No more non-unanimous jury convictions: Alito accuses GOP colleagues of being cucks

[Greedo punched first]

What happens in Puerto Rico?

[Mr. Reactionary]

What happens in Puerto Rico?

This doesn't apply immediately. Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) held there was no 6th amendment rights in Puerto Rico and the 6th Amendment has not been subsequently incorporated. Long term there is a school of legal thought (including myself) that think the insular cases dealing with rights in the territories were flat out wrong and need to be overturned. That would require additional SCOUTUS cases though.

[Badger]

Taking away somebody's freedom should be unanimous and beyond a reasonable doubt.

 Alito is a damn fool to not see the obvious links in America's criminal justice system and white supremacy. You often wonder what these people learned in school. What books did they read? Are they willfully ignorant or simply ignorant? Very sad that somebody so blind or uncaring about America's history like Alito can make it to the highest court in the land.

Are you willing yet to condemn ALL racism? The other day you seemed blind and uncaring to about 80% of potential racism in the world so if you're going to impugn the motives of a Supreme Court justice as being icky racism, itd be nice for you to at the very least condemn ALL racism yourself. It seemed like a pretty easy request then and instead you changed the subject twice and then refused to answer. Its kind of hard to take someone inferring that a neutral argument is "racist" seriously, when that same person refuses to acknowledge that more than just 20% of the world is capable of racism.

 
 What on Earth are you babbling about?

From the thread on expelling students for off-premesis internet comments.

From the thread on the expelled students for making a dehumanizing racist video against black people.

 What about it?

Hypothetically, if the 2 students had been say Samoan or Alaskan Inuit or something not white and did a Vine or whatever about 10 reasons why white people are devils, would you similarly demand that the public school expel them?

I guess like that (sat through 30 seconds and got bored) but with the Speaker being a minority and the targeted group being honkies. Should such a hypothetical minority student be expelled from public school for making the hypothetical video at home and posting it online with no identifying information about what school they attended? Asking for a friend.

Maybe? The news report talked over the video so I couldn't really make out what the student said. So what's your answer to the above hypothetical question (which is worded clearly enough without need for a real life example)?

BTW you must have forgotten to answer the above hypothetical question. It really isnt that hard.

I asked 4 times, and you dodged twice, ignored once, then never came back.

The answer to your above-referenced questions, is if a non-white student of Samoan or whatever ethnicity you choose made a video similarly racist and derogatory towards Caucasians, they would deserve the same punishment. There is a school of thought that non-whites can be prejudiced but not racist, because racism by definition is the combination of Prejudice plus institutional power which non-whites fundamentally lack. I didn't agree with it in college and don't agree with it now, as do most progressives.

Thank you Badger. That's all I wanted to hear since it did come up in a discussion about how a specific category of Constitutionally protected speech is soooo terrible and harmful and bad that Constitution be damnned, it needs to be punished. Had he REALLY felt that way, hey, you can make that argument fairly even if I think your wrong. But yeah, demanding racist enforcement of racist speech fundamentally undermines the argument.

I had something of a conversion in college over the whole hate speech/ Free Speech debate. While private institutions generally have great discretion in what type of conduct codes they enforce, I felt that even as a philosophical matter that enforcement of haste speech in those circumstances was reasonable and warranted. My rationale was that calling someone a racial epitaph did not in any way contribute, and indeed harmed, the open expression beliefs and discourse learning community. Succinctly put, whatever supposed gifts to free speech wer promulgated by not expelling a student for calling another student aspic for example, we're vastly outweighed bye the chilling it affect it would have on that student and other Hispanic students who heard about the incident from speaking their mine's for fear of similar harassment.

However, the other half of this debate was over what constituted hate speech and how readily it could be accurately identified so as not to inhibit free speech. It seems like a no-brainer. Hate speech isn't particularly subtle in either its content or meaning. It seems that the likelihood of punishing someone for hate speech for what was truly just something innocent. That change for me when an incident occurred around that time, which most of you are too young to remember, where a New York college student was initially sanctioned, though I believe it was later reversed, 4 Wenham group of African-American female students were being loud and noisy one night underneath his bedroom window oh, he poked his head out and yelled at Bender shut up you freaking water buffaloes. Calling them water buffaloes was deemed racist hate speech. Regardless of the propriety of yelling insults out his dorm room window, even at obnoxiously loud drunks, that seemed bizarre and a poor application of Campus hate speech policy. I've been suspicious, though not entirely dismissive, of such codes ever since.

