3 ms·
It's unconstitutional because disparate impact is the new commerce clause. Any democratic outcome you don't like, just run a calculation which will as a law of
by SamReidHughes 6y ago
It's unconstitutional because disparate impact is the new commerce clause. Any democratic outcome you don't like, just run a calculation which will as a law of nature show that it disparately impacts some protected class, and file a lawsuit.
Private property rights have a disparate impact, and the endgame is to come after that. Take Harvard's going after final clubs; this is what they want for America.
- karpierz 6y agoAre you saying that the disparate impact here is a statistical outlier from p-hacking, and not an outcome of historic policies excluding certain races?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThe disparate impact is surely an outcome of historic policies of racial exclusion. But equally surely, it's not unconstitutional in general for Palo Alto to have nice things because of nasty policies they had in the past. So there has to be some middle ground.
- karpierz 6y agoDoes the park cease to be nice if non-residents are allowed into it? Should a city be able to decide whether non-residents can use its sidewalks, in order to make the city "nice"?
- someguydave 6y ago>Does the park cease to be nice if non-residents are allowed into it? Yes, if there are too many of them and they act irresponsibly. >Should a city be able to decide whether non-residents can use its sidewalks, in order to make the city "nice"? Yes Are you willing to pay a fee to enter such a city, to offset the costs of your visit?