Balkinization  

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Archie Bunker is Alive and Well

Gerard N. Magliocca

This week I will return to posts about my forthcoming book on the Bill of Rights, but I cannot avoid one more about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

In 2012, many conservatives were critical of President Obama and Senate Democrats for, in effect, lobbying Chief Justice Roberts after the oral argument was over to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Randy Barnett, for example, has compared these statements to "jury tampering."  I think that there is considerable merit in this argument, My own view is that the President gets an opportunity to make his Administration's case through the Solicitor General, and after that should not comment until the decision is announced.  (Members of Congress, I think, may be in a different position because they are far less likely to take an official position before the Court, but if they do (say in an amicus brief), then they should exercise similar restraint.)

What about the man that many conservatives are now supporting?  Well, there is civil litigation pending against him in Art Cohen v. Donald J. Trump, which involves a fraud allegation against Trump University. In a speech the other day, Trump explained that the federal district judge presiding over the case, was a "hater of Donald Trump. A hater. He's a hater. And his name is Gonzalo Curiel." “We’re in front of a very hostile judge,” he said. “The judge was appointed by Barack Obama, federal judge. Frankly, he should recuse himself because he’s given us ruling after ruling after ruling, negative, negative, negative.”"The judge," Trump continued, "happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great, I think that's fine." "I think Judge Curial should be ashamed of himself," Trump said. "I'm telling you, this court system, judges in this court system, federal court, they ought to look into Judge Curiel. Because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace, OK."

I think this speaks for itself.  



Comments:

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

to underline the charge:

Randy Barnett, for example, has compared these statements to "jury tampering." I think that there is considerable merit in this argument

The author thinks Randy Barnett (who comes off so biased that fellow blogger Orin Kerr in effect continuously almost trolls him) has "considerable merit" in saying that something akin to "jury tampering" -- which is patently illegitimate and ILLEGAL -- was done. So, curious just what serious wrong was done here.
 

The Judge had something to say today.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-orders-release-of-internal-trump-university-documents/2016/05/28/2e960e5e-24f9-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

Don't mess with the judge


 

Great website! It looks really professional! Sustain the great job!
judi online
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Wikipedia:
"Threats against federal judges and prosecutors have more than doubled in recent years, with threats against federal prosecutors rising from 116 to 250 from 2003 to 2008, and threats against federal judges climbing from 500 to 1,278 in that same period, prompting hundreds to get 24-hour protection from armed U.S. marshals. The problem has become so pronounced that a threat management center has been opened in Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia, where a staff of about 25 marshals and analysts monitor a 24-hour number for reporting threats, use sophisticated mapping software to track those being threatened and tap into a classified database linked to the FBI and CIA."
Many of the people who threaten judges are ordinary criminals, but some are connected to the "sovereign citizen" movement of far-right cranks. Trump's threat to Judge Curiel, though in itself political rather than criminal, is part of his pandering to extremists.
 

Not only that, he's had the gall to insist on a jury trial, and express his opinion that the lawsuit is meritless.

Frankly, the judge's decision to schedule the trial right around the election IS suspicious. It's not exactly a secret that the legal system is being used to influence election outcomes. (Think of the Ted Stevens prosecution, or, going back, Walsh initiating a prosecution barred by the statute of limitations a week before the election.)

Whether that's happening here requires further evidence, but the charge isn't facially absurd.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Imagine Hillary Clinton, at a raucous rally of hers, said the following: "Does everybody have a little time? [cheers and applause] so I end up with an investigation, and it ends up with the FBI. It is a disgrace the way the FBI is acting, because it is a simple investigation. The investigation, they wanted it to start while I am running for president. There should be no investigation. This should have been dismissed right away. easily. Everybody says it, but I have an official who is a hater of Hillary Clinton. He’s a hater. His name is James Comey. And he is not doing the right thing. I figure what the hell? Why not talk about it for two minutes.

But I am getting railroaded by a legal system, and frankly they should be ashamed. I will be here in November. Hey, if I win as president. It is a scam. Here is what happens. We are in front of a very hostile official. The official is a lifelong Republican. [Boos]. Frankly he should recuse himself. He has given us ruling after ruling, negative, negative, negative. So what happens is the judge, who happens to be, we believe a white male Southerner, which is great. I think that is fine. You know what? I think the white male Southerners are going to end up loving me when I give all these jobs.

I will be seeing you in November either as president. And I will say this. I think Director Comey should be ashamed of himself. I think it is a disgrace he is doing this. It is a disgrace. It is a rigged system. This federal law enforcement system, the officials in this system. They ought to look into Director Comey because what Director Comey is doing is a total disgrace. Ok? But we will come back in November."

Imagine the howls from the usual suspects...
 

It would still be down to the facts. Hillary's problem is that the facts that are already public are enough to hang her. Seriously, people have been convicted on less than is already public about her email scandal.

It may be that Trump will legitimately lose this civil suit. Or maybe he'll win. But we certainly don't have enough public facts to convict HIM of multiple felonies.

That's Hillary's problem: The dots don't go away even if her loyal supporters are determined not to connect them.
 

Trump's problem is the facts are against him being a credible President, including his remarks here. But, if we skip over the ones we don't like & spin others, it helps. For instance, the spin that somehow people are saying it's wrong if he disagrees with a choice over the jury question. Who is saying this? Who?

I realize at some point it's something of a lost cause but to avoid being called some lefty who doesn't want to engage (see criticism of Mark Field for ignoring BP -- yes, this was seen as a symbol of the "left" not engaging with the other side) -- keep at it. Take the timing:

The trial is scheduled for after the presidential election, something Trump’s attorney, Daniel Petrocelli argued against in court. The plaintiff’s attorney suggested a July or August timeframe for a trial date.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Donald-Trump-To-Testify-in-San-Diego-For-Trump-University-Class-Action-Lawsuit-Trial-Attorney-378504405.html#ixzz4A94c8vzz

This is a civil case. It was brought before there was any real idea that Trump had a shot. It is a complicated case (talk of a two week trial) that was drawn out. And, Trump's lawyer wants the trial held mid-summer. If he loses, how could it not affect the election somehow to do so two months before the election? Other than perhaps the problems with a complicated trial in mid-summer, holding it AFTER seems to make sense. But, either way the usual suspects will complain.

And, what about the Ted Stevens reference? Criminal case, but you know, okay. In hindsight, that was looked as a mistake. There is in fact a general policy to avoid mid-campaign indictments and such (this caused problems for one or more of the Bush U.S. attorneys later dismissed in that controversial matter). The policy applies to people no matter the party. But, when CLINTON is involved, it is deemed illegitimate to be wary of doing just that.

I was talking to someone over the weekend who really doesn't like Hillary Clinton but admits Trump is a bad choice. But, she offers the hope that Trump will change once President. What objective adult, especially one cynical about power and human nature, would bet a lot of money at a casino based on those odds?

The "facts" are that Trump is using race and telling a judge's bosses (here the investigatory branch, perhaps) he should be investigated because the guy (like happens all the time) is deciding against a litigant. Objective people would suspect he would do this later on too, now with the power of the presidency against him. If Clinton was doing that, as Mr. W. said, the usual suspects would rail against here.

Finally, as I have noted in the past, there are "facts that are already public" that would show -- using the standards of evidence tossed around here -- that Trump is a repeat lawbreaker in the area that he has obtained (allegedly) the expertise and ability to be a credible President. But, as with him showing the signs (Mr. W. cited this in the past) of the sort of executive that the right rails against Obama being, "loyal supporters are determined not to connect them."

As Brett being a felon (by his own account), perhaps, on balance, this shouldn't be disqualifying. For instance:

eventually came out in a federal investigation, which also concluded that in a construction industry saturated with mob influence, the Trump Plaza apartment building most likely benefited from connections to racketeering

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-mob-organized-crime-213910#ixzz4A9DgTgza

should not mean -- given you know the "horrible" alternative, people should avoid voting for Trump. That's Hillary's problem. People are biased selective souls.
 

" Hillary's problem is that the facts that are already public are enough to hang her. Seriously, people have been convicted on less than is already public about her email scandal."

Actually, we've been over this before. You literally don't know what you're talking about. You've never prosecuted a crime, much less the crime you accuse Hillary of having 'obviously' committing. Nothing in the IG's report, which is the most thorough reveal of facts available so far (and let's note that before these facts came out you had determined she had committed the offense-that shows how much respect you have for getting all the facts before 'connecting any dots'), establishes the necessary mens rea.

There's a reason why in our system we don't treat people as guilty until they've had a chance for a full and fair trial with evidence presented and discussed by both sides. That reason is because John Q. Public, Layman doesn't know what they're talking about, and that's especially true when John Q. Public, Layman is a dedicated partisan whose always seen the worst in anyone with the letter representing the opposing party by their name.
 

The paper trail on the class action and other legal actions involving fraud charges against Trump University well pre-date Trump's entry in the 2016 campaign. A cynic might say that these actions motivated Trump to enter the campaign in 2015. A tril date in the class action had been scheduled for prior to the general election but they changed to post-election.

The order of the class action judge came down last Friday. A motion to intervene had been pending and briefed by the parties and the intervening WaPo. Presumably Trump's attorneys in the class action kept Trump informed of the proceedings on the motion and Trump's timing on his public statements on that same Friday seem more than coincidental. Did Trump consult with his attorneys in the class action on his public statements? Did he rely upon their advice or did he go by his gut? It is possible that this may be addressed by the class action judge as a potential inappropriate trial strategy, perhaps to extend the trial date. Query: If Trump were elected President, might a President Trump claim that the trial cannot go forward while he serves as President?

