Barron2024
1yr ago
I was looking at congress as a whole where the sample size is more reasonable.
Of course, for decades there was a de facto "Jewish seat " on the Supreme Court.
If we truly cared about representation matching the population then there wouldn’t be a Jew on the Supreme Court, let alone an informal reserved seat.
Barron2024
1yr ago
My original comment was pithy culture warring of course, though I think the point still stands.
the two black women appointed so far have had all the conventional qualifications for the jobs at issue.
This may be true but those conventional qualifications have been poisoned by affirmative action, so it’s impossible to tell how qualified they really are. I’ve been less than impressed by Jackson’s legal acumen, though I’m not a lawyer and fundamentally disagree with her so take that with a grain of salt.
taking representation into account when appointing someone to a representative body does not seem to be unreasonable on its face.
This would be supremely unreasonable if applied to other groups like Jews. Hell, Hispanics are much less represented in Congress than blacks relative to their proportion of the population. For some reason it’s always one specific group getting this racist boost.
Barron2024
1yr ago
Don’t fear. Newsom has promised to appoint a black woman. The only relevant qualification to the Democratic Party.
Barron2024
1yr ago
Unfortunately I live in a state where my vote does not matter numerically. At least half our local-ish elections are uncontested or essentially uncontested (think Vermin Supreme-tier candidates).
Sure, I’ll vote for the only presidential candidate who at least has a reason to care about election security, it’s just that his opponents are desperately trying to throw him in jail…
Barron2024
1yr ago
I’m not opposed to the concept of a secret ballot.
You may not be opposed to it but I doubt your voting record would indicate that. So what is one supposed to do? Just let you win forever with the comforting knowledge that “at least netstack is not opposed to a secret ballot”?
Barron2024
1yr ago
Yes, I should stop getting into specific comparisons because we have many resident lawyers who will gish gallop around with liberal § characters proving that case A is never exactly like case B. And they’re probably right but I simply don’t care. I have eyes that can see that the law is applied unequally and in one direction more often than not. So whatever § says is irrelevant to me because I view it as illegitimate.
There’s no correcting this within the bounds of “the law” because anything approaching effective dissent is functionally illegal, so I won’t pretend to care about the minutiae of “the law”.
Barron2024
1yr ago
the guy who cast his electoral vote for Faith Spotted Eagle instead of Hillary Clinton got fined $1000, for example.
lol. lmao even.
If you want to argue that there has been an unfair application of justice, a good starting point would be to specify the particular crime you think particular people should have been convicted of.
Nah. I won’t do that. It’s your job (assuming you’re a lawyer, if not you probably should be) to find US Code §42.a.5.h.65.z “ackshually this crime doesn’t apply because of some tortured logic”. I just don’t care. Whatever “justice system” can result in the manifestly unfair decisions we’ve seen over the past several decades is entirely illegitimate and I won’t legitimize it by citing its scriptures.
Barron2024
1yr ago
there is no reason to expect them to attract the same sentence
They will not attract any sentence. That’s the whole point.
Barron2024
1yr ago
I await with bated breath the Russia-gaters and 2016 faithless electors getting 22+ year sentences then.
Barron2024
1yr ago
Just Google “psychology white people” or something and see that these sorts of rules are never applied fairly. This is just more lawfare against non-progressive people/causes and you don’t need to read the particulars of the case to realize it.
Barron2024
1yr ago
He’s at least as much a “scientist” as Jill Biden is a “Dr.”
Barron2024
1yr ago
A vote for Trump is a vote for such a gunfight. I would not personally shoot the thief stealing my bike only because I would get lawfared to death over it (look at Trump, the analogy gets even better). Though I personally have no issue with the thief being killed or the election fraud enablers being thrown in jail/removed from their posts/pilloried in the town square.
Barron2024
1yr ago
This is basically the bike cuck comic except replace “bike” with “election” and “happiness” with “legitimacy”.
I’ll take an actually legitimate election over deep state vs. controlled opposition volume 24, thanks.
Even if in theory you can get into a closed loop where the people in power use their power to stay in power, that is not currently the case in reality.
Yes it is. The deep state is in power and will forever be in power unless someone can fire 3/4 of the federal government which is impossible due to lawfare. The bureaucracy is a self-sustaining cancer at this point.
Barron2024
1yr ago
This calls for a whatcoloristhebench.com
Barron2024
1yr ago
one-way ticket to banana republic land.
We’re already there, man. You’re just on the side of the republic.
Barron2024
1yr ago
People who defy court orders end up in prison for contempt.
Sometimes. It often depends who’s doing the defying.
Had Bill Ayers defied a court order, he would have been jailed for contempt.
My word! Well it’s a good thing he only committed a bombing campaign and didn’t defy a court order! Seems like bombing, looting, and burning the possessions of normies isn’t too big of a deal but god help you if you cross a lawyer…
Getting upset because Kim Davis was put in prison for contempt for refusing to comply with a court order is asking that she receive preferential treatment.
I won’t deny this. My rules applied unfairly > your rules applied unfairly and all that. In my view one side has gotten preferential treatment for quite a while now and excuse me if I find it a bit hard to believe you wouldn’t be a little upset if the shoe were on the other foot. I believe that we both want someone’s rules applied fairly but it’s been a while since that’s been the case in my eyes.
Barron2024
1yr ago
Obergefell is the poster child for legislating from the bench. That’s not the job my tax dollars pay the judicial branch to do. Defying the constitution is fine, but I guess defying a court order is just a bridge too far.
I don’t care much for the dissident discussion, it’s just semantics. I’d say she was definitionally a “dissident”, and she was jailed for it. But Bill Ayers is also a “dissident”. The difference in their treatment at the hands of The Law is very instructive.
Barron2024
1yr ago
I see little functional difference between “not doing something you’re supposed to” and “doing something you’re not supposed to” other than the placement of the “not”. These sorts of semantic differences are the playground of lawyers though so I don’t expect to make any headway.
Barron2024
1yr ago
But she was not free to refuse to do the job that the taxpayers pay her to do
This is incredibly common, see public sector unions, SCOTUS justices legislating from the bench, etc. I’m fine if “throw them in jail” becomes the typical response but we know it won’t.
Barron2024
1yr ago
So Clinton shouldn’t have been indicted/gone to jail because her lawyers were better and/or she trusted them more? These sorts of arguments, especially coming from one of our resident lawyers, do nothing to make the right’s opinions of our legal system any better.
Barron2024
1yr ago
Good luck stopping/restraining a knife-wielder without being stabbed. Guns are functionally illegal in NY so no luck there either.
Barron2024
2yr ago
Progressive minorities (on social media at least) are some of the most viciously racist (against whites) people you’ll find today. I doubt more time to soak in progressivism will solve that.
Barron2024
2yr ago
If we don’t care at all about sample sizes then all committees and subsets of congress should also be representative.
Quit the semantic games for just one second please. “We” is obviously anyone who claims to care about “representation”. The Democratic Party claims that the entire country should care about that.
There are lots of minorities that are completely unrepresented in various government bodies. Let’s take the SCOTUS for instance where the last seat was explicitly promised to go to a black woman (and did), despite blacks as a group already being fairly represented. Where is the representation for the Asian-Americans? For the Senegalese-Americans? For the Australian-Americans? To the Democratic Party, “representation” is merely a giveaway to groups most likely to vote Democrat.
More options
Context Copy link