The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
No bio...
User ID: 174
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
15hr ago
There was a lot of grumbling about Title IX before that, mostly about how it either hurt men's sports programs (because if they couldn't get enough women in the women's programs, the men's programs had to be cut) or how it resulted in lavishing money on tiny women's sports programs. But I don't think it was considered fundamentally illegitimate (as opposed to wrong-headed) until the Dear Colleague letters.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
20hr ago
He was right about Democrats aRe the Real Racists; the problem with DR3 isn't that it's wrong but that it's useless. He was wrong about everyone on the right whose tactics or beliefs he disliked actually being a progressive leftist, even if he got a few right merely by coincidence.
The operative part of Title IX is
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
It is possible, though unlikely, that the Supreme Court will find that a large part of the enormous edifice of regulation hung off of this simple statement is a violation of the major questions doctrine. It is more likely that specific regulations will be struck down as having no statutory basis. But if the regulations are upheld, there's no way nullification will be accepted.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1d ago
You know how I said this is all planned? This is all planned. The actual students ("useful idiots" in Cold War parlance) are just being used (with the connivance of the media) to put a sympathetic face on a movement run by well-funded professional protestors.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2d ago
Once you realize that most people lack intellectual standards or believe in the principles they claim each week, you can go looking for the people who actually do.
I don't recall that working out well for Diogenes.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3d ago
Yep. When push comes to shove, most American Jews will prefer siding with Hamas over siding with Republicans. They'll try to win the fight for the left, but they won't defect to the right.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3d ago
The normative "peace protestor" wasn't pledging allegiance to the USSR, but they were doing the Soviet's bidding just the same. Different players, same playbook.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3d ago
Regular lefties think the vegetarians are morally superior, the actual vegetarians think the vegans are morally superior. So the scolding works, and if you don't provide vegetarian or vegan options it is you who is in the wrong, and pushing that to providing meat when there are vegans present isn't that hard. Whereas if you don't provide meat, the meat eaters are in the wrong for complaining.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3d ago
Some instances (almost always of non-affiliated / non-students outside of campus grounds) do not allow you to impugn a whole protest movement.
I can certainly impugn the whole protest movement, since it is a whole.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3d ago
Which gets thrown into the Christians' faces whenever said Christians complain about the actions of people more pathetic than themselves. And the Christians capitulate.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3d ago
The protests are neither (at least not predominantly) antisemitic nor a resurgence of 20th century antisemitism.
Which is why the protesters wave the flag of Hamas and chant about how Jews should go back to Poland.
The fact that there are foolish Jews who cleave to their enemies does not change this.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
4d ago
There's a LOT of people who believe that vegetarianism is morally superior even if they're not vegetarian themselves, which disarms them of the first two responses.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
4d ago
Thiel was indeed a lone wolf. A very big lone wolf, though.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
5d ago
Or so he claimed when there was no chance of it happening.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
5d ago
Everyone remembers that, but forgets the centuries where the lords and nobles had peasants executed for any offense or no offense. It's bad to be on top come the revolution, but good every other time.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
5d ago
The courts will allow the law to be hacked like a computer if they're sympathetic to the position of the hacker.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
5d ago
The laws do have to improve the situation, thanks to jurisprudence about "narrow tailoring" and "compelling public interest."
Narrow tailoring and compelling public interest apply when strict scrutiny is required. There's no need for strict scrutiny here, unless you accept that sleeping in public is a Constitutional right. And even if there were, there should be no need for a compelling public interest to improve things "for the homeless"; the compelling public interest could easily be to keep the park available for the non-homeless.
That Kavanaugh is concentrating only on the putative benefit to the defendants indicates that the interests of the rest of the public are at best secondary.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
5d ago
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. From those who have much, much is expected (and the corollary, from those who have nothing, nothing is expected, explains Grant's Pass). Blessed are the poor. Etc. It's a slave morality.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
5d ago
Because the people who would have to do this are believers in the institutions, even when they go against them. You see that with gun control, where the gun grabbers do NOT respect the Supreme Court. You saw it a bit with abortion, especially toward the end of Roe v. Wade. But you won't see it here.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
6d ago
That is exactly what municipalities wish they could do. "Just tell us what laws we are allowed to write that allow us to clean up our streets?!"
In this case, the intended rule is "You can't clean up your streets AT ALL until you solve the homeless problem in a particular way -- that is, provide shelter to all of them at public expense".
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
6d ago
Yes, 5-4 with the three on the left plus Barrett and Kavanaugh. Probably with some hedging that will mean nothing.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
6d ago
Why do you think it’s misplaced sympathy and not, I dunno, doing their jobs?
From ScotusBlog:
But Justice Brett Kavanaugh was at least initially dubious that reversing the 9th Circuit’s decision and allowing the city to enforce its ordinances would make a difference in addressing the homelessness problem. How would your rule help, he asked Evangelis, if there are not enough beds for people experiencing homelessness? Kavanaugh returned to this point a few minutes later, asking Evangelis how sending people to jail for violating the city’s ordinances would help to address the homelessness problem if there are still no beds available when they get out. Such individuals, he observed, are “not going to be any better off than you were before.”
This is not the issue at all! The questions contain within them the implication that the laws have to make the homeless people better off. And thus the implication that somehow the Constitution protects the interests of the homeless over and above the other people who want to use the parks and public spaces that the law actually is in the interests of. This is just sympathy for the wretched, not "doing their jobs".
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
6d ago
In theory, they criminalize the conduct of going somewhere while (potentially) having such a disease, which is distinct from criminalizing the disease itself.
Ah, so criminalizing sleeping while homeless should be fine. Or walking through town while a drug addict, to go to the Robinson case.
No, this is all sophistry; the 8th Amendment, having been stretched this much, can be said to cover or not cover any given case -- and it will be, based on other criteria. In this case, likely mostly misplaced sympathy for the homeless on the part of Kavanaugh and Barrett, and a corresponding lack of concern for anyone else on their part and that of the leftist justices.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
6d ago
Robinson should just be overturned in its entirety, sidestepping all this. The Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause is about the penalties which can be imposed for lawbreaking, not about the actions which can be forbidden. There's nothing about status or conduct in there. But the court is too conservative to overturn bad non-conservative precedent (except on abortion)
None of that is the actual rule. This is the actual rule:
ETA: The Supreme Court (and lower courts) should look at this, look at Title IX, note there's nothing in Title IX about gender identity, and throw out this regulation as lacking statutory basis. But they won't; they'll save it with deference if nothing else.
More options
Context Copy link