CURRENT EVENTS

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 858
  • Views: 18K
  • Politics 
That's a little awkward and doesn't really make sense.

Justice Jackson's remarks on minority voters spark heavy backlash: 'They're disabled'

Justice Jackson asserts past discrimination disables minority voters

......Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sparked debate Wednesday after she invoked the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) during oral arguments to illustrate how the government can remedy discrimination — an exchange that quickly took off on social media, where some critics accused her of comparing Black voters to disabled persons.

....."Going back to this discriminatory intent point — and the fact that remedial action, absent discriminatory intent, is really not a new idea in civil rights laws. And my paradigmatic example of this is something like the ADA," Jackson said.

.........
"Congress said the facilities have to be made equally open to people with disabilities, if readily possible. I guess I don't understand why that's not what's happening here."

Jackson went on to note that the idea of Section 2 is that the government "is responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantaged minorities," and to "make it so they now have equal access to the voting system, right? They're disabled," she said, drilling down on the hypothetical.

www.yahoo.com

Justice Jackson's remarks on minority voters spark heavy backlash: 'They're disabled'

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson cited the ADA during oral arguments, sparking social media backlash from critics who said she likened Black voters to people with disabilities.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
 
ZenMode said:
That's a little awkward and doesn't really make sense.

Justice Jackson's remarks on minority voters spark heavy backlash: 'They're disabled'

Justice Jackson asserts past discrimination disables minority voters

......Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sparked debate Wednesday after she invoked the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) during oral arguments to illustrate how the government can remedy discrimination — an exchange that quickly took off on social media, where some critics accused her of comparing Black voters to disabled persons.

....."Going back to this discriminatory intent point — and the fact that remedial action, absent discriminatory intent, is really not a new idea in civil rights laws. And my paradigmatic example of this is something like the ADA," Jackson said.

.........
"Congress said the facilities have to be made equally open to people with disabilities, if readily possible. I guess I don't understand why that's not what's happening here."

Jackson went on to note that the idea of Section 2 is that the government "is responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantaged minorities," and to "make it so they now have equal access to the voting system, right? They're disabled," she said, drilling down on the hypothetical.

www.yahoo.com

Justice Jackson's remarks on minority voters spark heavy backlash: 'They're disabled'

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson cited the ADA during oral arguments, sparking social media backlash from critics who said she likened Black voters to people with disabilities.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
Click to expand...

It's not awkward and makes perfect sense if you have sufficient capacity for abstract thought.

Let me try to dumb it down...

She was not referring to the ADA to assert that minority voters are disabled
The analogy was in reference to discrimination, not disability.
Before the ADA the physically disabled had no access to buildings and faced discrimination in job opportunities that would accommodate their physical disabilities.

Just as the ADA has been a remedy for that discrimination , so too has the Voting Rights ACT served to protect minority voters from discrimination.
 
05C40 said:
An excuse from the story, "which were initially indistinguishable from an ordinary American flag to the naked eye." Rep. Dave Taylor needs to have his eyesight immediately checked to determine whether he suffers from macular degeneration or scotoma, both of which compromise the center of vision, which is exactly where that swastika was. Both can be treated if caught early enough. Rep. Taylor needs to get checked within the next seven days.
Click to expand...
The explanation that I have seen is that the flag does appear normal, but when photographed or videoed, the swastika appears in some sort of visual trick. I'm not sure how that would work but in today's troll culture, I would not be surprised if someone sent that flag to a bunch of R congressmen as a gotcha prank. At least that is a plausible explanation, unlike much of the implausible lies from Trump or Johnson.
 
heelinhell said:
It's not awkward and makes perfect sense if you have sufficient capacity for abstract thought.

Let me try to dumb it down...

She was not referring to the ADA to assert that minority voters are disabled
The analogy was in reference to discrimination, not disability.
Before the ADA the physically disabled had no access to buildings and faced discrimination in job opportunities that would accommodate their physical disabilities.

