@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

Does not have a yacht

8 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

Does not have a yacht

8 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 174

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Thiel was indeed a lone wolf. A very big lone wolf, though.

Or so he claimed when there was no chance of it happening.

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 courts will allow the law to be hacked like a computer if they're sympathetic to the position of the hacker.

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.

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.

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.

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".

Yes, 5-4 with the three on the left plus Barrett and Kavanaugh. Probably with some hedging that will mean nothing.

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".

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.

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)

Once they have Ukraine that's not a problem any more.

Yeah right around the time that countries decided that they no longer had duties and obligations to their own citizens. The sword cuts both ways here.

That would be officially January 20, 1961 in the US, I believe. ("Ask not what your country can do for you....")

They aimed for Koop, but got Proposition 65

The problem I have with the measures that don't include transfers is they're often used to justify more transfers. Which is a nice broken feedback loop since by definition more transfers won't reduce that measure of poverty.

Maybe, though I have my doubts. Not before that particular bit of pravda become part of it, I'd wager.

The "Early Life" section of Wikipedia; it's a meme among the sorts of people who use (((echos))).