2 ms·

Sure: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a443_new_kkg1.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a443_new_kkg1.... Footnote on Page 7, writt

by estearum 10mo ago

Sure: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a443_new_kkg1.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a443_new_kkg1.... Footnote on Page 7, written by Kavanaugh mere weeks after the Perdomo decision, says the opposite: "the officers must not make interior immigration stops or arrests based on race or ethnicity... “[T]he Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race”" So is race a consideration or is it not? He says here that it's well-established that the Constitution prevents it. Or did he just throw in that sentence as a complete non-sequitur, unrelated to the immediately preceding sentences?

zahlman 10mo ago
There is no contradiction between your quote and my quotes. They cannot make the stop "based on" that sole factor. It may become part of "the totality of the circumstances" that "contribute to" reasonable suspicion. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=46685060 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=46685060.
- estearum 10mo ago
  Kavanaugh literally says that it's well-established that race cannot be a consideration in the application of law. You (and Kavanaugh a few weeks prior) are saying that it can be. That's a contradiction.
  - zahlman 10mo ago
    > [T]he Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race > it's well-established that race cannot be a consideration in the application of law. You seem to think these statements are equivalent. They are not. "Kavanaugh a few weeks prior" is perfectly consistent, as explained in the other post I linked.
    - estearum 10mo ago
      Please articulate a scenario that bisects them, then. And no, your "solely due to" vs "contributing factor to" does not satisfy this. The quoted text (from Whren v United States) is extremely clear: race cannot be a consideration.
      - zahlman 10mo ago
        No, the quoted text does not mean what you claim it does. The English words "based on" do not work that way. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Therefore I am done here, as well.
        deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
        lovich 10mo ago
        I followed your thread and can’t think of a situation where one case was satisfied and not the other. Can you give us an example where the two statements are meaningfully different?

zahlman 10mo ago

There is no contradiction between your quote and my quotes. They cannot make the stop "based on" that sole factor. It may become part of "the totality of the circumstances" that "contribute to" reasonable suspicion. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=46685060 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=46685060.

estearum 10mo ago
Kavanaugh literally says that it's well-established that race cannot be a consideration in the application of law. You (and Kavanaugh a few weeks prior) are saying that it can be. That's a contradiction.
- zahlman 10mo ago
  > [T]he Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race > it's well-established that race cannot be a consideration in the application of law. You seem to think these statements are equivalent. They are not. "Kavanaugh a few weeks prior" is perfectly consistent, as explained in the other post I linked.
  - estearum 10mo ago
    Please articulate a scenario that bisects them, then. And no, your "solely due to" vs "contributing factor to" does not satisfy this. The quoted text (from Whren v United States) is extremely clear: race cannot be a consideration.
    - zahlman 10mo ago
      No, the quoted text does not mean what you claim it does. The English words "based on" do not work that way. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Therefore I am done here, as well.
      - deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
      - lovich 10mo ago
        I followed your thread and can’t think of a situation where one case was satisfied and not the other. Can you give us an example where the two statements are meaningfully different?