Gerard is obviously one the "many" disgruntled conservatives vis-a-vis President Obama and the ACA. (Gerard recently uncloseted himself.) Perhaps Gerard's views as a disgruntled conservative may be reflective in his posts on his forthcoming book.

As to Brett's views on the legalities, keep in mind that Brett is not trained in the law. In fact, those with long memories may recall Brett's entry at this Blog (and others) as critical of the legal profession based upon his divorce proceedings, including criticism of his own attorney in the proceedings. Add to this Brett's self-proclaimed anarcho-libertarianis and his 2nd A absolutism, and you have a perfect storm of anger and hatred, similar to that of Donald Trump.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], I watched portions of the Libertarian Party convention and it was strange. There are a wide range of libertarians even among the relatively few in attendance at the convention.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag, since you are trained in law, do you have an opinion on GM's argument as to the Obama Administration or even amicus (various legal bloggers have been ... might be wrong, but don't think his rule was followed) having some ethical (talk of "jury tampering" suggests even a legal) responsibility not to comment?
 

By calling into question the judiciary's independence and good faith, rulings adverse to the leader are stigmatized as political and illegitimate, while favorable rulings are taken as evidence of vindication. Over time the public comes to accept this as a normal part of political discourse, and it becomes immaterial what the legal merits of the issue are. In any event, it is difficult for the public to form any judgment on the merits because legal experts are basically partisans on one side or the other. Members of Congress, of course, reflexively defend or attack the leader based on their partisan position. And it doesn't help when the courts issue decisions which are based on little more than their personal moral views.

The ultimate effect is to elevate the leader above the law. Good job, everybody.
 

Joe, the 1st A speech and press clauses may sometimes conflict with cases in the judicial system. The judiciary may be in a position to restrict parties to litigation, subject to due process, of course. Trial attorneys may employ public relations methods to enance the position of a client involved in actaul or potential litigation. This can be expensive and well short of "jury tampering," but effective for the wealthy. Regarding elected officials, such as a President directly or via the Executive Branch, or Congress, polics overlay the judicial system and the interplay of the 1st A's speech and press clauses. The Supreme Court may have rules in place that impact the roles of attorneys, including amici. People can choose not to comment, whether elected or non-elected officials, for their own ethical reasons. But formal rules of ethics may not provide a bright line. And keep in mind the breadth of the 1st A speech and press clauses, though they are not always clear on certain fact patterns. And the Internet has opened wide gateways for all and anyone to opine on any given matter with very little gate-keepings. Consider the proliferation of legal blogs and the wide and sometimes wild views of legal academics, including blatant self-promotion. There may be no clear legal right or wrong. I don't have a legal or otherwise opinion on many things.

As to Gerard's argument on the Obama Administration, the matter should be put in proper context rather than accepting Gerard's perhaps biased description of the events. It might boil down to a political issue that is non-justiciable. (Think back to Watergate.) (Also, consider remarks on Citizens United by Obama in a state of the union speech.) The 1st A speech and press clauses permit for critiques such as that of Gerard.

As to Amici, I would have to spend too much time checking SCOTUS rules. We have had posts at this Blog on various aspects of ACA, including Jack Balkin's early takes on the taxation aspect. Legal academics have their political biases as well illustrated by the various legal blogs that can be in disagreement with each other, just as the members of the Court may have their political biases.

As to Gerard's views, he may feel that he has an ethical - or even a legal - responsibility to comment. That's his decision to make. I need not express any personal view I may have as it may lack the significance that Gerard thinks his views have. After all, this is only a blog, not a reasoned brief.

As to Trump on the class action, he demonstrates his consistency with self-promotion. I don't imagine the trial judge will get involved unless an issue is raised by one of the parties. And even then the issue might be ducked on political grounds, although the trial date may be further extended, which nay serve Trump's purposes.

But I do have a comment on Gerard's post, to wit, his strained efforts at equivalency in invoking the Obama Administration in going after Donald Trump for his comments on the class action judge.
 

Gerard:

You are missing the point of Trump's comments. Think politics, not law.

Trump's GOP opponents took shots at his "university" and Team Clinton will almost certainly do so during the general election.

Trump's attorneys moved the court to deny the Washington Post's request to disclose the documentary evidence in the case. Very likely, those attorneys got wind that the court was going to issue an order in favor of the Washington Post, so Trump preempted the order by attacking the Mexican-American judge as biased because he opposes the Donald's tough immigration proposals and because he is an Obama appointee.

Now the story is all about Trump's accusations against the judge and not the "Trump University" documents. Trump has pulled this stunt repeatedly and very successfully during the GOP primaries. When Cruz laid out an indictment of Trump's progressive positions and support for Democrat politicians (including the Clintons), Trump responded by calling him a liar. The Donald's followers dismissed the documented facts and dismissed Cruz as "Lyin Ted."

Trump does not care about alienating the judge in these legal proceedings. I am pretty sure that the actual damages in this case are less than what Trump spends on his campaign every day or two.
 

Mr. W: Imagine Hillary Clinton, at a raucous rally of hers, said the following: "Does everybody have a little time? [cheers and applause] so I end up with an investigation, and it ends up with the FBI. It is a disgrace the way the FBI is acting, because it is a simple investigation...

This scenario does not take much imagination. The Clintons started practicing the politics of killing the messenger decades ago.

Among the low lights of this practice, Hillary Clinton protected her sexual predator husband by attacking his accusers, called those taking Bill to task for his felony perjuries and obstructions of justice as a "vast right wing conspiracy," and repeatedly attacked the political motivations of the Obama appointed IG's who have noted Hillary's own felony and misdemeanor violations of the classified materials laws.

If (or hopefully when) the FBI makes a criminal referral to Justice on the Clinton violations of the classified materials laws, I am sure that Hillary already has her attack on the FBI planned.

Trump is hardly plowing any new ground here. The Donald simply does it more flamboyantly and more directly in your face.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Good job, everybody"

There was "calling into question the judiciary's independence and good faith, rulings adverse to the leader are stigmatized as political and illegitimate" since Jeffersonians criticized the Federalist judiciary. The issue therefore is a matter of degree. The "good job, everybody" in response to this comment by Trump is misleading. The average extreme person here is going to not be totally out of left field. It will usually be a matter of taking something to the "nth" degree.

But, Trump crossed a line here even per law of averages, which at times are over the top; other times, they confuse standard (human judging will have leanings) with illegitimacy writ large. In some other case, someone from the left will cross a line. It isn't just him. But, "everyone" isn't the same and making it just some universal problem at some point is false moderation.


====

As to Shag's long comment, thanks. I think he is trying to show how "his" side in effect is being hypocritical. He crosses a line, imho, however in arguing Randy Barnett had a "good argument." But, it's his opinion to give.
 

I can see in the making spinning by Trump supporters that the class action judge's order releasing certain documents was in retaliation for Trump's public comments on Friday. Rather, it seems clear that the reverse is correct. The role, if any, of Trump's attorneys in Trump's public comments may be a matter of concern to the plaintiffs and their attorneys in the class action as well as to the court.
 

Brett the troll says: "Frankly, the judge's decision to schedule the trial right around the election IS suspicious."
The judge delayed the trial from this summer until after the election so that the campaign would not interfere with the trial. He wanted to make sure that the jury would not be affected, which is his sole concern. The election is not his problem. Trump doesn't get to put the case on ice because he's running for president. http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/06/news/donald-trump-university-trial/

There are lots of suspicious scheduling events going on right now. Benghazi hearings, for example. This isn't one of them.

And Bart de Palma the troll says: "Trump is hardly plowing any new ground here." Oh, I don't know. A presidential candidate making a racist attack on a federal judge in a case in which he's a defendant seems like new ground to me.
 

Unknown:

I am not defending Trump, I am explaining his politics.

Furthermore, Mexican-American is a nationality or a heritage (depending upon your citizenship status), not a race.

Political warfare over nationality and heritage is hardly anything new and the Democrats participated in this sort of warfare frequently over their sordid history. The only reason they give a damn about Mexican immigrants now is that they need to import voters to replace the Americans they are losing.
 

Perhaps SPAM I AM! can explain the process how Democrats " ... import voters to replace the Americans they are losing." I assume the assiduous SPAM I AM! has historical details of Mexican immigration going back to, say, 1900, to demonstrate the roles of Democrats as opposed to Republicans.

Clearly SPAM I AM!'s history of Mexico going back to its conquest by Spain is not so assiduous in dealing with the race of the conquered indigenous Mexicans and intermarriage. The LA Zoot Suit Riots in the early 1940s were racial.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], is SPAM I AM! suggesting that Italians were imported as voters in the early 20th century to replace the Americans they [Democrats or Republicans] were losing?
 

"Furthermore, Mexican-American is a nationality or a heritage (depending upon your citizenship status), not a race."

This is an uncommonly silly response. There are no 'real' races, they're socially constructed things. We haven't talked about an Irish, Japanese or Mexican (among others) 'race' in a few decades, but people long did. Calling an Italian a W*p or saying something derogatory about "Italians" is racism. Trumps talk of the judge. 'who is Mexican,' is awful.

"Political warfare over nationality and heritage is hardly anything new and the Democrats participated in this sort of warfare frequently over their sordid history. "

It's always interesting when conservatives use the past racist sins of Democrats to tu quoque the present racism in the GOP.
 

Shag: I assume the assiduous SPAM I AM! has historical details of Mexican immigration going back to, say, 1900, to demonstrate the roles of Democrats as opposed to Republicans.

You mean comparing and contrasting policies like FDR's mass deportation of Mexican workers during the Great Depression and Reagan's amnesty during the 1980s?

In reality, both parties play these politics.

 

BD: "Furthermore, Mexican-American is a nationality or a heritage (depending upon your citizenship status), not a race."

