6 ms·

The crux of the matter: "The law voided Friday was on shaky ground from the get-go, with a legislative analysis saying it could be difficult to defend. Then-Go

The crux of the matter: "The law voided Friday was on shaky ground from the get-go, with a legislative analysis saying it could be difficult to defend. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed it despite the potential for it to be overturned because he wanted to send a message during the #MeToo era." The true purpose of this law was political career boosting, not actual change.

mikeyouse 4y ago
That doesn’t even make sense - Jerry Brown was 79 years old when he signed that law and had already signaled his intent to retire.
- kstenerud 4y ago
  Pushing through a law that requires discrimination based on race/gender/etc in a state that constitutionally forbids discrimination based on race/gender/etc does not make any sense (at least not on the surface). Brown is not stupid, nor is the legal team that worked for him. Just because you're retired doesn't mean you're out of politics and no back scratchers are beholden to you or you can't act as kingmaker or whatnot. There's a lot more to politics than the office itself. California is famously corrupt in this regard.
  - epgui 4y ago
    > a law that requires discrimination based on race/gender/etc This is a semantic matter that largely depends on context, but more typically, it is not considered "discrimination" in the legal or usual common sense when it's in reality a form of "affirmative action". I'm just pointing this out to distinguish the case where "discrimination" can have positive meaning with that where it has pejorative meaning. When making value judgments either way, overloaded word choices can cause more harm than good. Edit: for those who are taking issue with my comment, please see #7 before you downvote: https://www.usf.edu/compliance-ethics/equal-opportunity/ten-myths-about-affirmative-action.aspx https://www.usf.edu/compliance-ethics/equal-opportunity/ten-...
    - sharikous 4y ago
      It's not a matter of "typically". A certain political side is pushing to define "discrimination" to apply only against certain groups. That use is not typical especially when you consider history and the fact that it still differs from the view of the constitution. Moreover it strikes me as disingenuous (like the Soviets calling Western news disinformatzya). Where does discrimination have a positive meaning? I am pretty sure that the folks who are against this law will also be against it if you call it "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination" once you explain the meaning to them. From a meritocratic, humanistic, democratic perspective it is just morally wrong however you spin it.
      - epgui 4y ago
        This idea of a meritocratic system you have is very incomplete. I'd really recommend listening to what Michael Sandel has to say about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qewckuxa9hw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qewckuxa9hw
        sharikous 4y ago
        Even if you accept his caution about merit it is still morally wrong to make sweeping decisions on basis of sex if you hold to democracy, humanism, individualism... Actually an honest take of taking privilege into account will find that the most important factors are wealth and education, certainly not sex.
        epgui 4y ago
        I'm not denying that wealth and education are major hallmarks of privilege, but you can't be honest and say that sex is not an important factor in privilege. That's a whataboutism.
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    Alternatively he thought it was a worthwhile policy and hoped the constitution would be amended by the time it took effect, if not, then he had multiple years of his preferred policy in place.. Are all of the unconstitutional ratchet laws that were passed during the Roe era political grandstanding? Or do you think their authors and legislators passed them hoping for changes in the judicial branch that would render them “good law”?
    - robonerd 4y ago
      > Are all of the unconstitutional ratchet laws that were passed during the Roe era political grandstanding? Or do you think their authors and legislators passed them hoping for changes in the judicial branch that would render them “good law”? If we're being real, it's obviously a mix of both. Political grandstanding with plainly dumb laws is definitely a thing that happens. And politicians passing dodgy laws hoping it will work is also something that happens.
    - kstenerud 4y ago
      > Alternatively he thought it was a worthwhile policy and hoped the constitution would be amended by the time it took effect, if not, then he had multiple years of his preferred policy in place.. That is possible. They did try in 2020, at least for government and public institutions not companies: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Pr...
