Why aren't federal judges combating states which pass anti-BDS legislation?

[Joey1996]

Federal courts thankfully curbed North Carolina's anti-Trans bathroom laws, but I haven't seen much effort to stop states from passing anti-BDS legislation, a blatant violation of the 1st amendment right to boycott and protest. I know of one case in Kansas, where a federal judge blocked anti-BDS laws, but 20 other states currently have similar legislation. Why isn't this a bigger issue?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The courts can only deal with the cases that reach them.  In cases like the Kansas law, where contractors are being affected by an anti-BDS law, it's fairly simply to show the plaintiff has standing, thus allowing a case to proceed.  But laws that merely require State pension funds not be investing in companies with BDS policies would be practically impossible to bring to trial because investment decisions are opaque and thus it would be practically impossible for a company to show it had standing, much less that it had been harmed.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The courts can only deal with the cases that reach them.  In cases like the Kansas law, where contractors are being affected by an anti-BDS law, it's fairly simply to show the plaintiff has standing, thus allowing a case to proceed.  But laws that merely require State pension funds not be investing in companies with BDS policies would be practically impossible to bring to trial because investment decisions are opaque and thus it would be practically impossible for a company to show it had standing, much less that it had been harmed.

I mean, there's also the fact that the BDS movement is essentially little more than anti-Semitic hate group.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

The courts can only deal with the cases that reach them.  In cases like the Kansas law, where contractors are being affected by an anti-BDS law, it's fairly simply to show the plaintiff has standing, thus allowing a case to proceed.  But laws that merely require State pension funds not be investing in companies with BDS policies would be practically impossible to bring to trial because investment decisions are opaque and thus it would be practically impossible for a company to show it had standing, much less that it had been harmed.

I mean, there's also the fact that the BDS movement is essentially little more than anti-Semitic hate group.

Was the 1980s boycott of South Africa the work of anti-Boer hate groups?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The courts can only deal with the cases that reach them.  In cases like the Kansas law, where contractors are being affected by an anti-BDS law, it's fairly simply to show the plaintiff has standing, thus allowing a case to proceed.  But laws that merely require State pension funds not be investing in companies with BDS policies would be practically impossible to bring to trial because investment decisions are opaque and thus it would be practically impossible for a company to show it had standing, much less that it had been harmed.

I mean, there's also the fact that the BDS movement is essentially little more than anti-Semitic hate group.

Was the 1980s boycott of South Africa the work of anti-Boer hate groups?

[Joey1996]

The courts can only deal with the cases that reach them.  In cases like the Kansas law, where contractors are being affected by an anti-BDS law, it's fairly simply to show the plaintiff has standing, thus allowing a case to proceed.  But laws that merely require State pension funds not be investing in companies with BDS policies would be practically impossible to bring to trial because investment decisions are opaque and thus it would be practically impossible for a company to show it had standing, much less that it had been harmed.

I mean, there's also the fact that the BDS movement is essentially little more than anti-Semitic hate group.

Even if you do believe that, it sets a dangerous and unconstitutional precedent to attempt to ban people's right to boycott corporations and businesses.

[Sestak]

The courts can only deal with the cases that reach them.  In cases like the Kansas law, where contractors are being affected by an anti-BDS law, it's fairly simply to show the plaintiff has standing, thus allowing a case to proceed.  But laws that merely require State pension funds not be investing in companies with BDS policies would be practically impossible to bring to trial because investment decisions are opaque and thus it would be practically impossible for a company to show it had standing, much less that it had been harmed.

I mean, there's also the fact that the BDS movement is essentially little more than anti-Semitic hate group.

This is true, but doesn't really change anything. BDS is a bigoted movement, but we can't combat it through censorship.

[Joey1996]

The courts can only deal with the cases that reach them.  In cases like the Kansas law, where contractors are being affected by an anti-BDS law, it's fairly simply to show the plaintiff has standing, thus allowing a case to proceed.  But laws that merely require State pension funds not be investing in companies with BDS policies would be practically impossible to bring to trial because investment decisions are opaque and thus it would be practically impossible for a company to show it had standing, much less that it had been harmed.

I mean, there's also the fact that the BDS movement is essentially little more than anti-Semitic hate group.

Was the 1980s boycott of South Africa the work of anti-Boer hate groups?