Mr. W: This is an uncommonly silly response. There are no 'real' races, they're socially constructed things.


Please.

Races of human beings share common genetically determined physical characteristics. In domesticated animals, we call these breeds.

No matter how much society changes, I will remain a medium shade of white with central European features for my entire lifetime.
 

Hahaha, Bart, you really are the perfect foil.

When people talk about race being socially constructed, they're not talking about denying there are phenotype differences among people. They're saying that what get's chosen, highlighted, focused on, etc., as the relevant criteria to make up racial classification is a social decision, changing from place to place and time to time. There's no a priori, necessary reason to classify the swarthy, dark haired/eyed Southern Italian and the porcelain white, blonde haired, blue eyed Swede in the same 'race' of 'white' (in fact, up until very recently scientists and laypersons alike would have referred to them as different 'races'). Take the famed character Al Lettieri, seen here: http://www.famousfix.com/topic/al-lettieri/photos Is there any inherent reason to consider him as in the same category as Dutch actor Rutger Hauer, seen here: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?138099-Classify-Dutch-Actor-Rutger-Hauer rather than with African-American actor Billy Dee Williams, seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Dee_Williams

And you couldn't have chosen a better analogy re: dog breed, better for me though, not you. Dog breeds were very consciously socially constructed. Here's what the English of the 19th Century would have called a 'bulldog': https://retrieverman.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/youatts-bulldog.jpeg

They were 'defined' as a breed based on functional criteria, used in bullbaiting they had to be dogs that were short, strong, with an impressive bite. But bullbaiting fell out of public favor, and bulldog breeders began to redefine what a bulldog was all about to disassociate it with bullbaiting. That included focusing on different physiological characteristics (which later became preferred by most breeders and dog registers). The result is this very different creature which we today call a 'bulldog'

https://retrieverman.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/bulldog-show-dog.jpeg



 

The average American (even Mexican-Americans and other Latin Americans in the US) thinks that either Mexicans belong to the “Hispanic/Latino” ‘racial’ group or that they are of the “Mexican race”.

https://lobertrindsay.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/races-of-mexico/

It's basically a matter of determining how the guy is wrong; doing a quick search, there appears (not just in the distant past) some confusion from various people about "race" vs. "ethnicity" vs. "nationality" etc.

"Racism" here is being used somewhat loosely but glasshouses/stones on some who are calling people out on usage. For instance, maybe Chris Rock is being inexact:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/12/03/chris-rock-hollywood-racist-against-mexicans-there-slave-state-in-la.html

shrugs.
 

A few articles on race and the law that might be of interest:

http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2016/05/ucla-law-review-vol-64-discourse.html
 

Mr. W:

Racism and not race is a social construct.

I presume you do not want to get into the Democrats profoundly sordid history of racism. The History Channel is broadcasting a remake of Roots tonight if you need a reminder.
 

the Democrats profoundly sordid history of racism

You must be referring to the period before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. After those became law, the reliably Republican southern African-Americans (Emancipation and Reconstruction having been Republican projects) became Democrats, and the southern Democratic racists became southern Republican racists. Looks like we'll have long to wait for a comparable Republican act of restitution.
 

Really good to point out I am just grateful I happened onto your web page.
bola online

 

I'm thinking to start playing online poker, saw that website, seems to be a good place ...
taruhan bola
 

In this example people can play poker as free so apply all the knowledge acquired but also can play real money
bandar judi bola
 

" After those became law, the reliably Republican southern African-Americans (Emancipation and Reconstruction having been Republican projects) became Democrats, and the southern Democratic racists became southern Republican racists. "

No, I've seen a detailed analysis of this; The GOP didn't actually capture the South until the Dixiecrats had died off. They remained Democrats to the end. And white Southerners ended up voting GOP roughly in proportion to whites elsewhere, adjusted for various demographics like religion. If anything, race kept the South Democratic longer than it would otherwise have been.

The Democratic party is still the party of racism in America. Who else is demanding racial quotas, and explicit racial discrimination? You can pretend all you like that it isn't really racism if you discriminate out of "good" motives, but why would anybody on the receiving end of the discrimination care about your supposed motives?
 

Larry:

LBJ passed the CRA with GOP votes. The GOP dissenters had justified problems with the unconstitutional provisions of the act.

No GOP government in the South ever imposed government racial discrimination. Government racial discrimination remains the sole province of Democrats.
 

Brett claims:

"No, I've seen a detailed analysis of this; ...."

but fails to cite the sources of such "detailed analysis." This is just more of Brett's lies and damned lies, a trait he shares with Donald Trump.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], Brett recognizes from personal experience that once you go international, you can't go back, another thing he has in common with Donald Trump.
 

"Racism and not race is a social construct."

No, this ipse dixit comment is wrong. Since I gave my argument about it last time and you just responded with ipse dixit, I'll do the same.

"I presume you do not want to get into the Democrats profoundly sordid history of racism."

Haha, you just doubled down on exactly what I called you on.

"LBJ passed the CRA with GOP votes."

From districts and states that are now blue for the most part.


 

Eric Posner has a current post at his blog with a link to his and AdTian Vermeule's 2009 essay "Tyrannophobia" and commentary on Donald Trump. Sounds biographical of SPAM I AM!, our very own "Tyrannysoreass." [Is it time for a new moniker?]
 

Brett

I'm not sure what detailed analysis you've seen, but a cursory look at Presidential election maps online presents some challenges for it. The deep South went for Goldwater in 64. In 68, other than Texas, the entire South went either to Wallace or Nixon. Most of it returned in 76 for 'favorite son' Carter, but by 1980 it went Red again and didn't look back for the most part.
 

What, you think I keep a list of links handy? Try this, for starters.


And, I note you didn't respond to the point about the Democratic party still defending racial discrimination.
 

Brett is a portrait of missing links.
 

Mista Whiskas, I didn't say the South didn't go Republican. I said the Dixiecrats didn't switch parties. They just died out, and the next generation voted Republican. It was a gradual, generational change, and almost entirely explicable in terms of other issues.

Goldwater wasn't that much of an outlier, as my link demonstrates.
 

BD: "LBJ passed the CRA with GOP votes."

Mr. W: From districts and states that are now blue for the most part.


So?

Electoral coalitions change. The one constant here is that Democrats nearly always support and Republicans nearly always oppose government racial discrimination.

BD: "Racism and not race is a social construct."

Mr. W: No, this ipse dixit comment is wrong.


How on Earth is this facially obvious observation dogmatic?

Race is a common set of physical features, racism is the social reaction to those features.
 

Who else is demanding racial quotas, and explicit racial discrimination?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZO.html

Opinion written by Justice O'Connor upholding use of race in admissions; O'Connor was a Reagan appointee & was a leading Republican in Arizona beforehand. A range of groups, including with representatives from both parties, in business, the military etc. supported the effort. Maureen E. Mahoney helped argue the case for the university. She served as Deputy Solicitor General in the George H. W. Bush administration. Kennedy (Republican) dissented but at least in theory (who knows with him) has said some sort of usage of race is allowed if done carefully.

Of course, there has been a long debate here (including this blog, Mr. W. has taken part) on what uses of race and the definition of illicit "discrimination." Many types of characteristics have been used to promote diversity etc. over the years without it being illegal discrimination even if using those traits in some ways are not allowed.

====

More than one thing was said. Brett did say "The GOP didn't actually capture the South until the Dixiecrats had died off." Mr. W. showed how "deep South went for Goldwater in 64. In 68, other than Texas, the entire South went either to Wallace or Nixon." Apparently, "capture" mean registered Democrats or something, putting aside people like Strom Thurmond.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Motive is one factor in determining if certain classifications are legitimate and even people who are harmed in some fashion often care why something happens.

Since it at times is raised, I again cite this:

http://www.nancyleong.com/race-2/published-the-misuse-of-asian-americans-in-the-affirmative-action-debate/

As she notes, there isn't one position but her comments/videos are often interesting.
 

"Many types of characteristics have been used to promote diversity etc. over the years without it being illegal discrimination even if using those traits in some ways are not allowed."

You could have said the same during Jim Crow. It was legal, didn't stop it from being discrimination.

Really, all this comes down to, is that the Democratic party has excuses for it's continued racism. As I said above, why should the victims care?
 

"I didn't say the South didn't go Republican. I said the Dixiecrats didn't switch parties. They just died out, and the next generation voted Republican."

In 1964 and 68???
 

"So? "

Regions don't change cultures overnight. The (at the time) red districts that supported the CRA are for the most part the one's that now vote Blue. Yes, electoral coalitions change, that's proof of it!

"Race is a common set of physical features"

Did you not understand my comment @ 6:42, or did you not read it?




 

"Motive is one factor in determining if certain classifications are legitimate and even people who are harmed in some fashion often care why something happens."

Joe's correct, but I'll expand: motive is often a major determiner of the morality of an action. That's an age old fact.
 

I'm talking about the types of things colleges might seek out that even Brett would find legally acceptable but the government might not find legitimate in some other context. For instance, ideology might matter when trying to pick a diverse political science department but not when handing out drivers licenses or civil service jobs.

I cited an example of Republican supporting race conscious programs. Meanwhile, even granting a wrong, two wrongs don't make a right and de facto racial discrimination is still a thing. Of course, this whole thing is a big debate which has been discussed in part here in the past including by Mr. W.

It is not granted that there is a wrongful "victim" here but speaking for me personally, even when I'm hurt, I care why someone does something. If someone has good intentions, it matters to me. I don't think I'm alone here as a basic matter of human relations. Also, good intentions help when trying to find alternatives. Again, to save time, I realize some don't think there are good intentions -- a long debate -- but we are granting good motives.
 