    - patrec 4y ago
      > Alternatively he thought it was a worthwhile policy and hoped the constitution would be amended by the time it took effect, if not, then he had multiple years of his preferred policy in place. So if I believe something I know to be blatantly illegal is "a worthwhile policy", doing it anyway is OK then, especially if I feel confident I can get away with it for a few years? Does this also apply to policies you personally don't feel to be worthwhile? > Are all of the unconstitutional ratchet laws that were passed during the Roe era political grandstanding? Trigger laws you mean? Of course it's political grandstanding, but there is still a night and day difference between having a law which explicitly says it won't come into effect until e.g. Roe vs Wade gets overturned such as here: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.017#:~:text=188.017.,of%20the%20Unborn%20Child%20Act%22 https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.017#.... and just passing some law you well know is unconstitutional but trying to enforce it anyway, till the courts actually stop you a few years later.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    > in a state that constitutionally forbids discrimination based on race/gender/etc does not make any sense That's a pretty strong assertion you're making, that requiring equality is discrimination. I don't agree at all, and I'm not alone. Which means it's not on the face of it obvious if a law like that is actually unconstitutional - anymore than it's clear if the 2nd amendment applies to nukes.
    - parkingrift 4y ago
      You’re confusing equity with equality. You can’t have both because equity is an affront to equality. Fortunately, equality is the law of the land and racist or sexist equity laws are illegal.
      - kennywinker 4y ago
        Explain to me what's unequal about requiring boards to be 50/50 male-female? That’s not even how far the law goes, but let’s take it that far. There’s an equal number of men and women born in america. That gives every child born an equal shot at one of those seats. To allow unequal boards would be to allow people to discriminate based on gender when picking board members. To mandate that is to legally require a level playing field. That’s equality, not the equity you seem to have beef with.
        t0suj4 4y ago
        If you believed that men and women are equal then you wouldn't have to care about any men-to-women ratios at all. If you absolutely need proportionate representation somewhere it suggests that each group is unequal.
        HelloMcFly 4y ago
        How wonderfully optimistic. Unfortunately, such a belief is built on an assumption divorced from how decisions get made and structural advantages (and disadvantages) not equally shared by groups. I'd argue most believe that men and women are generally equal in terms of skills and potential given similar circumstances, but recognize that society does not afford them equal opportunity regardless of merit. This operates for more than just gender, of course.
- moralestapia 4y ago
  It makes perfect sense for "legacy" purposes.
LatteLazy 4y ago
Sorry if I am missing something but... Why is this his problem? If the legislature want to pass unconstitutional laws that will get struck down, at best he is saving the court sometime by vetoing it. But it is the legislature that is at fault for passing it, not him for failing to stop it, isn't it?
- robonerd 4y ago
  They're both at fault. Fault isn't zero-sum.
- jessriedel 4y ago
  He put his signature on the bill after taking this oath: > I (Governor) do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_California
- native_samples 4y ago
  A constitution is just a piece of paper. It only has meaning because people respect it. Passing a law you know violates a constitution is a direct attack on the rule of law itself, and should probably come with penalties attached. Certainly, the fact that politicians in the USA very regularly and blatantly pass laws they know will be struck down by the courts a few years later is one of the stronger arguments I've seen for why the UK shouldn't bother with setting up a written constitution. It's got no teeth. Governments can simply pass and enforce illegal laws, exploiting the lack of speed and capacity in the court system. Then when one gets struck down, just pass another in a similar way.
  - serenitylater 4y ago
    [dead]
  - frumper 4y ago
dariusj18 4y ago
> The true purpose of this law was political career boosting That's kinda the whole point of our systems, an attempt to marry personal interest and community interests. Since when is, "Politician does something his constituents want," a headline?