[Greedo punched first]

Is Alito pissed off that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh pointed out that non-unanimous jury decisions were established in Louisiana not too long after the pogrom in Colfax?

[Nutmeg]

Well this is a complicated one.

GORSUCH, J., announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, III, and IV–B–1, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts II–B, IV–B–2, and V, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV–A, in which GINSBURG and BREYER, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring as to all but Part IV–A. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined, and in which KAGAN, J., joined as to all but Part III–D.

Kagan done lost her mind.

Yes, what's III-D? I can't seem to find the Alito dissent in its entirety.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Well this is a complicated one.

GORSUCH, J., announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, III, and IV–B–1, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts II–B, IV–B–2, and V, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV–A, in which GINSBURG and BREYER, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring as to all but Part IV–A. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined, and in which KAGAN, J., joined as to all but Part III–D.

Kagan done lost her mind.

Yes, what's III-D? I can't seem to find the Alito dissent in its entirety.

Here. Its towards the bottom.  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf

Basically III-D was Alito explaining why he thought it was ok to overturn stare decisis in several recent cases over the last few years but that this case was different. As Kagan dissented in the cases cited by Alito (on stare decisis grounds) it makes sense that she wouldn't agree with that part.

[GP270watch]

You could have just said

I'm okay with some racism, I just won't admit it.

We all know that's what you meant.

 Two white kids make insanely racist social media video directed at black Americans.

 Atlas Posters: GP270watch is a racist!

 WTF

[Progressive Pessimist]

Fun fact: There’s a Yu Gi Oh villain named Alito.

IT'S TIME TO D-D-D-D-D-D-D-DISSENT!

[fhtagn]

You could have just said

I'm okay with some racism, I just won't admit it.

We all know that's what you meant.

 Two white kids make insanely racist social media video directed at black Americans.

 Atlas Posters: GP270Watch is a racist!

 WTF

As a non-white person, I'm can comfortably say the scenarios that you were asked about are racist. Racism towards white people isn't okay. It's just as wrong as racism towards blacks, natives, asians, etc.

The fact that you aren't willing to say the same only proves my point.

If you aren't racist, why can't you say you think ALL racism is bad?

[Badger]

You could have just said

I'm okay with some racism, I just won't admit it.

We all know that's what you meant.

 Two white kids make insanely racist social media video directed at black Americans.

 Atlas Posters: GP270watch is a racist!

 WTF

Such a fine line between edgy and stupid

[The Dowager Mod]

Could you two not derail another thread?

[T'Chenka]

There is a school of thought that non-whites can be prejudiced but not racist, because racism by definition is the combination of Prejudice plus institutional power which non-whites fundamentally lack. I didn't agree with it in college and don't agree with it now, as do most progressives.

Agreed. This is a where a clear distinction can be made between progressive ideology and SJW ideology.

[Nutmeg]

Well this is a complicated one.

GORSUCH, J., announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, III, and IV–B–1, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts II–B, IV–B–2, and V, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV–A, in which GINSBURG and BREYER, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring as to all but Part IV–A. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined, and in which KAGAN, J., joined as to all but Part III–D.

Kagan done lost her mind.

Yes, what's III-D? I can't seem to find the Alito dissent in its entirety.

Here. Its towards the bottom.  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf

Basically III-D was Alito explaining why he thought it was ok to overturn stare decisis in several recent cases over the last few years but that this case was different. As Kagan dissented in the cases cited by Alito (on stare decisis grounds) it makes sense that she wouldn't agree with that part.

Ah, many thanks. Hadn't realized the dissenting opinion was in the same document (makes sense).

[Greedo punched first]

If the DACA case is dismissed, will Alito publicly dissent?