I think I can be annoyed with the ACLU IN PARTICULAR for their recent track record which runs away from the principled defense of civil rights in the abstract, even defending the most unpalatable of parties for the sake of achieving good precedent for everyone, and towards defense of the rights of particularized subgroups whose interests sometimes run counter to the larger popuplation.
I'm sure their policy positions are internally consistent, Birthright Citizenship is a 'civil right' after all. But their choice of which principles to defend has been suspect to me since I noticed they decline to treat the Second Amendment with the same deference as the rest. My BIG issue with them came when they threw religious liberty under the bus since they wanted to ensure that gays could force people to bake wedding cakes.
Where in the hell do they derive "The Right to Equal Treatment" anyway?
I made a donation to the ACLU because one of their canvassers approached me on the streets of Portland, Oregon in July of 2011. I gave them $20. I felt a little warm and fuzzy about this at the time.
I've wanted my money back ever since.
So anyhow, if they want to argue Originalism one day and living constitutionalism the next, especially with regard to different issues, that is their prerogative.
I don't think I'm required to respect them for it.
faceh
17hr ago
Yep.
That the Supreme Court has swung more conservative in recent years is somewhat hiding the fact that Roberts will tack with the wind but generally keeps both wings of the court from capsizing the boat with a major upheaval ruling.
I genuinely wondered, way back when, why Roberts was made Chief Justice immediately upon his appointment, despite several other sitting Justices having seniority.
This is probably why. Both sides (at the time) could stomach his ascension to the position for exactly this reason.
faceh
17hr ago
If the United States hadn't withdrawn in a hurry from Afghanistan after 20 years of pouring military materiel into it, I might grant that argument.
But as it happens, a bunch of religious zealots with guns won their country back despite the economic and technology imbalance.
This directly implies it is, overall, a contest of wills more than pure technological might.
And I do not think that modern first-world politicians are assassination-proof.
Since, you know, the guy who is currently President came within millimeters of being assassinated about two years ago.
By dude with a gun.
And civilian uprisings have successfully unseated heads of state in Nepal, Madagascar, Bangaladesh, and Sri Lanka.
That's just the past 3 years. I do not think 'first world' governments are qualitatively more secure than the governments of those countries.
The feature that makes a first world government rebellion-resistant is the ability to keep people economically pacified, I'd say.
So I just fundamentally disagree that rebellion can't be achieved under modern constraints.
Whether rebellion can successfully foment a change for the better, I do wonder.
faceh
17hr ago
Ironically, this is why I think SCOTUS might be trying to thread a needle here.
If they completely rule against Trump, and he just decides to keep on doing his thing... and Congress declines to respond to that, its a probable fatal blow to their legitimacy.
It is no longer clear to me that many people will freak out if Judges get ignored.
faceh
18hr ago
This is the same category of argument that says "the Second Amendment should not apply to modern firearms because technology improvements now makes them far more lethal and pose a greater threat if misused."
Of even further "1A rights don't protect free speech on the internet because now we have cables that span the ocean and let all sorts of people transmit speech into the U.S. where before the best they could do is send a letter."
Maybe you agree with both those arguments. I just want to point out what this proposed approach implies.
I think, though, you can narrow the 'intent' question' to simply ask "was this language intended to make it easier for children of aliens to become citizens?"
If not, then no need to interpret it very broadly.
Easy.
Quoth the Declaration of Independence:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
I like the word 'whenever' in that context. Its not like you have to wait for a prescribed moment.
But I expect most people aren't so uncomfortable as to really desire that, and certainly the most rational amongst us realize that the cost of such a step would be insanely high, and the risk of something worse replacing it is real and serious.
Bingo.
I like originalism/textualism for at least TRYING to tie Constitutional interpretation down to some baseline reality/principle that exists outside of the Judiciary's own biases and beliefs. Something 'concrete' you can point to for others to see rather than plucking it out of, effectively, thin air.
But invoking it only when you're trying to uphold a series of laws or precedent that have basically refuted the original intent of a given Constitutional precept is laughable when you have already granted that the founding document itself is 'up for reinterpretation.'
