Tag Archives: morality

In Which our Courts are Failing

Posted on by
Reply

The question here is what standard courts should apply in matters of reverse discrimination. The question is laid out in The Wall Street Journal article’s lede:

Amid a MAGA-led backlash to diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, the Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider an issue that has split judges around the country: what do white people and other members of a majority group have to prove to win a claim for reverse discrimination?

(Aside: the newswriters’—Jess Bravin and Erin Mulvaney—irrelevant reference to MAGA illustrates their own and their editor’s political bias.)

The question is expanded in the second paragraph [emphasis added]:

Marlean Ames claims the Ohio state agency where she works denied her a promotion and then demoted her because she is heterosexual, instead giving both her old job and the one she had sought to gay people. A federal appeals court in Cincinnati threw out Ames’s lawsuit, finding that she failed to show the “background circumstances” suggesting the employer was hostile to straight people—a threshold step that wouldn’t have been required had a gay employee claimed discrimination.

As the writers noted shortly after:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination because of an “individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin….”

Lauren Hartz, DC-located partner in Jenner & Block raised this bit:

We are in disagreement about what groups in American society today are advantaged or disadvantaged[.]

This is a wholly constructed and cynically dragged red herring. The only advantaged groups are those groups of Americans who get favorable treatment from our courts compared to other groups of Americans, and the only disadvantaged groups of Americans are those groups of Americans at whose expense that advantageous treatment comes.

Civil rights groups have raised another irrelevancy:

Many civil-rights groups say the occasional example of reverse discrimination doesn’t change history. Courts, according to a brief filed by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, should be able to consider the “realities of this country’s persisting legacy of discrimination.”

The supposedly “occasional” nature of reverse discrimination is no excuse for any amount of that form of discrimination. Neither does it excuse the creation of a new legacy of discrimination for our future.

Thus: how about using the same standard for all cases involving allegations of discrimination?

How about judges and Justices hew to the text of black letter law and to the foundational text of the 14th Amendment of our Constitution?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That’s it in black and white; it’s not that hard to understand and to apply. As a Chief Justice of our Supreme Court said not so long ago, The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

There is no excuse for our court system, nor any judge or Justice within it, applying different standards of adjudication to different groups of Americans. Judges and Justices are violating their oaths of office when they do.

“Racists Support other Racists”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the claim Texas’ Progressive-Democrat Congressman Jasmine Crockett says in her diatribe against Republicans and us average Americans who voted for President Donald Trump (R).

She’s right, of course. Given the intrinsically racist and sexist bigotry that is Progressive-Democrats’ identity politics, that support for other racists is exactly what Crockett is doing.

Progressive-Democrats Punishing Victims

Posted on by
Reply

There are growing numbers of young adults and adults who underwent surgical and/or hormonal procedures as children or younger adults who, recognizing their mistakes (or their parents’), want to detransition as far as reversing the hormonal and surgical treatments can take them.

Those persons, those efforts to correct their mistakes, are a growing embarrassment to the Progressive-Democratic Party politicians and their Leftist supporters. Last week, the Progressive-Democratic Party in Colorado struck back at those detransitioners—hard, and dangerously to their health and lives.

The Colorado General Assembly’s House Judiciary Committee late Tuesday [18 February] considered legislation, introduced last week, to allow patients who underwent “youth gender transition procedures”—puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries to remove healthy genitals and breasts—before age 26 to sue their providers for damages up to age 38.

At the end of their “consideration,” however, after Progressive-Democrat after Progressive-Democrat after Progressive-Democrat absented themselves from listening to much/most of the witness testimony, Party, which holds the majority, tabled the bills indefinitely, effectively killing them.

This is what Party thinks of us Americans. This is what Party thinks of our children, young people who regret the medical procedures they undertook to more closely resemble the opposite sex. Do not contradict us, and especially, do not embarrass us is the ideology of Party.

Arab Plan vs Trump Plan

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) has laid out his plan for recovering the Gaza Strip from the devastation that Hamas has caused with its war on Israel and with its reign over the Strip for the decades preceding its war. The surrounding Arab states don’t like that plan, for all that Jordan has agreed to accept 2,000 children from the Strip.

Trump then said words to the effect of, if they don’t like his plan, come up with one of their own.

All of a sudden, they’re working on one.

Egypt has launched a diplomatic blitz to corral support for an Arab-led and funded initiative to rebuild the Gaza Strip, setting aside old political concerns in hopes of boxing out a Trump plan that is wildly unpopular across the Arab world.

And

Egypt is also seeking to separate out the question of Palestinian statehood and put it on a different track from the effort to rebuild Gaza[.]

Put up, or shut up. Maybe the Arab states are choosing, finally, the former. Until now, far from shutting up, they’ve been happy to virtue-signal among themselves by yapping from the safety of the sidelines rather than stoop to get their own hands dirty while the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip, about whom they pretend to care, continue to be butchered by Hamas.

On Birthright Citizenship

Posted on by
1

William Galston, in his Wall Street Journal op-ed insists that President Donald Trump’s (R) Executive Order regarding birthright citizenship—which says that children born to illegal aliens or birth-tourism mothers are not ipso facto entitled to American citizenship—is unconstitutional. Galston correctly hangs his argument on the 14th Amendment’s first clause phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof (of the United States). He’s also correct in that some case law could serve as impediments to enforcing Trump’s EO and that some Supreme Court precedential rulings that touch on birthright citizenship also could so serve.

Here’s the importance of that phrase, albeit it’s an importance that Galston and others objecting to the EO completely miss. Illegal aliens have held themselves outside our legal jurisdiction from the very beginning—their illegal entry into our nation in violation of the laws, the jurisdiction, of our nation—and they continue to hold themselves outside our jurisdiction by their continued status as illegal aliens.

A similar case applies to those birth-tourism mothers. They have no intention whatsoever of remaining—legally—and so submitting themselves to our nation’s jurisdiction. They have every intention of remaining citizens, subject to the jurisdiction, of their home nation.

Because these two groups refuse our nation’s jurisdiction, birthright citizenship can never, legitimately, apply to their children for all the accident (deliberate or not) of the geography of their birth.

Here is an instance where the over-sanctification of precedent could be corrected in the specific instance: overturn the wrongly decided case law and correct those past Supreme Court precedents. Recognize via Court ruling the plain, obvious, and rational meaning of the 14th Amendment’s phrase. That’s a requirement the Supreme Court has emplaced a number of times.