Not really a straw man seeing as BDS is based in principle off of the boycott of apartheid South Africa. I've been receptive to position that the "cultural boycott" of Israel is anti-semitic, but the idea that BDS is anti-semitic because it focuses on corporations that invest in the occupation of Palestinian territories, and isn't some big tent tactic of attacking human rights abusers in other countries makes no sense.

[Famous Mortimer]

The courts can only deal with the cases that reach them.  In cases like the Kansas law, where contractors are being affected by an anti-BDS law, it's fairly simply to show the plaintiff has standing, thus allowing a case to proceed.  But laws that merely require State pension funds not be investing in companies with BDS policies would be practically impossible to bring to trial because investment decisions are opaque and thus it would be practically impossible for a company to show it had standing, much less that it had been harmed.

I mean, there's also the fact that the BDS movement is essentially little more than anti-Semitic hate group.

Was the 1980s boycott of South Africa the work of anti-Boer hate groups?

Can you please elaborate and explain why the situations are different besides the fact that Jews are Jews and Boers are not Jews?

[Sestak]

The courts can only deal with the cases that reach them.  In cases like the Kansas law, where contractors are being affected by an anti-BDS law, it's fairly simply to show the plaintiff has standing, thus allowing a case to proceed.  But laws that merely require State pension funds not be investing in companies with BDS policies would be practically impossible to bring to trial because investment decisions are opaque and thus it would be practically impossible for a company to show it had standing, much less that it had been harmed.

I mean, there's also the fact that the BDS movement is essentially little more than anti-Semitic hate group.

Was the 1980s boycott of South Africa the work of anti-Boer hate groups?

Can you please elaborate and explain why the situations are different besides the fact that Jews are Jews and Boers are not Jews?

The South Africa boycott leaders weren't constantly spouting dog-whistles about how South Africa controls American media?

[Famous Mortimer]

The courts can only deal with the cases that reach them.  In cases like the Kansas law, where contractors are being affected by an anti-BDS law, it's fairly simply to show the plaintiff has standing, thus allowing a case to proceed.  But laws that merely require State pension funds not be investing in companies with BDS policies would be practically impossible to bring to trial because investment decisions are opaque and thus it would be practically impossible for a company to show it had standing, much less that it had been harmed.

I mean, there's also the fact that the BDS movement is essentially little more than anti-Semitic hate group.

Was the 1980s boycott of South Africa the work of anti-Boer hate groups?

Can you please elaborate and explain why the situations are different besides the fact that Jews are Jews and Boers are not Jews?

The South Africa boycott leaders weren't constantly spouting dog-whistles about how South Africa controls American media?

Why is Israel less deserving of a boycott than South Africa though?

I don't see how the worthiness of the boycott is impacted by the boycott leaders alleged racism. If FDR had said something anti-Semitic would you say it was wrong to fight the Nazis as a result?

Also, if you freak out about me comparing Israel (and White South Africa) to Nazis, that will be taken as proof that you have no real counter-argument.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So if it violates the 1st amendment for the government to refuse to contract with groups which refuse to do business with israel, doesnt it also violate the 1st amendment for the government to refuse to contract with groups which refuse to hire gays?

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

So if it violates the 1st amendment for the government to refuse to contract with groups which refuse to do business with israel, doesnt it also violate the 1st amendment for the government to refuse to contract with groups which refuse to hire gays?

The federal law was an actual attempt to penalize people who support the boycott, rather than denying contracts to groups that support BDS. Which yeah, is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment without straying into the commerce clause territory you're trying to steer it into.

(to be clear, BDS strikes me as a kind of dumb thing. But it definitely shouldn't be criminalized, JDB's nonsense to the contrary.)

[IndustrialJustice]

The courts can only deal with the cases that reach them.  In cases like the Kansas law, where contractors are being affected by an anti-BDS law, it's fairly simply to show the plaintiff has standing, thus allowing a case to proceed.  But laws that merely require State pension funds not be investing in companies with BDS policies would be practically impossible to bring to trial because investment decisions are opaque and thus it would be practically impossible for a company to show it had standing, much less that it had been harmed.

I mean, there's also the fact that the BDS movement is essentially little more than anti-Semitic hate group.