And you do get into the question of the meta intentions of a given rule. The 14th amendment has the problem where it was solving a number of different problems at once (and it was basically passed under 'duress' WRT to the former Confederate states. But leave that aside.) and they all got a little muddled in the final version. Its not as clean as, say "women get the right to vote now" or "oh shit we shouldn't have banned booze, its legal again." I think its clear that MOST of the intent was to 'forcibly' course-correct from the shortcomings that led to the Civil War.
Like, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is CLEARLY aimed at keeping former Confederates with suspect loyalties from regaining political power. I DO NOT think it was meant to create any new legal definitions that would expand on the EXISTING definition of treason. It would be absurd, I think, to say the 14th creates a new definition of treason or insurrection to override the old.
So in that sense, I think it never should have been so broadly expanded to create concepts like substantive due process (fuck you, Lochner.), or 'disparate impact.'
And I'm sort of skeptical of the incorporation doctrine too.
So if there was never any 'meta intent' to make it easy for children of aliens to gain citizenship... its very sketchy to claim textualism as backing the argument that birthright citizenship MUST be interpreted as expansively as humanly possible.
It does bring up an 'interesting' hypothetical. What if a billionaire started buying plane tickets to the U.S. for every single 8-month-old pregnant woman he could find on the planet. I will grant that the U.S. would not be justified in shooting down airplanes that are inbound, packed to the brim with pregnant women. But could it deny them entry for no other reason than "we don't want your kid born here?"
My best guess (and that is all I claim it is) is that we might get a baby-splitting decision that manages to somehow save the citizenship status of persons who have already been enjoying the privileges of citizenship due to being born here, whilst opening the door for denying future persons birthright citizenship on broader grounds, going forward.
Roberts really does love his 'compromise' rulings.
There is certainly an "estoppel" argument where, if the U.S. government has declined to challenge a person's claim to citizenship, and has been conferring upon them the benefits of citizenship since their birth, that it would be manifestly unjust to then later suddenly declare them a noncitizen without some other legitimate justification for expulsion.
But that wouldn't mean that every person in the U.S. going forward would get that same benefit. Surely there's also an argument that if a person enters the U.S. completely undocumented, in violation of multiple immigration laws (most of which were implemented after Wong Kim Ark), and the government by its actions (i.e., enforcing its immigration laws and siccing its agents on them to remove them) declares that it doesn't abide their presence here... any kid(s) they manage to pop out wouldn't be 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S. in a politically meaningful sense?
It certainly seems, to me, that Citizenship should in theory require a governmental stamp of approval. That is, one shouldn't be able to just enter a territory, trigger some arbitrary condition ("eats a handful of the local dirt" as an absurd example) then declare themselves citizen without the government even being aware of their presence. Citizenship is a political designation after all.
Anyway, I am woefully underinformed (for an attorney) on 14th amendment matters. Its simply not my specialty, so this is me more going off my reads of the Justices themselves than strict legal reasoning. Birthright citizenship had been the default for so long that it never occurred to me to even consider if it could be challenged.
From the purely practical standpoint, if SCOTUS declares birthright citizenship completely inalienable outside of the few narrow exceptions, and congress won't use its clear authority to adjust this (which, I can't expect they will) then the only possible response that makes sense is to implement the most stringent border controls imaginable, if merely being born here gets you a valid social security number and entitlement to claim any and all benefits they might then qualify for.
That is, if we're going to maintain the current web of welfare benefits and entitlements and wealth transfers where existing citizens who are obligated to keep on paying taxes will be on the hook to pay for every single kid who happens to be born here, whether that kid is productive or not, and every single one of said kids will also be entitled to vote on the continuation and extension of such benefits, we're starting to diminish the political value of being a net taxpayer at all.
At some point it is valid to question whether the Constitution is still fulfilling the purposes it was created for as per the Preamble.
EDIT: And to be clear, I am absolutely fine with biting a bullet where even kids born in the U.S.A. where both their parents are citizens wouldn't inherently get to claim citizenship. I think exile is a politically useful tool and should be used more often, and its actually a bad thing that the U.S. only has the options of life imprisonment or execution for certain classes of crimes, the latter of which is very difficult to implement.
faceh
23hr ago
Sounds like a similar experience to one I had a ways back.
