What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Think this one's headed up to SCOTUS?
https://casetext.com/case/dariano-v-morgan-hill-unified-school-district#.Uw_S8_ldW_g

Briefly the 9th circuit upheld the district court which ruled that the school district was within their duty to prohibit students wearing American flag TShirts on May 5 citing potential violence.

I don't think it will head up to SCOTUS. Is there even another circuit that views otherwise? Seems like fairly settled law that schools get deference when it comes to student safety...especially when they do so in such a narrowly tailored way.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Remarkable ruling earlier this week from Federal Judge William Martini. it is actually level-headed and sensible!

You are kidding right? So it is cool to put the innocent under surveillance just to maybe possibly catch a terrorist? Does that hold true for Christians as well? Maybe we should put all catholics under surveillance since some Italians (who are Catholic) are in the Mafia. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

So it is cool to put the innocent under surveillance just to maybe possibly catch a terrorist?

I'll bet you that the business at which you work probably has security cameras installed there. How often have you complained to your boss about that? :rolleyes:

Or maybe it is okay with you to put the innocent under surveillance just to maybe possibly catch a thief? but it is not okay with you just to maybe possibly prevent a murder??


Maybe you even have a security system in your own home? how do your wife and kids feel about being put under surveillance by you??



Take a stroll around mid-town Manhattan. There are surveillance cameras everywhere. Police have them on street corners, NBC has them all over Rockefeller Center, hotels have them in their lobbies and at their loading docks, they are all over airports. Every office building I've ever been in during the past ten years has security cameras in their lobbies and on their elevators and often in the space on each floor where the elevators stop. Just about everywhere you turn, the innocent are put under surveillance.

Are you seriously suggesting that all these security cameras should be removed??


That being said, we do agree on something very important. I DO NOT LIKE IT and I am NOT happy about it. Sometimes there are no good answers, and we have to settle for the least bad outcome.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

You cant be that dense as to see why your metaphors strain credibility to the point of ridiculousness. First of all a private business is NOT the same as the government or a police force. Not even close.

Your family metaphor is even worse. I am not using home security to spy on my hypothetical family, I am using it to protect them from outside forces. The cops werent protecting the Muslim community, they were just watching them on the off chance they may have done something "terroristic".

Targeting a group because some of them might be criminals is wrong. any judge who suggests it is ok is a moron. Discrimination is wrong.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Discrimination is wrong.

Invidious discrimination based on bias or prejudice is wrong; "discrimination" in many cases is an essential survival skill. There are plenty of cases in which we both could agree that some discrimination is called for:

1.treat group unfairly because of prejudice: to treat one person or group worse than others or better than others, usually because of a prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender
2.discern difference: to recognize or identify a difference
3.be aware of differences: to pay attention to subtle differences and exercise judgment and taste

only # 1 is wrong, there is nothing wrong with # 2 or # 3. (in fact, it would be nice if more people would "exercise judgment and taste", wouldn't you agree?)

<strike>Don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back about how noble you are.</strike>

Sorry, that last bit was gratuitous and uncalled for.


Doesn't it make sense, if your job is to find murderers, to look in places murderers are most likely to hide?? the police did nothing to violate anyone's civil rights; in fact, they were acting under the terms of a prior judicial consent decree.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Targeting a group because some of them might be criminals is wrong. any judge who suggests it is ok is a moron. Discrimination is wrong.

Agreed. In a criminal context, you target an INDIVDUAL (or individuals) because you have a basis to believe they have done something wrong. You DO NOT target a GROUP because they are of a particular religion (or race, sex, etc.).
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Yep, I have to agree. It's undoubtedly tempting to extend the "terrorist" label to all Muslims, when we have all too easily forgotten recent "Christian"/white terrorists like Tim McVeigh, Harris/Klebold, Lanza, etc. Heck, Seung-Hui Cho (the VT shooter, for those who have forgotten his name) was Korean.

I loathe extremists and want to nail all of them to the wall when they commit crimes against humanity, but that doesn't mean the government should be keeping tabs on the activities and whereabouts of otherwise innocent followers. Now, if there is a tip-off or any legit evidence that a particular individual, group of individuals, or a sect is conspiring against the US, then by all means, get the warrant and start following them.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Invidious discrimination based on bias or prejudice is wrong; "discrimination" in many cases is an essential survival skill. There are plenty of cases in which we both could agree that some discrimination is called for:



only # 1 is wrong, there is nothing wrong with # 2 or # 3. (in fact, it would be nice if more people would "exercise judgment and taste", wouldn't you agree?)

<strike>Don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back about how noble you are.</strike>

Sorry, that last bit was gratuitous and uncalled for.


