all positions of government. That is the #1 thing I can't wrap my head around. Despite getting less votes, they got power anyway. They are in charge of everything. Shit, when Obama and the Democrats held power from 2008-2010, those of us on the left were practically overjoyed. It felt great. That dynamic doesn't seem to be in play on the right. We still have rallies where the high-point is calling for the jailing of his political opponent 20 MONTHS after she left the public stage. I have never seen a group of people so angry after claiming total victory. It's just a never-ending black hole of perceived slights.
The US is not a democracy and never has been. The 'majority' rules BS is not an issue unless your party is on the opposite end of it. Sorry but that's a fact. I would never hear one complaint from you or @smeagolheart if Clinton had won with 48% of the vote. You'd likely be raving about how enlightened our founding fathers were for having the wisdom to foresee this eventuality...
I doubt it. Because if Clinton was president everyone would be business as usual. You'd have to be a kook to be raving then in those type of times (like Trump or Alex Jones maybe). Instead we have crazy times rollercoaster of bad stuff with Trump. But would it be right if Clinton won with 48% of the vote? No, I wouldn't say that. I also don't like gerrymandering in democratic states or republican states.
But this speculation is all moot because Republicans have twice won in the last five presidents despite losing the popular vote. And Republicans by far are the worst gerrymandering. So it is Republicans destroying Democracy. I'd like to think I'd be complaining about democrats or green party or whoever if they were destroying democracy but so far its just Republicans so it's a pretty moot subject.
Justice Sotomayor notes in her dissent to the SCOTUS ruling just a few weeks ago in its *Masterpiece Cakeshop* decision a few stray comments from members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission constituted clear evidence of bias against the cakeshop owner's sincerely-held religious beliefs, the majority here decides that then-candidate Trump's explicit calls for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" are legally irrelevant.
What the conservative majority is doing is to interpret each case in whichever way suits the conservative cause. The Supreme Court is interpreting the law arbitrarily and unequally. The legitimacy of the court is already compromised by the theft of the seat now occupied by Gorsuch.
If the GOP continues to get its way, there wont be a USA left.
It also seems to have come up in the California case about a religious crisis pregnancy center having to follow a State law that requires them to simply mention abortion as a medical option available elsewhere. Once again, Christian supremacy is coming into play here. Abortion providers in a plethora of States are required to tell their patients certain things, and those laws have been upheld since Casey. Now, however, when a State law does the exact opposite of that (flipping the tables if you will), the First Amendment rights of the center are being violated.
Mind you, I think requiring these anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers what they have to say is probably IS a bridge too far. But ONLY if abortion providers aren't mandated to do exactly that in other cases all across the country, which are then upheld by this very court. Once again, it proves two things: #1 if you present yourself as a Christian organization, there is essentially no leeway this court will not give you and #2 is that the conservatives on this court (and frankly Republicans in general) only care about "State's rights" when it is convenient. This charade that they are for federalism and treat all cases equally simply must end. This is, based on everything we have seen this session, a court that is defined by it's ingrained religious beliefs. We have 3 concrete examples of it in the just the last month, where the majority contradicts itself at every turn.
California made that requirement because they found that more than 200 faith based centers used lies and deceit in their advertising and counseling practices. Their intent was to confuse or intimidate women. So lying is okay if you are a Christian.
John Oliver did a segment on this a couple months ago. Anti-abortion centers pretend to be "Women's Health Centers" when they don't have doctors and their whole goal is to trick, confuse and intimidate women to have babies. Sick.
Yeah, it sure is sick to bring babies into this world. It's so much better to abort them.
Oh I'm sorry, did I step on your moral high-ground? I'm supposed to feel sorry for a dime-a-dozen killdeer but turn a blind-eye to abortion. I call BS...
Yes, it is better to abort them in some circumstances. Bringing babies by lies and tricks, does that start things off on the right foot?
Comments
You're just trolling, right?
If the reason is flimsy on why they are added, then one has a right to question if other motives are at play.
And as I said prior, when this foolishness started, Trump is attempting to see what he can get away with. Nothing is preventing him from adding other countries to the travel ban once he’s been given the green light.
And remember, when this first started, Canadians, with Canadian passports, were turned away at the border because they were Muslim. Expect that type of discrimination to continue.
The Jim Crow laws would clearly be unconstitutional. Travel bans should not be. They don't involve US citizens. I'm not even sure why the SCOTUS was involved in this...
They are not supposed to divine the reasoning behind a law. They should just look at the Constitutionality of the law.
Could getting into a conflict with Iran be a type of "Reichstag fire" incident around the midterms to boost support for Trump during a conflict?
Trump would love to call out his political rivals and other American citizens as not being patriotic enough over a war he blunders in to. War gets votes right?
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-faces-having-to-close-community-centres-cancel-programs-to-house-migrant-tide-from-u-s
The reason as written is national security reasons. The Supreme Court says its okay to do it because as written it is based on vague national security interests totally ignoring the statements and intent of racist and religious discrimination verbalized and written by the President.
The Supreme Court says its OK if you promise to discriminate if you clean up the language later and claim national security interests you will be rubber-stamped.
Justice Roberts said the Korematsu decision that declared the internment of Japanese-American citizens during World War II was “gravely wrong the day it was decided,” and not good law. But the logic between that situation and this one is the same. Both today and in 1944, the government could point to a some veneer of evidence for its policy. In both eras, moreover, discriminatory intent could be hidden by expanding the scope of a policy to cover others beyond the targeted minorities.
The orders at issue in Korematsu, for example, also reached German and Italian citizens. The executive order at issue in Trump v. Hawaii reached some Venezuelans and North Koreans.
The result of today’s decision is that discrimination on racial and religious grounds is now de facto permissible.
Terrible decision.