Mr. W:

Racism is hardly restricted to certain House districts or states. It exists everywhere.

What is important are actions.

If a racist joins the GOP, she is agreeing to a government which does not impose racial discrimination.

If anyone joins the Democrats, the are agreeing to a government which will impose racial discrimination unless stopped.
 

SPAM I AM!'s:

"If a racist joins the GOP, she is agreeing to a government which does not impose racial discrimination. "

is his backdoor endorsement of Donald J. Trump. The GOP has welcomed racists to join it.
 

"Joe's correct, but I'll expand: motive is often a major determiner of the morality of an action. That's an age old fact."

Indeed, that's why Jim Crow was ok: Because they weren't trying to keep blacks down, they were trying to keep whites up. [/sarcasm]
 

Brett is in sneer mode now.

Jim Crow -- which btw Brett thinks arguably should be legal in certain cases if it involves store owners (requiring service is a form of involuntary servitude in his eyes) -- was basically wrong because it was a form of white supremacy. That was a core motive.

Sometimes, the motive was the belief that it was safer to separate the races, since intermingling would cause difficulties including unfortunate violence from racists. This by itself didn't make it correct. Because OFTEN and MAJOR means sometimes good motives are not enough, especially if the motives turn out to be misguided in some fashion.

But, even here, it matters -- if the motive was good faith concern for both races, there is more of a chance of moving on to an integrated system, a more open-minded acceptance of evidence that is an acceptable and useful path. It also tempers the wrong some. There can be degrees of wrong. We see this, e.g., in punishment given for homicides.

The Republicans I cited who supported race conscious programs had various good motives to advance diversity, deal with past illicit discrimination and so forth. This helps determine if their path was moral -- those who use race conscious programs to promote white supremacy or as merely a special interest protection racket, let's say, can be less moral.

But, this doesn't all by itself justify the policy. Anyways, the morality point isn't just regarding this one issue. It should be possible to see this, especially if one stops sneering. For instance, even if a loved one is hit by a car, there is a difference to the victim if the driver WANTED to hit him or misguidedly swerved to avoid hitting a deer.
 

"Jim Crow -- which btw Brett thinks arguably should be legal in certain cases if it involves store owners"

Jim Crow consisted of legally mandated or otherwise coerced discrimination. I do not believe discrimination should be legally mandated or coerced. I've been pretty clear about that: That's what I find objectionable about the Democratic party's racial policies: They consist of legally mandated or otherwise coerced discrimination. Aside from the choice of victim, they're not in principle any different from Jim Crow.

"For instance, even if a loved one is hit by a car, there is a difference to the victim if the driver WANTED to hit him or misguidedly swerved to avoid hitting a deer."

If somebody swerves to avoid a deer, hitting the pedestrian is likely inadvertent. However, in the sort of racial discrimination we're talking about, affirmative action, the pedestrian doesn't get hit inadvertently. We're talking about zero sum situations where the harm to the person being discriminated against is the inevitable and intended flip side of the benefit to the person being discriminated in favor of.
 

Jim Crow consisted of legally mandated or otherwise coerced discrimination.

This is flat wrong. A great deal of Jim Crow consisted of private decisions by business owners and others to discriminate. For example, the Woolworth counter in Greensboro was segregated not because of any law mandating that, but because the company decided to do it. Similarly, interstate bus companies continued to segregate their buses even after the Supreme Court held that unlawful -- the Freedom Rides were undertaken, in part, to enforce existing law.
 

Segregation is caused by various types of coercion, including societal and customer pressures that lead people to decide not to serve black people. You have said that forcing people to serve black people is a form of involuntary servitude. If we examine why people do not serve them, we will likely see some pure free choice is not involved.

I also showed how race conscious programs are accepted by Republicans, including businesses and the military. There are not "in principle" no different from a system based on white supremacy and Jim Crow generally. This a major debate that has been addressed here and elsewhere in detail, however, I won't try again to deal with the matter here.

Finally, apparently, you now agree that motive matters -- there still is a victim in the car accident, but the motive -- it being "inadvertent" vs. intentional etc. -- matters. So, "often a major determiner of the morality of an action" is correct. Then, we have to look at the specifics. This includes the "harm" itself -- e.g., an attempt actually to promote ends (see, e.g., the Asian professor article) to help everyone involved. In an imperfect world, this will result in imperfect means. But, if merely white supremacy is the motive, it is an easier call.
 

Barack Obama proves the case that race is a social construct. Genetically, he is half white mid-Westerner (West European), half East African (Kenyan Luo). As an African American, he has little genetic connection beyond common humanity with African-Americans like his wife, with West African ancestry. Summing over all alleles, genetic diversity is a function of distance from the human origin, in East Africa. Obama is probably genetically more similar to Donald Trump than his wife (sources in this old blog post of mine.) It's easy to see that he has a typically East African ectomorphic build, large ears, and thin lips, very unlike typical West African mesomorphs.

Socially we don't sum over all alleles, we look obsessively at skin colour, aka melanin deficiency. This is like defining breeds of cat by the colour of their whiskers. Obama has been identified by America "whites" (descendants of Europeans) as a member of the "black" race, simply by having the original human skin pigment that Palaeolithic migrants to higher latitudes lost to vitamin D deficiency. Indigenous Australians are dark-skinned too, but that doesn't make the category "black" informative.
 

Actually, it only takes 1 drop of blood to make one a member of the "black" race. Or at least that used to be the standard.
 

"Because they weren't trying to keep blacks down, they were trying to keep whites up. [/sarcasm]"

Motives usually matter a great deal. The difference between homicide and justified homicide is the mens rea.

Think of a popular girl in school. If she says 'I think I'll go with one of the unpopular guys to the dance' is she doing the same thing as if she said 'I think I'll go with to the dance with one of the popular guys.' According to Brett it's the same because in both instances she's deciding who to date based on their popularity, but most people would find them to be different.
 

JW: Barack Obama proves the case that race is a social construct. Genetically, he is half white mid-Westerner (West European), half East African (Kenyan Luo).

Pigmentation is not a social construct, it is a physical appearance.

Obama's pigmentation is black. If he favored his mother's pigmentation, then Obama appear to be white like any number of other light skinned children of a black parent.

http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/08/13/10-black-actors-who-are-successfully-passing-for-white/
 

Brett eventually just went back to the merits, which he thinks is obvious.

The whole thing was pretty been there, done that even back in 2012.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/08/scholars-brief-in-fisher-v-university_14.html
 

"Pigmentation is not a social construct, it is a physical appearance.

Obama's pigmentation is black."

And how that pigment (if at all) is used in creating whatever racial 'categories' exist at any given time or place is a social construct. Again, take the following three persons:

Barak Obama, pictured here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/presidents/barackobama

Godfather actor Al Lettieri, pictured here: http://alchetron.com/Al-Lettieri-737209-W

President elect of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, pictured here: http://www.opinyon.com.ph/index.php/478-no-is-yes

Under current social constructions of race in the US, the first of these would be 'black,' the second 'white,' and the third 'Asian.' There's virtually no difference in their pigmentation, and there are no consistent differences in other features upon which one can base these separate classifications.

Of course, fifty years ago scientists and the public would have thought of 'Italian' as it's own race. But they've become 'white' now. It's social construction, plain and simple.

 

It is somewhat interesting that the 15th Amendment speaks of both "race" and "color."

 

Mr. W:

We may or may not be in agreement here.

The three men you are comparing have different pigmentations, features and hair. All of those are objective physical facts.

The social construct is how society categorizes and and treats people with those pigmentations, features and hair.

Do we agree?

I am unsure whether you are pitching the idea that there is no such thing as human races, which is objective nonsense.
 

IIRC, human "races" fall quite naturally out of genetic clustering studies. So, they are real. But they're not quite the same "races" that people would traditionally care about. Similar, but the correspondence isn't perfect.


 

"The three men you are comparing have different pigmentations, features and hair."

Do they? Take a look. They have remarkably similar features. That's my point, remarkably similar features, yet under our understanding of 'race' they represent three different races. More remarkably, Al Letteiri is considered to be in the same category as Rutger Hauer, pictured here: http://podtoid.wikia.com/wiki/Rutger_Hauer, when in any 'objective' sense Al's features are much closer to Obamas. Of course, fifty years ago Al would have been said to be of the 'Italian' race, a 'race' that most don't acknowledge today.

Differences in phenotype are real, but there is no consistent way to come up with any meaningful 'racial' categories from this. Skin color, hair color and type, eye color, shape of nose, lips, etc., exist on an ever finer continuum and there's no way to draw the line other than as a social construct.

Take your dog breed example. As noted the breed 'bulldog' in 1820 looked very different than the breed 'bulldog' looks today. What happened was that breeders literally decided that certain preferred features would constitute what they, and more importantly their breeder associations, would recognize as a 'bulldog.' Breeders began to find dogs with these features and breed them together to isolate and accentuate them, and then decided, as a matter of social construction, to call dogs with these features 'bulldogs.' The features are real, but the selection of which features matter in defining what's a 'bulldog' are a matter of social convention.
 

Brett, from what I recall geneticists have found that one can talk of genetically similar groups, but the groups tend to be defined by region (not surprisingly since populations throughout most history lived in relatively small, rather 'fixed' regions and interbred), but that one finds that "genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations" (also makes sense, because at the 'borders' of groups there's going to be some interbreeding and swapping of genetic material) and so race isn't a scientifically precise classification.
 

That's why I spoke of clusters. I mean, obviously these 'races' aren't distinct, or else I and my wife wouldn't have a son. We're all one species.