Doesn't it make sense, if your job is to find murderers, to look in places murderers are most likely to hide?? the police did nothing to violate anyone's civil rights; in fact, they were acting under the terms of a prior judicial consent decree.

So answer his question. Should all Catholics or all Italian-Americans be investigated for ties to the mafia?
 
So answer his question. Should all Catholics or all Italian-Americans be investigated for ties to the mafia?

Even better...Abortion Clinics are bombed by extremists...often called terrorists. They are, by definition, murders if someone dies. According to Freshy and his favorite moron judge the police should be allowed to single out any Anti-Abortion groups and just put them under surveillance since that is where the terrorists come from.

Should we also point out that I believe Fishy was not in favor of the IRS "targeting" Tea Party groups who were outspoken in their hatred of all taxes? Wouldnt it make sense to look for tax cheats amongst those who are vocal with their desire to get rid of all taxes?

Come on Fishy...that is now 3 examples I have given you that parallel your "level headed" (hahaha maybe compared to that troll Scalia) judges ruling. Tell me it is ok...or admit your hypocrisy! :)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Even better...Abortion Clinics are bombed by extremists...often called terrorists. They are, by definition, murders if someone dies. According to Freshy and his favorite moron judge the police should be allowed to single out any Anti-Abortion groups and just put them under surveillance since that is where the terrorists come from.

Should we also point out that I believe Fishy was not in favor of the IRS "targeting" Tea Party groups who were outspoken in their hatred of all taxes? Wouldnt it make sense to look for tax cheats amongst those who are vocal with their desire to get rid of all taxes?

Come on Fishy...that is now 3 examples I have given you that parallel your "level headed" (hahaha maybe compared to that troll Scalia) judges ruling. Tell me it is ok...or admit your hypocrisy! :)

As soon as the RNC issues new talking points tomorrow he should be back to either answer your question (not likely) or change the subject (very likely).
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Think this one's headed up to SCOTUS?
https://casetext.com/case/dariano-v-morgan-hill-unified-school-district#.Uw_S8_ldW_g

Briefly the 9th circuit upheld the district court which ruled that the school district was within their duty to prohibit students wearing American flag TShirts on May 5 citing potential violence.

I don't think it will head up to SCOTUS. Is there even another circuit that views otherwise? Seems like fairly settled law that schools get deference when it comes to student safety...especially when they do so in such a narrowly tailored way.

Looks like this Court did nothing inconsistent with Tinker, just distinguished it on the facts (evidence of disruption associated with the political speech). Not much to see here.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I have not seen anyone assert that any discriminatory actions were taken toward Muslims by the NYPD. Not even their own lawsuit contains a single allegation that any Muslim was treated badly.

If I were looking for IRA terrorists, then I'd send undercover police into Irish-American clubs, have them go to to Sunday Mass and hang out at coffee and donuts afterward, listening. These are places of open and free assembly in which anyone can walk in and sit down.

That is not "discriminating against" the Irish. That is merely looking and listening among them.

Show me a single incident of discriminatory behavior here. Am I arresting anyone? Am I giving anyone a ticket? Am I saying or doing anything that suggests that the people here are being treated any differently than any other people elsewhere?

How is walking around in a community, looking and listening to what is going on, "discriminating against" anything?

Yes, I have "targeted" the Irish community to the extent that I am doing a disproportionate amount of my research among them. Have I said or done anything invidious against them, at all? You cannot point to any "discrimination" because there is none. No one is being treated in a discriminatory manner.



There is merely a disproportionate amount of walking around, looking and listening. there is no assertion against any group. Members of this group are not being singled out for different treatment. No one is saying Muslims are terrorists. They are merely saying that some terrorists use the Muslim community as a place to hide out. Just like the IRA example: no one is saying all Irish are terrorists, one is merely saying that some terrorists use the Irish community as a place to hide out.

Are you seriously going to tell me that an ordinary person can walk into an Irish community center or go to Mass in an Irish Catholic community, and that's fine, but a police officer is somehow barred from doing exactly the same thing? What if s/he were off-duty? that would be okay? but somehow it's not okay if s/he is on the clock??




Were there a single allegation of discriminatory behavior I'd be agreeing that invidious discrimination is a bad thing. But not even the plaintiffs made any such allegation. The only complaint is that there were more police walking around, looking and listening, in the Muslim community than elsewhere. If the IRA were bombing the British embassy, then having more police walking around in the Irish community than elsewhere would merely be prudent, because that is where you'd be more likely to find the bombers.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

That's awfully close to changing the subject, but it certainly can't fall under the category of answering the questions. More like a third option where he just ignores the previous points made and tries to make a new argument instead (and hope no one notices)

We've noticed. Now answer the bloody questions.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Now answer the bloody questions.