Accusing other forumites of trolling is also against the Site Rules. If you feel that someone is trolling, report the comment via the "Flag" button at the lower right corner of the comment in question and the moderating team will review the case.
A good rule of thumb is that if your comment is about a political issue, feel free to post it. If your comment is about another forumite, don't.
Unless the comment is positive, of course. There are no rules against complimenting people.
What the conservative majority is doing is to interpret each case in whichever way suits the conservative cause. The Supreme Court is interpreting the law arbitrarily and unequally. The legitimacy of the court is already compromised by the theft of the seat now occupied by Gorsuch.
If the GOP continues to get its way, there wont be a USA left.
Mind you, I think requiring these anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers what they have to say is probably IS a bridge too far. But ONLY if abortion providers aren't mandated to do exactly that in other cases all across the country, which are then upheld by this very court. Once again, it proves two things: #1 if you present yourself as a Christian organization, there is essentially no leeway this court will not give you and #2 is that the conservatives on this court (and frankly Republicans in general) only care about "State's rights" when it is convenient. This charade that they are for federalism and treat all cases equally simply must end. This is, based on everything we have seen this session, a court that is defined by it's ingrained religious beliefs. We have 3 concrete examples of it in the just the last month, where the majority contradicts itself at every turn.
John Oliver did a segment on this a couple months ago. Anti-abortion centers pretend to be "Women's Health Centers" when they don't have doctors and their whole goal is to trick, confuse and intimidate women to have babies. Sick.
Oh I'm sorry, did I step on your moral high-ground? I'm supposed to feel sorry for a dime-a-dozen killdeer but turn a blind-eye to abortion. I call BS...
The constitution is not just for US citizens. In principle it provides the same rights to everybody, although there are a number of provisions specifically stating otherwise - examples of that include rights to vote, hold most federal jobs and run for political office.
The difference lies I think in the fact that, historically, immigration has been regarded by the court as a matter of national security and foreign policy, which should be overseen by Congress and not SCOTUS (see for instance Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, where the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to expel noncitizens who were former Communists). Interestingly, this distinction only makes sense if immigration is regarded as a matter of civil (administrative) law rather than criminal. It's true that immigration penalties are civil in origin, but in the US (though not all countries) criminal penalties have been tacked on as well - which is why Trump was able to use the federal justice system to split families up. Given that, it no longer seems really appropriate for SCOTUS to regard immigration law as an area they won't touch - but I won't hold my breath waiting for them to decide that.
As touched on in previous responses, the reasoning behind a law can be crucial to its constitutionality - just as the reasoning behind a person's actions can determine whether those are a criminal offense or not.
Edit: My family thinks it would be great if California and New York would secede from the Union. The left on this forum seem to think it'd be great to shut up the rural states and non-urban voters. If this continues The Hunger Games books are going to look like prophecy!
Part of the lawsuit refers to the closing of borders, so that asylum seekers have no opportunity to make a legal application. I'm surprised that this aspect of the Trump policy hasn't received more attention up to now, given it's apparent illegality (under US and international law) as well as inhumanity.
Another aspect of the lawsuit refers to Trump's recent Executive Order mandating family detention. The lawsuit points out that Executive Order directly contradicts the terms of the Flores Settlement. Jeff Sessions has applied for relief from the provisions of that Settlement, but if that is not granted it seems likely that the previous policy of family separation would be reinstated (presumably along with another rash of tweets proclaiming the need to get rid of legal processes entirely).
A third major aspect of the lawsuit is to require the administration to reunite the families that have already been broken up. Frankly I still find it hard to believe that it could require a court order to prevent the administration from keeping the children of asylum-seekers deported for the crime of crossing the border - but that does seem to be where we are at the moment.
I've only skimmed the text so far, but that just points up the fact that the issues are almost entirely to do with federal matters. The lawsuit is complaining that there are consequential infringements on States rights, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. While I don't object to trying this angle out it seems more of a publicity stunt than a legal procedure and I suspect will get thrown out for procedural reasons. Meanwhile I think there are other lawsuits progressing on the basis of federal abuse of power (such as closing border crossings without good reason), which seem more likely to succeed.
What liberals are understandably mad about is that in 2 of the last 5 elections, the person with less votes (in the most recent case FAR less votes) managed to sneak in based on our antiquated electoral system. Since this hasn't even happened to conservatives even ONE time, much less two, they don't have a hell of alot of frame of reference for how it feels. So what you have is Trump, who probably more than any President in history is governing STRICTLY for his base (he doesn't even make a pretense that the rest of us are anything but his enemies), and a situation of what is essentially minority rule.
I have no idea why your right-leaning family would be concerned about needing a revolution, being as they have been handed exactly who they want in all positions of government. That is the #1 thing I can't wrap my head around. Despite getting less votes, they got power anyway. They are in charge of everything. Shit, when Obama and the Democrats held power from 2008-2010, those of us on the left were practically overjoyed. It felt great. That dynamic doesn't seem to be in play on the right. We still have rallies where the high-point is calling for the jailing of his political opponent 20 MONTHS after she left the public stage. I have never seen a group of people so angry after claiming total victory. It's just a never-ending black hole of perceived slights.
Oh, and my family is scared by how thin their margin is and see their 'majority' slipping away. That's the reason for their desperation. They can't see any middle ground which is pretty much the same as the far left as far as I'm concerned. Thus Hitler vs. Anti-Christ cage match, winner take all.
But this speculation is all moot because Republicans have twice won in the last five presidents despite losing the popular vote. And Republicans by far are the worst gerrymandering. So it is Republicans destroying Democracy. I'd like to think I'd be complaining about democrats or green party or whoever if they were destroying democracy but so far its just Republicans so it's a pretty moot subject.
Whats a dime a dozen killdeer anyway?