2 ms·
Sure, but it's a narrow kind of justice in service of the type of society they would like to live in - one which doesn't happen to have any social safety net, p
by metabagel 2y ago
Sure, but it's a narrow kind of justice in service of the type of society they would like to live in - one which doesn't happen to have any social safety net, public services, regulations, professional licensing, etc.
And again, I think it's great that they took this case, because it's egregious. But, I just don't support their broader agenda.
- paranoidrobot 2y agoI don't see any evidence that they're against these things. Care to provide some kind of citations?
- ch4s3 2y agoFighting exclusionary zoning, corrupt uses of imminent domain, and abusive civil forfeiture are among the primary goals of the IJ. None of that undermines a safety net or public services. Historically in the US professional licensing has primarily existed to exclude immigrants and racial minorities from lucrative careers, and should be reformed as a moral imperative. This is not a right wing position.