But the clusters still exist. For now. A hundred years from now? Probably not. Wouldn't surprise me if a hundred years from now there was major genetic diversity, maybe even speciation, given advances in genetic engineering. But we're living in the last days of the traditional 'races'.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

BD: "The three men you are comparing have different pigmentations, features and hair."

Mr. W: Do they? Take a look. They have remarkably similar features.


FWIW, Obama has a darker complexion than the photo to which you linked and has standard features and hair you would find in Kenya, where his father was born.

Al Letteiri is southern Italian (like some of my ancestors from Brindisi) and appears to have a mixture of European and African characteristics. The relevant social construct here is that Northern Italians often discriminate against Southern Italians because of their African heritage.

Rodrigo Détente looks like any number of mestizos in Asia and America with a mixture of European and mongol/American Indian features.

Differences in phenotype are real, but there is no consistent way to come up with any meaningful 'racial' categories from this. Skin color, hair color and type, eye color, shape of nose, lips, etc., exist on an ever finer continuum and there's no way to draw the line other than as a social construct.

FWIW, ethnologists who have broken down the features common to various human races and sub-ethnicities the way horse ranchers break down breeds of horses. Because people migrate and intermarry, there will always be a those who fall in-between races and ethnicities. This does not mean human races and sub-ethnicities are not real.

The reason that some argue that human races do not exist is because their existence begs the question of whether the genetic differences between racial groups are more than cosmetic.
 

Again, the phenotypical characteristics are real. Some people have darker skin than others, some flatter noses, some thicker lips, different types of hair. That's real. What's not 'real' and is a social construct is the categories that we create at any given time. Actual human populations just don't fall into them. This isn't just because of the product of current 'interbreeding' but because of the product of that over millenia. You have entire populations like the Berbers (who can have dark complexion and blue eyes), Balkan populations, the Khmer, etc., Indian (not native american, but people from India) which defy current and older racial categorization attempts.

The saggy jowls, flat face, etc., of the modern bulldog are all real phenotypical characteristics. But three hundred years ago no one would have thought that these features constituted a 'type' or 'breed' of dog. Btw=that 'breed' is only a thing because of very conscious, deliberate efforts by bulldog breeders to carefully breed dogs with those characteristics together-without such efforts there wouldn't be anything like such beasts, you'd have dogs more like what today people call 'pit bulls' (interestingly enough, there is no such recognized breed of dog!).
 

"The reason that some argue that human races do not exist is because their existence begs the question of whether the genetic differences between racial groups are more than cosmetic."

That might be a reason some did and do, but another major reason is just that the categories people come up with for 'races' don't seem to be able to specifically delineate and categorize with any precision so many actual human populations.
 

With the usual caveats, the Wikipedia page on "race" shows the complexity of the situation. The page has various usual links. There is some rough ability to break down "race" (though many experts find it of limited value at best) but there is more so a social definition.

And, as Mr. W. notes, "race" had a broader definition in the past. "In Reckless Hands," e.g., discusses the Skinner case and other books discussed Buck v. Bell, both concerning eugenics where "race" had a broad meaning. Opposition to eugenics as a matter of policy was in part a matter of the loose divisions between races, science and cultural also overlapping. We saw this in respect to slavery too where "laziness" was allegedly a physical trait.

"Race" also might be a term of art -- e.g., "originalist" views of "Jewish" as a "race" has led to acceptance in recent years of federal hate crime laws which are partially based on the Thirteenth Amendment. Muslims and Arabs also have been similarly protected.

http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1118&context=schmooze_papers
 

Back to the main story:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-trump-university-scam

When the facts and law aren't on your side, attack the judge?

Or, debate the meaning of "racism," perhaps.
 

I think I'm willing to concede that not everyone who attended became a wealthy real estate mogul. Using this as a basis for liability has obvious implications for the higher education system, which is turning out simply enormous numbers of highly indebted unemployables, even from nominally legit outfits like Harvard.

IOW, I'm not sure the left really wants to go there. (Since it controls most of those absurdly expensive diploma mills.)
 

It isn't the basis but don't let that stop your shtick.


 

Not that people on the left haven't criticized the higher education system:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/06/for-profit-colleges-are-a-massive-scam

but the same would be said about any number of things regulated today such as basic wrongs that are accepted business practices. But, "not everybody" is typical hyperbole even on that level & civil litigation repeatedly is about targeting the worse offenders given limited resources etc. to target the problem more broadly.

Trump University is but one example of his dubious business practices, business to remind people what is supposed to be a key qualification of his to be President. This is but a snapshot of him breaking the law, going by the rules set forth here.

Anyway, if members of "the left" or "the right" (who have a piece of the pie of higher education, especially evangelical colleges) defend themselves like Trump did here, they would be wrong too, especially if they were running for office at the time. "Look a squirrel" is one tactic though.
 

There's a long list of majors that are massive scams, regardless of where you major in them. Any institution that will enroll you as a "fill in the blank" studies major is as bad a con as Trump U could have been.
 

The particulars are bad here and again he is running for President.
 

There's a long list of majors that are massive scams, regardless of where you major in them. Any institution that will enroll you as a "fill in the blank" studies major is as bad a con as Trump U could have been.

Citations omitted.
 

Brett is obviously "pro-con" in his support of Donald J. Trump, employing false rhetoric. But then Brett fits Trump's base of older undereducated white males. In today's NYTimes there are two connected items that disclose Trump's base: (1) Thomas Edsall's column "The Anti-P.C. Vote" and (2) Sabrina Tavernise's article "First Rise in U.S. Death Rate in Years Surprises Experts." Brett's efforts to broaden the discussion of Trump's for-profit Trump U to the non-profit education system subject to federalism is a stretch. Brett demonstrates that he is undereducated, naive or just a fraud in his support of Trump U.





 

College Majors with the Highest Unemployment Rate

The "studies" majors tend to have underemployment (you're employed, but not at what you majored in...) rates over 50%. You take a STEM major, you're probably going to be employed at what you studied.


 

Race is like pornography you will know it when you see it.

 

" But then Brett fits Trump's base of older undereducated white males."

Yup, mechanical engineers are the epitome of undereducated.
 

"Brett demonstrates that he is undereducated, naive or just a fraud in his support of Trump U."

Who's supporting Trump U? I'm just commenting that a good deal of higher education is a scam these days.
 

The History of the Presidential Nomination Process: How We Got Here Rick Pildes

The Sanders and Trump constituencies are likely to try to push the system along even more participatory and populist paths. But there might also be a strong countervailing push to recapture more of a role for the institutional party, which could take several forms: requiring that a candidate be a member of the party before they can run under the party's label; movement away from open to more closed primaries; perhaps building in a role for "superdelegates" on the Republican side. But much will depend on how wins the election and whether the outcome is close or disastrous for one of the parties.


The GOP needs to make these reforms:

1) Candidate must be a registered Republican for more than one year.

2) All primaries and caucuses are limited to Republican voters.

3) All primaries are proportional.

Trump could not have won under these conditions and we would be headed into a contested convention where Republican delegates would be choosing the nominee.
 

I'd endorse those rules.

The current rules were designed to enable the party establishment to dictate the nominee, only they didn't work out as intended, because the establishment's chosen puppet was impossible to sell to the voters. And they couldn't admit that early enough to derail Trump.

But the real problem isn't the rules, it's that the party establishment is so at odds with the party's base, that it's about impossible for anyone person to be acceptable to both. The establishment is more like an occupying force than leadership, at this point.
 

The "studies" majors tend to have underemployment (you're employed, but not at what you majored in...) rates over 50%.

That's a silly test. The humanities prepare you for a wide range of careers. The fact that a career is not specific to your major is irrelevant. I'm a Poli Sci major but I don't "practice" Poli Sci because I'm a lawyer. It would be ridiculous to denigrate Poli Sci as a major on that basis.
 

By "the studies", I mean ethnic/race/gender studies. They combine all the utility of the proverbial basket weaving, (I shouldn't denigrate basket weaving, given what the hand woven baskets were going for last time I was in Charleston.) with an extra helping of grievance. Any sensible HR department would see one of THOSE degrees, and run screaming.

Humanities CAN help prepare you for a wide range of careers. At least, they have the potential to make you a more rounded person, and I don't regard most of the humanities courses I took in college as a waste of time. (English lit, yeah. I was pretty well read before I ever arrived at college, so that was a waste.) A pity they don't have to deliver on that potential.

But the humanities only "help" prepare you for most careers. They don't do the primary job of preparing you for much of anything except perhaps teaching the humanities.

The fact that a career is not specific to your major is pretty darned relevant. Going through college is possibly the biggest expense somebody will see in their entire life. Not many people can blow that kind of money on something that isn't very, very relevant to their subsequent career. A large fraction of the people emerging from college these days are coming out deep in debt, and if they were encouraged to spend that fortune on something that wouldn't majorly enhance their income, they were scammed.

Yes, every bit as much scammed, as if you thought you were going to be taught by real estate moguls at Trump U.
 

What is the difference between "ethnic/race/gender studies" and traditional classics, except that the ethnic/race/gender being study is not Latin or Greek?

It's not really surprising an engineer demeans the value of humanities. Humanities helps one be a well-rounded citizen and has been honored since the ancients. I'm sure the ancients also had your engineers demeaning "underemployed" poets etc. This is in part a matter of social value choices.

We are talking less than 10% going by that chart. Take fine arts. I reckon many who take fine arts are those more likely to not need to be employed as much as others. Or, less likely to care as much. This doesn't mean fine arts is a "scam" or something unless it is sold as useful to make a lot of money to get a degree in fine arts. OTOH, Trump U. isn't aimed for mere cultural fulfillment, I'd think.

