CURRENT EVENTS

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 858
  • Views: 18K
  • Politics 
FYI, here is specifically what Justice Jackson said:

So going back to this discriminatory intent point, I guess I'm thinking of it -- of the fact that remedial action absent discriminatory intent is really not a new idea in the civil rights laws, and --and my kind of paradigmatic example of this is something like the ADA. Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities, and so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks were not able to access these buildings. And it didn't matter whether the person who built the building or the person who owned the building intended for them to be exclusionary. That's irrelevant. Congress said the facilities have to be made equally open to people with disabilities.

The idea in Section2 is that we are responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it sothat they don't have equal access to the voting system, right? They're -- they're disabled. In fact, we used the word "disabled" in Milligan. We say that's a way in which you see that these processes are not equally open.
And here is the decision she quoted. Notice that disabled is used as a synonym for prevented, because it's a long chain of references that goes way back. Back when they were talking about disabled voter, we called disabled people "handicapped."

" That occurs where an individual is disabled from “enter[ing] into the political process in a reliable and meaningful manner” “in the light of past and present reality, political and otherwise.” White, 412 U. S. 755, 767 (1973)
 
superrific said:
FYI, here is specifically what Justice Jackson said:

So going back to this discriminatory intent point, I guess I'm thinking of it -- of the fact that remedial action absent discriminatory intent is really not a new idea in the civil rights laws, and --and my kind of paradigmatic example of this is something like the ADA. Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities, and so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks were not able to access these buildings. And it didn't matter whether the person who built the building or the person who owned the building intended for them to be exclusionary. That's irrelevant. Congress said the facilities have to be made equally open to people with disabilities.

The idea in Section2 is that we are responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it sothat they don't have equal access to the voting system, right? They're -- they're disabled. In fact, we used the word "disabled" in Milligan. We say that's a way in which you see that these processes are not equally open.
And here is the decision she quoted. Notice that disabled is used as a synonym for prevented, because it's a long chain of references that goes way back. Back when they were talking about disabled voter, we called disabled people "handicapped."

" That occurs where an individual is disabled from “enter[ing] into the political process in a reliable and meaningful manner” “in the light of past and present reality, political and otherwise.” White, 412 U. S. 755, 767 (1973)
Click to expand...
Yeah that is an entirely reasonable and cogent point.
 
superrific said:
FYI, here is specifically what Justice Jackson said:

So going back to this discriminatory intent point, I guess I'm thinking of it -- of the fact that remedial action absent discriminatory intent is really not a new idea in the civil rights laws, and --and my kind of paradigmatic example of this is something like the ADA. Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities, and so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks were not able to access these buildings. And it didn't matter whether the person who built the building or the person who owned the building intended for them to be exclusionary. That's irrelevant. Congress said the facilities have to be made equally open to people with disabilities.

The idea in Section2 is that we are responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it sothat they don't have equal access to the voting system, right? They're -- they're disabled. In fact, we used the word "disabled" in Milligan. We say that's a way in which you see that these processes are not equally open.
And here is the decision she quoted. Notice that disabled is used as a synonym for prevented, because it's a long chain of references that goes way back. Back when they were talking about disabled voter, we called disabled people "handicapped."

" That occurs where an individual is disabled from “enter[ing] into the political process in a reliable and meaningful manner” “in the light of past and present reality, political and otherwise.” White, 412 U. S. 755, 767 (1973)
Click to expand...
The analogy holds further. You can't just declare that the ADA has solved the problem of granting people with disability to public and private accommodations and so we can now dispense with the ADA, it having achieved it's purpose.

Look the Voting Rights act has the same two purposes a set of braces on your kids teeth has.
  1. Take something malformed and straighten it out. This involves physical corrective action. Things move.
  2. Brace (it's in the name, get it?). In this stage you are not trying to move the teeth any longer, the sole purpose of the braces is to hold the teeth in place until the underlying bone structure ossified enough to hold the teeth in the new position without needing the braces.
Everyone knows if you take braces off too early the teeth will snap back into their old position.

The test is not "are the teeth no longer moving?" (that's the test the conservatives want to use), the correct test is "if we remove the brace, will the teeth gradually move back to their old position", if the answer to that question is "yes" then no matter how long the braces have been on, they have to stay on.

This is not rocket science.
 
lawtig02 said:
Yeah that is an entirely reasonable and cogent point.
Click to expand...
I would expect nothing less from Jackson. She is overall excellent, and especially during oral argument. I have been pleasantly surprised. I mean, she clerked for Breyer so she was always going to be a hit, but not every time you lay good wood on the ball do you get a home run. We got a home run with her. Now we need a few more.
 
IMG_0296.jpeg

foreignpolicy.com

Trump’s Panama Port Predicament

The deal to sever China’s ties to the Panama Canal could boost its influence elsewhere in the region.
foreignpolicy.com foreignpolicy.com

“… After months of uncertainty, China signaled that it would approve the deal only if state-owned shipping giant COSCO were added to the consortium and granted a 20 percent to 30 percent stake plus veto rights in any arrangement. That demand has left the talks frozen.

Now, policymakers in Washington are reportedly considering a troubling alternative: a version of the deal that would leave the Panama Canal ports in the hands of BlackRock and its Western partners—but allow COSCO to gain a stake in the 41 other terminals, five of which are in Latin America and the Caribbean.

On paper, the compromise would let the United States claim victory at the Panama Canal. In practice, it would extend Beijing’s influence at a far larger network of ports—some of which carry greater economic and security risks to the United States than those adjoining the strategic waterway. A deal that Trump could sell as a political win might prove to be a poisoned chalice.…”
 
I’m sure there’s a thread somewhere on the board that’d be a better fit for this, but I’m too lazy to look.

Anyway…Trump just commuted George Santos’ sentence.

abcnews.go.com

George Santos' prison sentence commuted, to be released 'immediately': Trump

Santos was sentenced to more than seven years in federal prison earlier this year after being convicted of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top