Discriminatory actions are a problem.

Setting off bombs are actions that are illegal, period. Denying tax exempt status to one set of groups while approving identical applications for a different set of groups is an action that is discriminatory.

If you merely say "you are most likely to find a muslim terrorist hiding among law-abiding Muslims"....how is that a discriminatory act, exactly?


How is it so hard to understand? is this an example of willful blindness, of pretending you don't know the difference between doing something and merely looking for something in a way that does nothing wrong?

How is it that the plaintiffs themselves assert no disciminatory acts?



Finally, what part of "I don't like this either" is so hard for you to comprehend?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

You cant be that dense as to see why your metaphors strain credibility to the point of ridiculousness. First of all a private business is NOT the same as the government or a police force. Not even close.

Your family metaphor is even worse. I am not using home security to spy on my hypothetical family, I am using it to protect them from outside forces. The cops werent protecting the Muslim community, they were just watching them on the off chance they may have done something "terroristic".

Targeting a group because some of them might be criminals is wrong. any judge who suggests it is ok is a moron. Discrimination is wrong.
The problem is, what the government did in that case isn't discrimination.

I agree with the decision.

The police were sued because they sent undercover cops into muslim places of worship, supposedly for the idea of looking for information on terrorists. We can argue about whether that was a worthy expenditure of public dollars, but I think there are dumber places they could have sent the undercover cops looking for terrorists.

These "victims" then sue, claiming they were discriminated against, and that their religious freedoms were unconstitutionally restricted. B.S.

Discrimination is when you are denied employment, or housing, or public services because of your religion. That occurred to none of these people. Furthermore, no one was prevented from exercising their religious rights. You can sit and worship in a mosque all day long, whether there is an undercover cop next to you or not.

Oh, and by the way, anyone who thinks that the feds didn't send italian-americans into the italian-american community, undercover, to try to bring down mobsters, is either 13 years old and too young to remember, or suffering from a serious case of amnesia.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The problem is, what the government did in that case isn't discrimination.

Discrimination is when you are denied employment, or housing, or public services because of your religion. That occurred to none of these people. Furthermore, no one was prevented from exercising their religious rights. You can sit and worship in a mosque all day long, whether there is an undercover cop next to you or not.

Oh, and by the way, anyone who thinks that the feds didn't send italian-americans into the italian-american community, undercover, to try to bring down mobsters, is either 13 years old and too young to remember, or suffering from a serious case of amnesia.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SJHovey again.

Very well put.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I know they did...I dont like that they did which is the point. Funny that those that dont trust the Feds to do anything seem to trust them putting people under surveillance.

So Fish, are you saying it was cool the IRS was in the right then? I really want to know.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I know they did...I dont like that they did which is the point. Funny that those that dont trust the Feds to do anything seem to trust them putting people under surveillance.

So Fish, are you saying it was cool the IRS was in the right then? I really want to know.

first, the ruling that started this discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with the Feds. It was the New York City Police Department. As one who believes that the 10th Amendment should have some real teeth to it ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."), I trust the NYPD quite a bit more in this situation than the US Government. The ruling was very much based on the facts and circumstances of a particular situation and it certainly was not a broad, sweeping dispensation of surveillance powers to the federal government. It merely said that the NYPD was acting within its proper limits when it placed undercover officers into mosques.

Perhaps that was the origin of the difference in the first place? I was talking about the limited specific situations of this one case and one ruling. A few other people took the conversation way further than this limited context.


Frankly, the IRS has way way way too much power and authority for lots of different reasons. Because of that, it is essential to keep it out of politics. When Richard Nixon tried to use the IRS to silence his political enemies, all of the media was aghast with outrage, and properly so. I see no reason for there to be any different reaction when any other President tries to do the same thing.


Basic consistency alone would indicate that if it was a problem when Nixon did it (one of the actions listed in the articles of impeachment, although the coverup was the bigger issue), then it is even more of a problem if anyone else does it, since we now have that precedent for guidance.


You tell me: do you believe that Nixon was unjustly hounded from office because of a partisan witch hunt with no substance behind it??
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Frankly, the IRS has way way way too much power and authority for lots of different reasons. Because of that, it is essential to keep it out of politics. When Richard Nixon tried to use the IRS to silence his political enemies, all of the media was aghast with outrage, and properly so. I see no reason for there to be any different reaction when any other President tries to do the same thing.

Except that isn't what happened, at least here in the real world. Off in GOP-land he instructed a bunch of Marxist Muslins to take over the IRS and send anyone he didn't like to Gitmo.

I'm glad I live in reality....GOP-land sounds terrible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top