So, I can't really tell from that chart what it is supposed to tell me. College is too expensive in various respects but it has various benefits, including providing young people (I'm getting old) a bridge to adulthood, experience with knowledge etc. It isn't just about getting a few more percentage points chances of getting employed later on, the percentage points probably a result of various variables.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

But, not supporting Trump U. here.

Or, various other business practices of his, I guess. But, business is his experience. Guess, like for many Republicans, it is back to look! evil squirrel.
 

By "the studies", I mean ethnic/race/gender studies. They combine all the utility of the proverbial basket weaving, (I shouldn't denigrate basket weaving, given what the hand woven baskets were going for last time I was in Charleston.) with an extra helping of grievance. Any sensible HR department would see one of THOSE degrees, and run screaming.

This is your own prejudice talking. You don't have any evidence that "HR departments run screaming" upon getting such a resume. And if they do, it'd be hard to separate contempt for the major with prejudice on race or ethnicity or gender grounds.

As for humanities, the fact is that humanities grads can handle a wide range of careers, and do so. Just to take an obvious example, Carly Fiorina was a philosophy and Medieval history major. Many other CEOs were Humanities majors, as are (broadly defined) most lawyers.

I agree that there's too much debt for college students these days, but the fact remains that college grads continue to earn enough more than non-grads to account for that tuition. And even if they didn't, that wouldn't mean the degrees were "scams" unless the student was actually deceived about the degree. That deception appears to have taken place at Trump U, but you'll need evidence before extending that elsewhere. Here's a hint, though: you'd probably have a pretty good argument if you limited your attack to lower tier law schools.
 

Yes, every bit as much scammed, as if you thought you were going to be taught by real estate moguls at Trump U.
# posted by Blogger Brett : 6:07 PM


Sorry, but that is ridiculous nonsense. Pre-med and engineering students are very good at making sure that their fellow liberal arts students are aware that they have limited job prospects upon graduation.

 

" Pre-med and engineering students are very good at making sure that their fellow liberal arts students are aware that they have limited job prospects upon graduation."

True that. And making sure the liberal arts students sweating those classes are aware that the engineering students view them as a way to relax and get an easy A, too.
 

"The current rules were designed to enable the party establishment to dictate the nominee"

Er, open primaries were introduced to counter the ability of party bosses and establishments to handpick candidates.
 

The rule changes he supports would from what I can tell would lead to a Trump type to win by a plurality.

As with Sanders, the fact he "won" a state is what matters to many people and/or overall message, even if Sanders wins mostly low populated states or bigger states by close margins. So, Trump winning by 35% will over time convince many later primary race voters (as it did here -- see, e.g., Indiana) that he was in effect the winner.

But, he might still not get enough votes, but would likely still have a high plurality vis-a-vis other candidates. But, at the convention, deals among the also rans & votes from party insider leaning delegates (including hundreds of unbound), the people's choice would be rejected for some compromise the establishment prefers.

I think a Rubio might benefit there, for instance, as compared to a Cruz who is too conservative and disliked. Not sure how this is better exactly. *shrugs*
 

Mr. W:

Open primaries were meant to check the GOP conservative base and nominate more progressive candidates. They succeeded in 2016.

Joe:

But for different levels of winner take all primaries, Trump would have earned only a little over a third of the delegates rather than leveraging that small plurality into a majority of delegates.
 

"Open primaries were meant to check the GOP conservative base and nominate more progressive candidates. They succeeded in 2016."

Haha, that's only according to your idiosyncratic understanding, one that was rejected by the voters (including in many closed contests). Trump's positions (and maybe more importantly demeanor and rhetoric) were welcomed as to the right of his GOP primary opponents. Whatever else you can say about Trump, he was not the 'establishment' pick!

Open primaries pre-date our current political squabbles and they were initiated as one of several measures to break the power of party bosses and political machines of their day.
 

Primaries were intended to do that, to transfer control of the nomination to the members of the party, not the leadership.

Open primaries were supposedly to pick more "electable" candidates, by skewing the electorate picking them towards the composition of the general electorate, rather than the party base.

You might think that also moves the selection away from the party bosses, but at least in the case of the GOP, the party bosses are considerably to the 'left' of the party's base, so it functioned to produce candidates more to the liking of the bosses.

And, less to the liking of the actual members of the party, which turns out to be a problem come the general election, because the base ended up not being enthusiastic about electing candidates who so frequently disagreed with them about basic matters of ideology.
 

Brett
Maybe that's the dynamic of how they currently work for the GOP, but the idea when they were adopted was also that party bosses and machines could always reliably turn out their supporters and dominate a closed primary, but one that was open was by definition more difficult to do.

Even talking about now and the GOP I think it has to be recognized that there is not some monolithic 'establishment.' Are the Koch Brothers, for example, part of the 'establishment?' Founding supporters of the Tea Party, but at the same time they've created quite a significant infrastructure to support (guide?) quite a few people. I think the GOP has more than one 'establishment.'
 

Not really; The GOP has an establishment, and it has multiple groups trying to displace that establishment. The Tea party, the Kochs; They may be trying to get in, but they're still on the outside.
 

Mr. W:

Modern American "conservatism" is a combination of classical liberal economics and traditionalist social policy.

Fascist politics is a hybrid of nationalist scapegoating and a vague mish mash of socialist and progressive policies.

Trump ran a fascist, not a conservative, campaign and gained a small plurality of the vote (many of whom were Indis and Dems) while he had opponents.

The fact that he gained the votes of many nationalists and hurting working class folks who normally vote for conservatives does not mean that he ran a conservative campaign. Some of the general election horse race polling suggests that up to 15% of Sanders supporters are shifting to Trump.
 

Mark Field skipped a prime chance to comment on the next thread that raised issues about the framing of the Constitution etc. Usually lures him like candy does visitors to Sotomayor's chambers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/us/politics/for-a-collegial-court-justices-lunch-together-and-forbid-talk-of-cases.html?_r=1
 

But you must admit, Bart, that in large part Trump's success was due to picking up very popular parts of the conservative platform, such as enforcing the borders, that the nominal party "conservatives" like NR had dropped.

Now, I don't know if they dropped them because they stopped believing in them, if they ever did. Or they just were seduced by consultants who told them that those issues were third rails. But, drop them they did, and they were just lying there for Trump to pick up.

If Cruz or Walker had come out of the starting gate hammering on illegal immigration, and promising to do something substantive about it, and absolutely ruling out any "grand compromise" until it was under control, there would never have been room for Trump to get started.
 

Brett has not identified the GOP establishment but points to the Tea Party and the Koch-heads as trying to get in. And Brett references " ... multiple groups trying to displace that establishment." What are these multiple groups beyond the Tea Party and the Koch-heads? One such group is the profile of Trump supporters: older undereducated white males with racists views. How well versed is Brett regarding the GOP as a self-proclaimed anarcho-libertarian and 2nd A absolutiest? Perhaps he could add to his partial list of such multiple groups attempting to displace the GOP establishment, however he defines that establishment.
 

Brett: But you must admit, Bart, that in large part Trump's success was due to picking up very popular parts of the conservative platform, such as enforcing the borders, that the nominal party "conservatives" like NR had dropped.

Conservatives believe in law enforcement.

The GOP establishment offered only nominal support for enforcing the immigration laws because their business sponsors use the cheap labor and because they think this position will appeal to Hispanic voters.

Trump is going FAR beyond the conservative position of enforcing immigration law to scapegoat foreigners, including our allies, for our economic, foreign policy and terrorism problems.

If Cruz or Walker had come out of the starting gate hammering on illegal immigration, and promising to do something substantive about it, and absolutely ruling out any "grand compromise" until it was under control, there would never have been room for Trump to get started.

Cruz did exactly what you recommended. Trump supporters wanted more and the Donald provided it in spades.
 

Back to the OP, it's now getting out that the judge is a member of La Raza. So, yeah, Trump very well may have a point.
 

"Modern American "conservatism" is..."

Your theories are nice, but the reality is what's important. Conservative voters responded to what they see as Trump's bold stands against illegal immigration, Muslims, and 'political correctness.' These are all conservative positions. Sorry, Bart, you own him (or rather, he you).

"The GOP has an establishment"

I've never seen a definition of the 'GOP establishment' that was much more precise than 'Republican pols, operatives or donors who said, did or endorsed something or someone I didn't like.'
 

Is SPAM I AM! suggesting that Cruz is/was of the GOP establishment? That's not how the Cruz Canadacy was portrayed. So perhaps Brett and SPAM I AM! might debate the identity of the GOP establishment. Once they agree on this, then they can debate and identify the multiple groups trying to replace that GOP establishment. Is the GOP establishment conservative? If so, to what extent does Trump differ from conservatives? This is a GOP intra-party struggles that requires the esteemed knowledge of Brett and SPAM I AM! The differing views of the Libertarian Party's candidates (Johnson, President and Weld, VP) conflict with conservatism. Some might say the soul of the Republican Party, no longer the Republican Party of Lincoln, is at stake, but the Republican Party has been soulless Since Bush/Cheney, if not before. Consider the Kristolizing efforts of #NEVERTRUMP. Who better to debate this than our own GOP non-establishment Brett (shilling for Trump) and SPAM I AM! shilling against Trump).
 

Judge Gonzalo Curiel is a rather active member of La Raza.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/01/judge-presiding-over-trump-university-case-is-member-of-la-raza-lawyers-group/

Trump could draw water from this political well again by calling for Judge Curiel to recuse himself.
 

What "point" would that be?

http://www.nclr.org/about-us/

That he is a "Mexican" though he was born in the U.S.? That because he is a member of a Latino advocacy organization that he cannot be trusted to judicially preside over a case involving fraud at a university because of Trump's positions?

This might be getting to why GM, a Republican, is #NeverTrump and Brett is not.
 

