3 ms·
That sounds like an attempt at a constructionist argument. That's not what I'm reading at all in this opinion. I'm reading about the 14th Amendment being somet
by nsxwolf 11y ago
That sounds like an attempt at a constructionist argument. That's not what I'm reading at all in this opinion.
I'm reading about the 14th Amendment being something that develops over time, helping people discover new freedoms, and be the very best they can be. It's fluffy stuff.
- lisper 11y agoYes, I agree, but the 14th amendment requires some kind of asymmetry in order to have effect. To violate equal-protection, something has to be unequal.
- dllthomas 11y ago"To violate equal-protection, something has to be unequal." Like, say, incarceration rates.
- lisper 11y agoNot sure I get your meaning here. People who break the law are incarcerated more than people who don't break the law. That's not an equal protection violation.
- dllthomas 11y agoI was speaking of racial disparities in incarceration rates for marijuana possession, despite no similar disparity in usage rates. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/04/t...
- lmm 11y agoThat seems to be missing a comparison with dealing rates - aren't arrests mostly targeting dealers rather than users?
- nmrm2 11y agoDid you read the opinion? Decisions typically contain some rhetorical flair ("fluffy stuff"), but there was plenty of substance to this decision. See e.g. pages 3-5 of the Syllabus. None of this analysis would be relevant to a decision about marijuana, and many of the standards the decision sets forth would fail in the case of marijuana.