Trump Thread

[Montmorency]

Perhaps it is because these others break the law more often?

On the topic of racist government violence, you should be leerier about suggesting 'The police are brutal toward everyone, but maybe they should be more so toward blacks because they're uniquely dangerous.'

And in my opinion, the police reaction is a natural thing to happen in a country where firearms could be borne by almost everyone.

And yet, most of the civilian firearms are held by white conservatives, who tend to receive the most deferential or light touch. Which is not just a problem of fairness but one of institutional integrity as police departments are notoriously overrun by Neo-Nazis and the like.

I could offer half a dozen factors off the top of my head (and after putting on my thinking hat as many more) that could be seen by conspiracy-minded people and blown out of proprotion by the media (mind you, I don't know much either of the victim or of perpetrators, but all kinds of factors may be found and given a proper slant):

1) The victim was a Russian-speaker and the cops were Ukrainian-speakers.
The media: "Ukrainian nazis of whom current law enforcement bodies consist rape a Russian-speaking woman. Let's disband the police."
2) The victim was a Ukrainian-speaker and the cops were Russian-speakers.
The media: "Russian-speaking cops who are FSB agents under cover rape a Ukrainian patriot. Let's disband the police."

If the victim was of a different ethnicity from the offender, the possibility of a hate crime should be evaluated. Especially in the context of ongoing violent national conflict.

You didn't read carefully what I wrote. I repeat: the perpetrators should be punished. BUT: I see no reason in making a saint or martyr out of an average рецидивист.

Your assumption is not the case.

As for homework, look up "structural racism" and "overpolicing."


I'm put in mind of this old ditty.

Маленькие дети!
Ни за что на свете
Не ходите в Африку,
В Африку гулять!
В Африке акулы,
В Африке гориллы,
В Африке большие
Злые крокодилы
Будут вас кусать,
Бить и обижать,-
Не ходите, дети,
В Африку гулять.

В Африке разбойник,
В Африке злодей,
В Африке ужасный
Бар-ма-лей!

Он бегает по Африке
И кушает детей —
Гадкий, нехороший, жадный Бармалей!

И папочка, и мамочка
Под деревом сидят,
И папочка, и мамочка
Детям говорят:

«Африка ужасна,
Да-да-да!
Африка опасна,
Да-да-да!
Не ходите в Африку,
Дети, никогда!»

I guess my contention is that we should strike out 'ideological' from the list. He certainly has his partisan bend but the Obamacare case and his constant "do better" rulings to the Trump admin demonstrate he is respectful of the process above whatever slant he possesses. My point is that that's a much more respectable account to bestow than what the left is currently trying to portray.

I don't understand. These episodes indicate the opposite. And why do you strike out "ideological"? That current should be evident whether or not you approve of it.

The main contention for his decisions being activists and ideological is the disregard for 'stare decisis' to achieve GOP/business favored outcomes. But I have to say Monty, the left really needs to move beyond venerating the practice of 'stare decisis' as applied to SCOTUS in the same way we have been moving beyond the Fillibuster in the Senate. Both are practices and not rules codified into our system. As far as I am concerned, there are many just as bad decisions within the US legal code that stare decisis protects than otherwise. The mid 20th courts disregarded precedent in rulings we now consider landmark cases for the better.

That's like a mirror image of the anti-Democrat reasoning that if Democrats complain about Trump undermining American foreign policy, they're a bunch of reckless imperialists. What's going on here, over and over, is that Roberts makes pretensions to calling "balls and strikes", respecting tradition, precedent, and constitutional and statutory text, but will happily employ flimsy pretexts and ignore his stated principles to rule against laws or doctrines that protect labor/civil rights or hinder Republican power.

Whether or not liberal judges should act this way - and I don't really care right now to examine the balance of judging and revising precedent on the merits of legality or justice versus promoting stability in governance - is a separate question from how to evaluate Roberts and his court.