FireTower @ FireTower @lemmy.world

Posts

41

Comments

1,262

Joined

2 yr. ago

Having faith in politicians and liking a document designed to ensure the preservation of human rights & liberties are two different things.

The MAGA movement of 2016 billed itself as an anti establishment movement. Contrasting itself from traditional Republicans and the Democratic party. It promised to "Drain the Swamp".

Their success is indictive of a discontent with the state of the government at the time. They targeted the blue collar demographic promising stances on issues that'd help them.

Here's a video on a county that voted Democrat from 1869-2016: https://youtu.be/yfxvHqTCy2w

Keep in mind you came to a left leaning platform with essentially no Trump supporters and asked why do people like Trump. Listen to what they cite not just us.

PolyMatter put out a video on China's goal oriented social-political structure 2 years ago that I think will help understand the pace.

https://youtu.be/kBBre3bpvyk

"the US" doesn't narrow it down much. I kinda assumed that much. What really matters if which one of the 50+ legal systems in the US he is subject to. And which courthouse he is going to.

This is going to 100% be a state law matter, unless he lives somewhere like D.C. or Puerto Rico which aren't states but fall under federal jurisdiction.

We have no clue where you are so we can't give any good advice. For all we know you live in Elbonia and driving without a license gets you the guillotine.

But

Show up ~30 minutes early, there will likely be metal detectors and a line at them. If you are in line be ready when you get up front, if you need to empty your pockets do that before you are at the detector. This makes it faster for everyone.

Showing up early will also give you time to find your courtroom in the building. It also will let you watch the court for a few minutes before your time to shine.

Turn your phone off. Court house rules might require you leave it outside.

Dress appropriately, a polo should be fine. Any collared shirt tucked in with pants and closed toed shoes will show you put some effort into dressing yourself. No hats unless you've got to for your religion.

It's the judge's courtroom don't interrupt them. Don't lie. And being on your best behavior starts the moment you step onto the lot not when you enter the room, be polite to court staff as well.

Read the ticket front and back for specific instructions. Check the court website to see if there's any announcements that you should be aware of (like local rules).

Don't listen to other people's advice on how you should plead. We don't know the facts of your case. Most people here aren't lawyers. Nothing here is legal advice.

Eugenics and prohibition were both progressive social movements.

Progressive doesn't necessarily mean good.

Exactly. People forget this about our appellate courts too often. For every can they hear there will be much more lower trial courts hear and will try and relate to the higher court's case. An appellate court trying to solve every case in front of them in the most fair way ensures more cases will end unfairly.

Tim, dude, seriously. Actively arguing that it is appropriate to preferential treatment or negative treatment towards people on the basis of race. While claiming a law that shows no favors to anyone on the basis of race is like the words of hate groups.

There's a broad distinction between letting people express themselves in their own free time and supporting systemic race based discrimination. Nobody is stopping straight people from going out and expressing themselves.

You are clearly the one with the bad faith stance. Seriously stop once, and in a moment of humility consider if it is you who might be wrong.

I would recommend you read his concurrence before you make comments as to the nature of his argument. I get it's a lengthy one at 58 pages but as you seem to suggest in your comment strawmanning people in not a good practice.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

But if that's too long I'll try and summarize with a few lines from it.

"The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all."

"enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law."

"“[o]ur Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting)."

And here's the reading of a portion:

https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts13/opinion_announcement_audio/25581

Just as it is wrong for white people to benefit from preferential treatment over black people who were detrimented (such as under slavery or Jim Crow). It is wrong for black people to benefit from preferential treatment over asian people who were detrimented (such as under Japanese interment or the Chinese exclusion act).

I've watched a few of his videos and they've all been very interesting. I'd recommend some of his coverage on Native American/Indian issues.

He also did good job showing the border situation from the lenses of people from every side of it (migrants, cartel coyotes, local sheriffs, & cities hosting the migrants). It highlights how dogmatism of politicians is hurting ordinary people.

CA banned race base admission in the '90s in favor of a system that guaranteed admissions to top percentile students.

Post Students for Fair Admissions, schools can’t use race alone as a plus or minus nation wide. Like California has been doing it for the past 3 decades.

Universities’ recent experiences confirm the efficacy of a colorblind rule. To start, universities prohibited from engaging in racial discrimination by state law continue to enroll racially diverse classes by race-neutral means. For example, the University of California purportedly recently admitted its “most diverse undergraduate class ever,” despite California’s ban on racial preferences.

(THOMAS, J., concurring) (arguing universities can consider “[r]ace-neutral policies” similar to those adopted in States such as California and Michigan, and that universities can consider “status as a first-generation college applicant,” “financial means,” and “generational inheritance or otherwise”)

Thomas goes on and calls out the issue legacy admissions in his lengthy concurrence.

Worse, the classifications that JUSTICE JACKSON draws are themselves race-based stereotypes. She focuses on two hypothetical applicants, John and James, competing for admission to UNC. John is a white, seventh-generation legacy at the school, while James is black and would be the first in his family to attend UNC. Post, at 3. JUSTICE JACKSON argues that race-conscious admission programs are necessary to adequately compare the two applicants. As an initial matter, it is not clear why James’s race is the only factor that could encourage UNC to admit him; his status as a first-generation college applicant seems to contextualize his application. But, setting that aside, why is it that John should be judged based on the actions of his great-great-great-grandparents?

Kinda like that time the king of England took away Massachusetts' legislatures. But I have a feeling the king here will fair better this go around.

Not sure on all the specifics of CA's admittance structure, beyond they banned race base admission in the '90s in favor of a system that guaranteed admissions to top percentile students.

But post Students for Fair Admissions DEI measures are still ok. Schools can't use race alone as a plus or minus but they may choose to favor those from disadvantaged neighborhoods, 1st generation college students, and even good essays that share someone's experience being a race.

The chances of that happening to the average person are close to zero.

That's the whole point. People don't watch the news to hear "dog bites man" they watch it to hear "man bites dog".

No one wants to watch a 2-3 hr long movie about someone's regular Tuesday at the office they want to watch something that doesn't happen everyday like an adventure, the perfect couple meeting, or the world ending.

Just feel it should be pointed out that money isn't the only way to contribute. Time is another. Volunteer hours are important for many charitable organizations too.

Big win for consumers, at least in the US. People tend to do better in courts here than they do in arbitration (where one side pays the judge(arbitrator)).

No one argues other. But you rebuke the notion that the war on drugs has any significance on the broader topic. Basing opinions on falsities.

In other words:

it seems fairly dishonest, especially since

schools represent a vast minority of mass killings. Not to mention your baseless assertion that violence in schools must have no relationship to the war on drugs. As if the gangs that move them don't groom children to sell them for them.

K-12 and colleges/universities are only the setting of ~12.8% of mass shootings.

Your just making speculative hyperbole about a nation a hemisphere away. Isolating any one factor as reducing crime is often near impossible. A downward trend following legislative can just as easily be attributed to other factors like a general decline in criminality over time or due to bettering economic conditions (among countless other factors).

Those other groups aren't using blanks. If anything this case is an indictment of how poor the industry can be at times with safety.

It's like comparing the injury rates of commercial flights and those from a parachuting company.

I'm shocked your work doesn't have some for free. Kits are much cheaper in bulk orders and the benefit to an employer of not having sick people killing production is probably clear.

One job I had had a literal pallet of them. People would grab an entire family's worth at a time.