mikeyouse 4y ago

That doesn’t even make sense - Jerry Brown was 79 years old when he signed that law and had already signaled his intent to retire.

kstenerud 4y ago
Pushing through a law that requires discrimination based on race/gender/etc in a state that constitutionally forbids discrimination based on race/gender/etc does not make any sense (at least not on the surface). Brown is not stupid, nor is the legal team that worked for him. Just because you're retired doesn't mean you're out of politics and no back scratchers are beholden to you or you can't act as kingmaker or whatnot. There's a lot more to politics than the office itself. California is famously corrupt in this regard.
- epgui 4y ago
  > a law that requires discrimination based on race/gender/etc This is a semantic matter that largely depends on context, but more typically, it is not considered "discrimination" in the legal or usual common sense when it's in reality a form of "affirmative action". I'm just pointing this out to distinguish the case where "discrimination" can have positive meaning with that where it has pejorative meaning. When making value judgments either way, overloaded word choices can cause more harm than good. Edit: for those who are taking issue with my comment, please see #7 before you downvote: https://www.usf.edu/compliance-ethics/equal-opportunity/ten-myths-about-affirmative-action.aspx https://www.usf.edu/compliance-ethics/equal-opportunity/ten-...
  - sharikous 4y ago
    It's not a matter of "typically". A certain political side is pushing to define "discrimination" to apply only against certain groups. That use is not typical especially when you consider history and the fact that it still differs from the view of the constitution. Moreover it strikes me as disingenuous (like the Soviets calling Western news disinformatzya). Where does discrimination have a positive meaning? I am pretty sure that the folks who are against this law will also be against it if you call it "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination" once you explain the meaning to them. From a meritocratic, humanistic, democratic perspective it is just morally wrong however you spin it.
    - epgui 4y ago
      This idea of a meritocratic system you have is very incomplete. I'd really recommend listening to what Michael Sandel has to say about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qewckuxa9hw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qewckuxa9hw
      - sharikous 4y ago
        Even if you accept his caution about merit it is still morally wrong to make sweeping decisions on basis of sex if you hold to democracy, humanism, individualism... Actually an honest take of taking privilege into account will find that the most important factors are wealth and education, certainly not sex.
        epgui 4y ago
        I'm not denying that wealth and education are major hallmarks of privilege, but you can't be honest and say that sex is not an important factor in privilege. That's a whataboutism.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  Alternatively he thought it was a worthwhile policy and hoped the constitution would be amended by the time it took effect, if not, then he had multiple years of his preferred policy in place.. Are all of the unconstitutional ratchet laws that were passed during the Roe era political grandstanding? Or do you think their authors and legislators passed them hoping for changes in the judicial branch that would render them “good law”?
  - robonerd 4y ago
    > Are all of the unconstitutional ratchet laws that were passed during the Roe era political grandstanding? Or do you think their authors and legislators passed them hoping for changes in the judicial branch that would render them “good law”? If we're being real, it's obviously a mix of both. Political grandstanding with plainly dumb laws is definitely a thing that happens. And politicians passing dodgy laws hoping it will work is also something that happens.
  - kstenerud 4y ago
    > Alternatively he thought it was a worthwhile policy and hoped the constitution would be amended by the time it took effect, if not, then he had multiple years of his preferred policy in place.. That is possible. They did try in 2020, at least for government and public institutions not companies: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Pr...
  - patrec 4y ago
    > Alternatively he thought it was a worthwhile policy and hoped the constitution would be amended by the time it took effect, if not, then he had multiple years of his preferred policy in place. So if I believe something I know to be blatantly illegal is "a worthwhile policy", doing it anyway is OK then, especially if I feel confident I can get away with it for a few years? Does this also apply to policies you personally don't feel to be worthwhile? > Are all of the unconstitutional ratchet laws that were passed during the Roe era political grandstanding? Trigger laws you mean? Of course it's political grandstanding, but there is still a night and day difference between having a law which explicitly says it won't come into effect until e.g. Roe vs Wade gets overturned such as here: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.017#:~:text=188.017.,of%20the%20Unborn%20Child%20Act%22 https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.017#.... and just passing some law you well know is unconstitutional but trying to enforce it anyway, till the courts actually stop you a few years later.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  > in a state that constitutionally forbids discrimination based on race/gender/etc does not make any sense That's a pretty strong assertion you're making, that requiring equality is discrimination. I don't agree at all, and I'm not alone. Which means it's not on the face of it obvious if a law like that is actually unconstitutional - anymore than it's clear if the 2nd amendment applies to nukes.
  - parkingrift 4y ago
    You’re confusing equity with equality. You can’t have both because equity is an affront to equality. Fortunately, equality is the law of the land and racist or sexist equity laws are illegal.
    - kennywinker 4y ago
      Explain to me what's unequal about requiring boards to be 50/50 male-female? That’s not even how far the law goes, but let’s take it that far. There’s an equal number of men and women born in america. That gives every child born an equal shot at one of those seats. To allow unequal boards would be to allow people to discriminate based on gender when picking board members. To mandate that is to legally require a level playing field. That’s equality, not the equity you seem to have beef with.
      - t0suj4 4y ago
        If you believed that men and women are equal then you wouldn't have to care about any men-to-women ratios at all. If you absolutely need proportionate representation somewhere it suggests that each group is unequal.
        HelloMcFly 4y ago
        How wonderfully optimistic. Unfortunately, such a belief is built on an assumption divorced from how decisions get made and structural advantages (and disadvantages) not equally shared by groups. I'd argue most believe that men and women are generally equal in terms of skills and potential given similar circumstances, but recognize that society does not afford them equal opportunity regardless of merit. This operates for more than just gender, of course.
moralestapia 4y ago
It makes perfect sense for "legacy" purposes.

LatteLazy 4y ago

Sorry if I am missing something but... Why is this his problem? If the legislature want to pass unconstitutional laws that will get struck down, at best he is saving the court sometime by vetoing it. But it is the legislature that is at fault for passing it, not him for failing to stop it, isn't it?

robonerd 4y ago
They're both at fault. Fault isn't zero-sum.
jessriedel 4y ago
He put his signature on the bill after taking this oath: > I (Governor) do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_California
native_samples 4y ago
A constitution is just a piece of paper. It only has meaning because people respect it. Passing a law you know violates a constitution is a direct attack on the rule of law itself, and should probably come with penalties attached. Certainly, the fact that politicians in the USA very regularly and blatantly pass laws they know will be struck down by the courts a few years later is one of the stronger arguments I've seen for why the UK shouldn't bother with setting up a written constitution. It's got no teeth. Governments can simply pass and enforce illegal laws, exploiting the lack of speed and capacity in the court system. Then when one gets struck down, just pass another in a similar way.
- serenitylater 4y ago
  [dead]
- frumper 4y ago

dariusj18 4y ago

> The true purpose of this law was political career boosting That's kinda the whole point of our systems, an attempt to marry personal interest and community interests. Since when is, "Politician does something his constituents want," a headline?