Helped a person who was going through a seemingly difficult "failure to launch" phase. Stuck in her parents' house, going to school but having no plan beyond that, minimum wage job, hugely introverted (main social group was people she played games with online), but seemingly smart and personable, if a bit emotionally stunted.
Got her a place to stay for a bargain price, plugged her into a new job, got her involved at my gym, invited her out to hang with my friend group, basically handed her every single tool to form her own path, get out from under the parents' thumb, make things work.
And yes, I was romantically interested but also very wary of forming any actual connection if she wasn't really fully 'mature' enough to have some semblance of responsibility for her own self.
The unfortunate but not surprising thing is she didn't change her core habits in the slightest. And remained tied to her parents (mother, in particular) at the hip in terms of never EVER doing anything that might upset mom, and basically letting mom decide things for her at every stage. And she was prone to attracting some relatively unsavory types of men into her orbit... and then completely rejecting them if they tried to escalate? I'm not talking thugs or drug addicts. But like, dudes with minimum wage jobs who ride motorcyles and were physically attractive but simply did not have their life together.
She seemed to be completely unable to detect when a guy was trying to get in her pants until they were actually reaching for the zipper, at which point there'd be an intense negative reaction. Like, she really wanted to be attractive to men, and got very upset when she actually attracted them in.
The situation lasted about a year or so then with relatively little warning, in quick succession, she moved back in with her parents, started pursuing another degree (this one was at least practical), cut off all the friends I had introduced, quit the job (almost but not quite burning the bridge), and as far as I can tell has returned to being a recluse except for her classmates.
And the added insult, her parents informally banned me from their business establishment for reasons that remain opaque to me, since we'd gotten along just fine for a long time. It was quite abrupt. I wonder what she told them.
This was only like the third rudest thing anybody had ever done to me.
And thus I've reached a point in my life where I do not feel the need to assist anyone get up out of their life circumstances other than opening doors for them if they seem to need it and present the capacity to carry themselves once I help them get the leg up.
faceh
3d ago
I'm just saying that broadly speaking, everyone is mostly chasing incentives dictated by a black box force they have limited ability to control.
If you're in the gig economy or working as a streamer, you know where the Algo is and who controls it, at least.
and just removed all the moves I deem "too dangerous" or "rude" from my repertoire. I don't do heel hooks, I don't do throat posts, I don't do neck cranks, I don't do anything flying or rolling, I don't slam anybody.
Same. The two big realizations that I try to instill in students regarding intensity:
-
You learn much faster when its "playful" than if its aggressive as if both parties are fighting for their life. The stress response actually inhibits your recall and interrupts the ideal 'flow state' for learning.
-
Getting injured means you can't train. The cost isn't just the injury itself, its the weeks or months you aren't able to work on your technique. You have so little to gain from going all out (in practice), why could it possibly be worth it?
I've got a whole bag of tricks that I only pull out if I'm sparring someone of equal experience, or an opportunity to use one safely is just blatantly presented to me.
Otherwise, I spend about 1/4 of my attention defensively watching out for wild, unexpected moves from the partner since I'm the one who'll get injured if I eat an errant spinning backfist or an unintentional elbow.
Its like they say, a white belt is arguably more dangerous than someone with moderate training since their lack of experience means they throw stuff wildly and without regard for either their or your safety, and they won't even know why something is unsafe, much less how to control it.
Likewise with the newbies, if I can get to a position where I COULD do something that would absolutely wreck their day, I'll 'symbolically' perform the motion to initiate it, but usually just give them the opportunity to escape. And they won't realize how bad their position was had I been intending to do them harm. Big one I do try to point out is people who turn away from a roundhouse kick and present their back. I usually give them a little tap with my foot and then explicitly call attention to the fact that taking a hard kick to the spine or tailbone is both painful and dangerous.
I've been trying to decide if my habit of self-mocking is obnoxious or not.
Reflexive modesty is a better habit than bragadoccio, methinks. The guy who rubs it in is more likely to get embarrassingly humbled. Still, be willing to have confidence in your abilities.
faceh
4d ago
Yep.