Just as the ADA has been a remedy for that discrimination , so too has the Voting Rights ACT served to protect minority voters from discrimination.
Click to expand...
That's one interpretation. The other interpretation is that having a specific level of melanin in your skin, along with a specific ancestry, is somehow a disability that necessitates special accomodations (Voting Rights Act).

I include ancestry because nobody seems to be concerned about the potential melatonin "disability" when it comes to Chinese, Japanese, Cambodian, Korean, etc.
 
dcphx said:
The explanation that I have seen is that the flag does appear normal, but when photographed or videoed, the swastika appears in some sort of visual trick. I'm not sure how that would work but in today's troll culture, I would not be surprised if someone sent that flag to a bunch of R congressmen as a gotcha prank. At least that is a plausible explanation, unlike much of the implausible lies from Trump or Johnson.
Click to expand...
Link: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/...wastika-flag-in-his-office-on-a-ruse-00612783

From Link: "In February, similar flags were delivered via the United States Postal Service “to multiple congressional offices,” a GOP Hill staffer, not from Taylor’s office, told POLITICO. An image obtained by POLITICO of one of those flags appears to be similar to the one displayed in Taylor’s office, showing a U.S. flag apparently altered with a red marker and whiteout to form the shape of a swastika.
"But the Hill aide — granted anonymity to speak openly — said that flag was “obvious and unusual enough for us to take a photo before throwing it out.”
"It was plainly obvious to us that there was a swastika on the flag with the naked eye,” the staffer said. There was no investigation, and the flag was thrown away, “like we would hate mail,” the staffer said.

Note 1: Underlining added.
Note 2: This prank had already been played on Members of Congress in February.
ETA - Note 3: "This is a dog license with the word 'dog' crossed out and 'cat' written in in crayon."
 
Last edited:
05C40 said:
Link: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/...wastika-flag-in-his-office-on-a-ruse-00612783

From Link: "In February, similar flags were delivered via the United States Postal Service “to multiple congressional offices,” a GOP Hill staffer, not from Taylor’s office, told POLITICO. An image obtained by POLITICO of one of those flags appears to be similar to the one displayed in Taylor’s office, showing a U.S. flag apparently altered with a red marker and whiteout to form the shape of a swastika.
"But the Hill aide — granted anonymity to speak openly — said that flag was “obvious and unusual enough for us to take a photo before throwing it out.”
"It was plainly obvious to us that there was a swastika on the flag with the naked eye,” the staffer said. There was no investigation, and the flag was thrown away, “like we would hate mail,” the staffer said.

Note: Underlining added.
Click to expand...
Got it. I had not seen that full explanation.
 
ZenMode said:
The other interpretation is that having a specific level of melanin in your skin, along with a specific ancestry, is somehow a disability that necessitates special accomodations (Voting Rights Act).
Click to expand...
That is a purely ignorant "interpretation" that does not bear discussion and I will engage no further. The reason that nobody cares about people of Chinese or Japanese descent is historical context. If you knew anything at all about the legal issue here, you'd understand why that point is irrelevant.
 
ZenMode said:
Yes, there are individual bad people on the right and yes they should be called Nazis when the shoe fits.

That is much different than the broad-brush demonization that we hear.
Click to expand...
But when the powers that be in the GOP leadership fail to adequately condemn or take appropriate action towards these grown adults, then what would be an appropriate moniker for them? Nazis? Nazi sympathizers? Excuse-makers for Nazis? Nazi-adjacent?
 
ChileG said:
But when the powers that be in the GOP leadership fail to adequately condemn or take appropriate action towards these grown adults, then what would be an appropriate moniker for them? Nazis? Nazi sympathizers? Excuse-makers for Nazis? Nazi-adjacent?
Click to expand...
I think the "win at all costs" approach is a problem in politics in general and is why political leadership is generally unwilling to call out bad people. Don't want to push anyone out from under your party's umbrella.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top