3 ms·
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 sa
by 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 agoPlease 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 agoNo, 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 agoI 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?