Mr. W: Conservative voters responded to what they see as Trump's bold stands against illegal immigration, Muslims, and 'political correctness.'

Political correctness is a term for the secular left's cultural war against conservatives. Opposition to that culture war is indeed a conservative position and one of Trump's primary draws with conservative voters. Hell, even though I refuse to vote for the fascist, I will be watching the presidential debates to see Trump fearlessly take Clinton to task for her various lies, corruptions and criminal acts.

Trump's scapegoating of foreigners goes FAR beyond the conservative positions of enforcing immigration laws and limiting the immigration of Muslims from jihadi controlled nations. The Donald is scapegoating foreigners for all manner of economic and foreign policy problems, slandering entire ethnic and religious groups as criminals and terrorists, and is advocating mass deportation (which was last carried out by FDR), trade barriers and pulling out of alliances like NATO (two normally far left positions which the Bern's supporters would likely support).
 

If he's a member of La Raza, then, even though he was born in the US, he conceives of himself as Mexican. La Raza isn't just a "Latino advocacy organization", they're not advocating for Latinos as an ethnic group within the US. They're devoted to the Reconquista.

As an active member of La Raza, no, he shouldn't be accepted as able to be objective in a legal proceeding involving Trump, or for that matter anyone well known as an advocate of border security and deportation of illegal aliens.
 

Bart, I think we ought to pull out of Nato. As a defensive alliance to protect an exhausted Europe against the threat of the USSR, it made a great deal of sense. In the present context?

Just another entangling alliance.

We are, as a nation, suffering from a severe case of imperial over-reach. We need to get our own house in order, and let the recovered nations of Europe take up their own defense.

Something they'll never do so long as we're willing to do it for them.

As for mass deportation, yes to that, too. Our ruling class have been engaged in, as the poet put it, "electing a new people". They're doing all sorts of things, in an effort to irreversibly alter the nation, establishing "facts on the ground" that can't be undone. The only way we'll stop this is by proving that we won't let things like that become irreversible.

Deporting the illegals is a start on that.
 

Should pro-life judges not decide abortion cases? Should conservative evangelicals not decide matters involving separation of church and state or liberal leaning plantiffs? The one size fits all stereotyping suggested here is both unfair and not how bias rules in court works.

In fact:

But perhaps the greatest irony in Trump’s attacks is that the Indiana University grad cut his prosecutorial teeth going after a major cartel that had been terrorizing communities around the U.S-Mexican border.

Does this mean he can't be trusted with a drug defendant?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-judge-curiel-criticisms

Brett speaks of "our ruling class," but as with quite a lot of things, he is ultimately upset "we the people" don't support something including this talk of "irreversibly altering the nation" ala Pat Buchanan worried about too many non-whites here. The "ruling class" is not the ones giving jobs to those "illegals" but maybe if we give more power to the elites, including Trump ("I make great deals; don't constrain me with rules! it's okay! I'm not Obama") that can change?
 

I obviously have no problem with "non-whites", being married to one. My problem is with deliberately importing huge numbers of people with an incompatible culture. What they look like is utterly irrelevant.

As I've said before, when it comes to immigration, you are what you eat, and why on Earth would we want to become more like Mexico? Well, it's a question that answers itself: Politicians could very well look at PRI, and decide, "I'd like to change the country so I could behave like that!"
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

joe, I think I might disagree with you here. Trump identifying Curiel as a 'Mexican' is indeed awful, but his membership in a political advocacy group can, I think, be grounds for concern in some cases. I've always thought Sam Alito and Scalia's membership in conservative Catholic organizations meant that in cases about abortion or the right to die there wasn't going to be a fair shake, or if you told me that a Texas judge who was a member of the Federalist Society ruled against an Obama policy I'd be like 'hmmmm.' It wouldn't prove anything, but it would reasonably raise eyebrows.
 

Brett,

Do you have evidence that La Raza is devoted to the 'Reconquista?'

Also, it seems odd for you to back mass deportations. Having the federal government identify and forcibly remove 12 million undocumented aliens would be one of the largest, most intrusive, non-wartime federal efforts of our lifetime.

My problem is with deliberately importing huge numbers of people with an incompatible culture.
 

They have a history of funding Reconquista groups, like the Mechistas. Revolutionary movements having pseudo-respectable fronts isn't an uncommon practice, that's the role La Raza serves for the Reconquista movement. The IRA had, and Palestinian terrorists still have, similar fronts.

I don't think the federal government would have to individually identify and deport every one of the 12 million. Just making it very difficult for them to find employment is relatively easy to do, as well as blocking remittances, that would cause most of them to self-deport.

But, if you've got 12 million criminals in your midst, it's a little late to be saying you can't do anything about it because doing something would be a big job. Big problems demand big solutions.
 

My problem is with deliberately importing huge numbers of people with an incompatible culture. What they look like is utterly irrelevant.

# posted by Blogger Brett : 12:01 PM


How does one quantify "incompatible culture" without looking at melamin content? Beautiful sounding language? Goodbye Germany! Number of Jews, homosexuals and other undesirables killed? Welcome back Germany!

 

"How does one quantify "incompatible culture" without looking at melamin content?"

Even coming from somebody who specializes in stupid comments, that's a stupid question.
 


Even coming from somebody who specializes in stupid comments, that's a stupid question.
# posted by Blogger Brett : 2:26 PM


It's sarcasm, you racist piece of shit.



 

In any case, I'm really looking forward to find out how we determine "incompatible cultures".
 

It's stupid sarcasm. Culture is in the realm of thought and ideas, and habit, and melanin is just appearance. A pair of identical twins could be indistinguishable, and if they got adopted out to different countries, end up with completely different cultures.

As for how you determine if a culture is incompatible, look at the way it operates where it's in control. Are there incredibly high levels of corruption, and the immigrants we're talking about are already characterized by their willingness to violate our laws? Maybe we're talking about people from a country with no history of functioning democracy or civil liberties, where gays and rape victims get executed?

Simple rule of thumb: If it's a place that isn't the sort of place you'd consider living, and hasn't been for a long, long while, then you probably don't want the place you do like living to become more like it.
 

BD: I think we ought to pull out of Nato. As a defensive alliance to protect an exhausted Europe against the threat of the USSR, it made a great deal of sense. In the present context?

Our alliance network massively multiplies our ability to project military power around the world.

We are, as a nation, suffering from a severe case of imperial over-reach. We need to get our own house in order, and let the recovered nations of Europe take up their own defense. Something they'll never do so long as we're willing to do it for them.

While we are suffering from overall government overspending, we have shrunk our military to Great Depression levels. Alliances enable that smaller force to perform at a much higher level.

Our NATO allies are providing most of their own defense. We only have a symbolic force left in Europe.

As for mass deportation, yes to that, too..

We have been incorporating immigrants into our population for centuries without losing our national identity.

If we feel the need to remove all the illegal aliens, there is no need to engage in a giant quasi-military operations costing billions of dollars. Simply make it a misdemeanor crime to hire an illegal alien without performing e-verify, enforce the law very publicly and I guarantee the illegals will lose their jobs and self deport without any use of force.
 

I'll certainly agree with that last. In practice, the toughest part of immigration enforcement is arranging for a government that wants to do it.
 

Perhaps Brett is not aware of the "incompatible culture" of his Irish forbears back in the 1850s in their arrivals to America and weren't considered by the landed elites as "white." Brett attempts to play the race card with reference to his wife and their mixed race son but fails to disclose his earlier narratives about his divorce and being shortchanged by the legal system, including his own attorney. Brett blogged about his recovery from post-divorce ill thoughts by going "international." But Brett's mindset is still fixated on inroads on what he perceives as his white supremacy advantage. Here in the Boston area where I was born and still reside there is well remembered the treatment of the Irish well into the 20th century as the "other" by the political power of the Yankee overlords. Brett is obviously undereducated on the subject of "incompatible culture." Perhaps Brett's concept of Mexicans and their "incompatible culture" is based upon his childhood days in northern Michigan pulling radishes alongside Mexicans with his small hands uncompetitively, imagining that these Mexicans may have been making fun of his disability. For bigots like Brett, the "others" have "incompatible cultures." How compatible is the culture that Brett has displayed in his comments over the years at this and other blogs.compared to people that are tolerant?
 

Brett, isn't your wife foreign born? If I'm correct in that, would you mind saying what culture she's from and if you think that culture compatible with the US?

For the record, I'll break a bit with some liberals in saying that I do think some cultures are more problematic for inclusion or assimilation into US culture.
 

I do think some cultures are more problematic for inclusion or assimilation into US culture.

I'd have to agree. For example, Alabama and Mississippi are failed cultures which have proved very problematic for inclusion in the US. SC and LA too.
 

Simple rule of thumb: If it's a place that isn't the sort of place you'd consider living, and hasn't been for a long, long while, then you probably don't want the place you do like living to become more like it.
# posted by Blogger Brett : 2:58 PM


There is no way in hell I want to live next to a racist piece of shit like you. When do we get to kick your ass out?

 


I'd have to agree. For example, Alabama and Mississippi are failed cultures which have proved very problematic for inclusion in the US. SC and LA too.
# posted by Blogger Mark Field : 4:41 PM


I doubt there will be many objections if they try to secede again.

 

No reason to throw out the good with the bad. Just deport all the R voters in those states -- it'll be easy to identify and round them up. And I'm assured that's the preferred remedy in these cases.
 

but his membership in a political advocacy group can, I think, be grounds for concern in some case

My comment tried to suggest the open-ended nature of that. Judges come from pools of people with strong views on a range of subjects. The basic result is in effect not thinking a person can be a fair judge in a range of cases. RBG, e.g., was a leader of the ACLU gender rights project. Thurgood Marshall for black civil rights. At times, cases will come up concerning people against that sort of thing. Would they have to recuse? Should we not trust their judgment?