Hence why if the video isn't leveraging its advantages as a visual medium to be more engaging/entertaining, I'm backing out almost instantly.
it's about recognizing that in the immortal words of Patrick Swayze "nobody ever won a fight.
Bingo.
And for many I've noticed that realization doesn't kick in until their first big injury. Hopefully not a permanent one. Young dudes have that innate sense of invulnerability, and they bounce back from minor issues so quickly that the idea that they're one bad fall or headkick away from brain damage or at least an emergency room visit seems to escape them.
I have been insanely blessed to have been doing it as long as I have without being sidelined by a serious injury, but that would be because I've been very cognizant of that possibility, and I train accordingly. I have "let" guys with less experience than me win simply to avoid a situation where one of us would probably get hurt, or to not escalate the intensity to unsafe levels. Most of the time they simply don't have the knowledge to realize how easily they can get hurt. On rarer occasions they lack the self control to rein it in where needed.
Likewise, the worst injuries I've doled out are broken noses. I felt HORRIBLE about that in both cases, but in the grand scheme those are easily recoverable.
On the meta level this means finding a gym that selects for high conscientiousness.
faceh
5d ago
I truly do not envy the lives of those whose paycheck and general live trajectory is dictated by an algorithm that is constantly and aggressively being tweaked but uncaring corporate interests to maximize eyeballs on ads, or whatever they call the actual metric they care about.
Arbitrary-seeming changes that often wreck your previous strategy, or even diminish the viability of the very style you prefer to express in.
Your work output dictated by constant compliance with a disinterested (not malicious, but it'd be hard to tell) program that remains, to you, a complete black box which you can only appease by offering up your best efforts and seeing which get rewarded with views and money, then adjusting from there.
It is true that we ALL live under someone else's algorithm (and, if you wish, EVERYONE is living under the meta-algorithm known as "the market"). But it'd be particularly maddening to me when there's a corporate entity that owes me no allegiance, and refuses to disclose the most important standards by which it judges 'success,' meanwhile it doles out the rewards as it sees fit with seemingly no regard for the quality of the creative work.
faceh
5d ago
Ding ding ding.
Its easier to put out volume if you happily compromise on quality, and I have to assume the Youtube Algo doesn't care about quality over minutes watched.
So there's some 'optimal' amount of information/minute that pads out the video without losing the viewer.
Just so happens my preference is on information density is higher than the average youtube viewers. Which is unsurprising.
Feels like it used to be that a 'video essay' was mostly guaranteed to have some insights and interesting commentary on a topic you cared about.
The more recent videos are just as long but less 'useful' information, lazier editing, and even the entertainment value has gone down.
Plus certain topics are getting recycled pretty often, so I'd just as soon go and rewatch older classics.
I just don't watch 'em anymore.
Don't have time for a full response but my point would be that Martial Arts Gyms are one of the few places where MUTUAL respect is both expected, observed, and enforced.
Because the only thing that actually gains you respect is competence, and competence in martial arts can be tested very objectively, and corners can't be cut. Yeah, a McDojo can hand you a belt, but abilities can be tested and frauds identified with a simple sparring session. And generally speaking, people who are capable of actual physical violence, but also understand why you want to avoid it are going to be more respectful of each other, both from recognition of the shared skill AND the avoidance of conflict.
I dunno, I keep coming back to this point. If you're not training some kind of physical skill, even if it isn't a martial one, why would you expect to get respect from those around you. Crossing you has no cost if you are incapable of doing them any harm. And on the flip side, if you are training a physical skill but the others who train it don't offer respect in return, why would you want to train it?
Although the Cobra Kai model does exist in some places, where people prefer to be verbally abused and consider that the mark of quality instruction.
I don't think we need to return to a full on honor culture... but I do think that social etiquette might improve if (nonfatal) dueling were allowed.
Also I think my baseline experience is that most people show certain respect to each other since I've grown up in the South.
Yeah, the need for Senate Approval at least divorces the decision from any internal court politics, probably for the best.
In theory it doesn't add much prestige compared to getting the seat in the first place. So much of their apparent influence is defined by traditions that they don't care to upend.
Still, it would make sense that you'd want that seat occupied by a relative moderate.
More options
Context Copy link