I've always thought Sam Alito and Scalia's membership in conservative Catholic organizations meant that in cases about abortion or the right to die there wasn't going to be a fair shake, or if you told me that a Texas judge who was a member of the Federalist Society ruled against an Obama policy I'd be like 'hmmmm.' It wouldn't prove anything, but it would reasonably raise eyebrows.

If this is evenly applied, it covers a lot of ground, but this isn't a case about Latino rights generally. The LITIGANT has views the judge apparently opposes. Would Scalia or Alito not give a "fair shake" to a leader of NARAL if it was a personal lawsuit involving trademark law or something? I see no reason to think so.

Judges are humans and they will have leanings but if they cannot be trusted -- and "raise eyebrow" doesn't warrant the level of vitriol here (it isn't just the Mexican bit) -- even on this level, they shouldn't be judges at all.
 

Mr. Wiskas, the Philippines, (The peaceful majority Catholic part of them, not the Moro Islamic terrorist part.) which is a fairly advanced 2nd world country with high literacy rates. Granted, their rate of political corruption is unfortunately high, but more and more I'm convinced we're not actually better in that regard, our media are merely more complicit.
 

Mark Field said...No reason to throw out the good with the bad. Just deport all the R voters in those states -- it'll be easy to identify and round them up. And I'm assured that's the preferred remedy in these cases.

:::heh:::

How precisely do you self disarmed Democrats plan to deport millions of armed southern Republicans?

Good luck ordering a military filled with even more heavily armed Republicans to do your bidding.

You better pray we armed Republicans do not decide to implement your plan in reverse.
 

You better pray we armed Republicans do not decide to implement your plan in reverse.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 6:52 PM


I'm looking forward to when you give it a try.
 

Reports -- and not just pissed Megyn Kelly -- are in that he is a member of the La Raza Lawyers Association. Not the same thing as the "la raza" movement generally.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11838858/trump-racism-judge-curiel

"La Raza Lawyers of California is an non-profit association organized in 1977 to support Chicano and Latino Lawyers in California and serve as a statewide network for local affiliate La Raza Lawyers Groups. We meet quarterly at various locations around the state and represent 16 different local organizations with over 2,000 attorneys."

http://larazalawyers.net/

Each apparently untrustworthy to be members of the court by some "logic."

Emily Bazelon flagged similar concerns as to the breadth of this logic:

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/catholic-judges-response-motion-recuse-himself

http://www.linshah.com/1837363770.html [black judge asked to be recused by largely white union]

 

To amplify, La Raza isn't a Latino version of the NAACP. They're more like the Aryan Nation, a Latino supremacy organization. And La Raza Lawyers of California aren't any different.
 

Brett, I'm not looking to insult anyone at all here, but I don't see how the Philippines would be a culture more compatible to the US than Mexico, the source of most of our immigrants. They're both essentially 2nd world nations. Mexico has a murder rate twice that of the Philippines, but Mexico has a GDP per capita three times higher. Both have lots of English speakers and American influence, but Mexico, bordering the US, really has mixed cultures with us quite a bit (I can get 'Tex-Mex' dinner in my small town, but no Philippino equivalent). When I've visited Mexico I see people wearing jeans and cowboy hats, quite similar to what I see in the US states that border it.
 

Brett, I certainly hope you're basing your quite serious charge that La Raza is like the Aryan Nation (which is guilty of numerous crimes ranging from gun running, meth production/sales, and murder) on something better than that interview excerpt you provide. On its face it doesn't seem like much. The official says Hispanics are soon going to be a majority in California and take over its political institution (if they become a majority of course they will largely control its political institutions, if democracy works). That seems like a reasonable prediction to make. Then she says essentially, if you have a problem with that, go back to Europe, essentially the 'love it or leave it' line we've often heard.

"La Raza is rioting outside Trump rallies"

Is it La Raza members that are doing the specific violent acts at these rallies (which I agree with you are deplorable)? Are they doing it under orders from La Raza officials?
 

Recall over the years at this Blog Brett's emphasis on the rule of law, when it suited his bigoted purposes. Today's NYTimes highlights Adam Liptak's "Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say." Most of the scholars quoted negatively as to Trump are conservative legal scholars. The posters at Balkinization are not included. While these scholars point out that both George W. and Obama have extended the power of the Executive, Trump goes completely overboard. But for Trump's supporters - older undereducated white males - maintaining their concepts of white supremacy is of greater importance than the 1st A that Trump tries to threaten.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], Mexico is much more Catholic than the Philippines and had a long cultural impact in the Southwest as American states expanded. This is not intended to denigrate Filipinos who had suffered discrimination both in the occupied Philippines and in America. Note that attorney Thurgood Marshall in his battles for civil rights had the support of a strong Filipino-American spouse. Maybe that may eventually work out in South Carolina where the Filipino community is aware - and perhaps wary - of Brett.
 

At any rate, they're aware that I have an excellent recipe for cha siu bao.

Not so much white supremacy, actually, as objecting to "everybody but whites" supremacy.

And, it's rather a laugh all these intimations of how horrible Trump is, when it's the opposition to Trump that's been staging the violent riots. You can judge people by how they act, and the brownshirts this year are all on the left.
 

La Raza ('the Race") ia a movement rather than a particular group which advocates reconquista or literally reconquest of the Southwest United States for "the race" through illegal immigration.

When they adopt the name La Raza, groups like the National Council of La Raza and the La Raza Lawyers of California know precisely what that term communicates, even if they are smart enough not to openly advocate reconquista like less well known professors and groups in our universities and in demonstrations and riots on behalf of illegal immigration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico)

https://youtu.be/IuNNXcnnD70

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/apr/16/20060416-122222-1672r/?page=all

http://humanevents.com/2006/07/27/the-emreconquistaem-movement-mexicos-plan-for-the-american-southwest/

The closer analogy is not the our homegrown Aryan Nation, but rather Nazi groups in Austria paving the way for the German invasion or Anschluss.


 

Brett, you mean from the right, like your fellow "brownshirt" SPAM I AM!'s threat:

"You better pray we armed Republicans do not decide to implement your plan in reverse."

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], as Brett know well there are many shades of white, with the whitest claiming historically supremacy over the Mediterranean "dark whites." But what is the evidence of Brett's claimed objection to "'everybody but whites' supremacy."? For equivalency purposes, I would put Brett on an equal playing field with his spousal Filipino community from which he might learn a tad of tolerance. (Query: Do Filipinos have anything comparable to Pinatas?)

Further by the Bybee [again, expletives deleted], are those conservative legal scholars brownshirts?

 

Bart, 'Le Raza' as a term and a concept does not necessarily mean a commitment to 'reconquista.' At it's broadest it simply "expresses ethnic or racial pride."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Raza
 

Mr. W: At it's broadest it simply "expresses ethnic or racial pride."

Please.

Would you offer that spin to justify the KKK and Nazis?
 

Bart, do you think the National Association for the *Advancement of Colored People* is like the KKK and the Nazis?
 

Bart,
I also noticed you did not address my specific point.
 

Mr. W:

The term La Raza is not simply a term of "racial pride." By its own language, "the Race" is a term placing one race above others. If a white supremacist group was entitling itself as "the Race," we all know what they meant and you would not be offering this spin in their defense.

Furthermore, the NAACP is not advocating placing their race in control over other races like the KKK, Nazis and La Raza do. Piss poor analogy.


 

I obviously have no problem with "non-whites", being married to one.

Not so much. A person can have problems with Catholics, even if they married one for whatever reason. People tend to make exceptions here. "Don't mean you, of course" etc. In fact, men have problem with women all the time, even though they also marry them all the time. Anyways, "non-white" means a range of groups, so being married to one doesn't really show that. This is meant as a general definition, nothing personal to you.

A historical example here is John Harlan, the famous dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson. He had a biracial brother and spoke in support of black rights. But, he also was still prejudiced in various ways, specifically against Asian-Americans.



 

Thank you for another fantastic post
judi bola
 

Thank you for another fantastic post
http://asiapk.net
 

Such a nice post ! great love to read this one.


mumbai Escorts

call girls in mumbai

Delhi Escorts

mumbai Escorts

call girls in gurgaon

mumbai escort services

mumbai Escorts


_ ____♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
___♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
___♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
___♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
__♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
_♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
_♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
_♥♥18+ Channels♥♥♥♥
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥18+Channels ♥♥♥♥♥♥
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
_♥♥♥♥♥♥__♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
___♥♥♥♥____♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
___♥♥♥♥_____♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
___♥♥♥♥_____♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
____♥♥♥♥____♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
_____♥♥♥____♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
______♥♥♥__♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
_______♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
________♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
_______♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
_______♥♥♥♥♥mumbai escorts ♥♥♥♥♥♥
_______♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
_______♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
________♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥____♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
_________♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥_______♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
_________♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥_____♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
_________♥♥♥♥♥♥♥____♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
_________♥♥♥♥♥♥♥_♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
________♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
________♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
________♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
_______♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
_______♥♥♥♥♥♥
______♥♥♥♥♥♥
______♥♥♥♥♥♥
______♥♥♥♥♥♥
______♥♥♥♥♥
______♥♥♥♥♥
_______♥♥♥♥
_______♥♥♥♥
_______♥♥♥♥
______♥♥♥♥♥♥
_____♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
_______|_♥♥♥♥♥
_______|__♥♥♥♥♥♥
 

I’d have to check with you here. Which is not something I usually do! I enjoy reading a post that will make people think. Also, thanks for allowing me to comment! Best Source Best Source Best Source
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home