Yikes.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The courts can only deal with the cases that reach them.  In cases like the Kansas law, where contractors are being affected by an anti-BDS law, it's fairly simply to show the plaintiff has standing, thus allowing a case to proceed.  But laws that merely require State pension funds not be investing in companies with BDS policies would be practically impossible to bring to trial because investment decisions are opaque and thus it would be practically impossible for a company to show it had standing, much less that it had been harmed.

I mean, there's also the fact that the BDS movement is essentially little more than anti-Semitic hate group.

Was the 1980s boycott of South Africa the work of anti-Boer hate groups?

Not really a straw man seeing as BDS is based in principle off of the boycott of apartheid South Africa. I've been receptive to position that the "cultural boycott" of Israel is anti-semitic, but the idea that BDS is anti-semitic because it focuses on corporations that invest in the occupation of Palestinian territories, and isn't some big tent tactic of attacking human rights abusers in other countries makes no sense.

I mean, for starters Israel is objectively not an apartheid state.  That’s a pretty big difference between the two countries right off the bat.

So if it violates the 1st amendment for the government to refuse to contract with groups which refuse to do business with israel, doesnt it also violate the 1st amendment for the government to refuse to contract with groups which refuse to hire gays?

The federal law was an actual attempt to penalize people who support the boycott, rather than denying contracts to groups that support BDS. Which yeah, is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment without straying into the commerce clause territory you're trying to steer it into.

(to be clear, BDS strikes me as a kind of dumb thing. But it definitely shouldn't be criminalized, JDB's nonsense to the contrary.)

I never said merely expressing support for it should be criminalized nor do I think it should be, just to be clear (in fact, I called both my Senators and my Congressman to express my opposition to the Cardin-Portman monstrosity in the past).  My point is simply that folks are gonna be less likely to lift a finger to help BDS given its fundamentally anti-Semitic nature.

[dead0man]

Why is Israel less deserving of a boycott than South Africa though?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

wow....you are a special case ain't you?  "if you disagree with my ignorant conclusions, it proves I'm right....why?  'cause reasons!"

I mean, you've been here awhile, we have these threads every 6 months or so (because fighting bigotry is taking a long time), how could you have missed them all?

Why Israel is nothing like South Africa - by a black South African

10 reasons from the Huff Post

But even if you think Israel is somehow a worse state than the PRC, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, S.Arabia and most African countries then supporting BDS would still be stupid and counter productive to helping the people you want to help.  BDS is a bad organization, doing bad things and run by bad people.  Some Israelie scientists were in Cape Town a few years ago, looking into the water problem they have (Israel is a world leader in desalination plants), the bigots at BDS heard about it and would have none of it.  No dirty Jew water for S.Africans thanks to the BDS.

[Joey1996]

The courts can only deal with the cases that reach them.  In cases like the Kansas law, where contractors are being affected by an anti-BDS law, it's fairly simply to show the plaintiff has standing, thus allowing a case to proceed.  But laws that merely require State pension funds not be investing in companies with BDS policies would be practically impossible to bring to trial because investment decisions are opaque and thus it would be practically impossible for a company to show it had standing, much less that it had been harmed.

I mean, there's also the fact that the BDS movement is essentially little more than anti-Semitic hate group.

Was the 1980s boycott of South Africa the work of anti-Boer hate groups?

Not really a straw man seeing as BDS is based in principle off of the boycott of apartheid South Africa. I've been receptive to position that the "cultural boycott" of Israel is anti-semitic, but the idea that BDS is anti-semitic because it focuses on corporations that invest in the occupation of Palestinian territories, and isn't some big tent tactic of attacking human rights abusers in other countries makes no sense.

I mean, for starters Israel is objectively not an apartheid state. That’s a pretty big difference between the two countries right off the bat.

Not what I said, my point is that it isn't a strawman due to the inspiration. Jim Crow America was a wildly different place than British India, and yet people compare the Civil Rights movement because the tactics were partly inspired by the Salt March.

However, I think it's very flawed to apply tactics used against South Africa on Israel, especially the cultural boycott and will 100% concede the fact that is anti-semitism.

[Joey1996]

I will admit that I mainly find this troubling because of my own interest in a complete boycott of corporations and banks that invest in private prisons, and selective patronage efforts by black consumers, especially with regards to the hair care industry. I think this sets a ridiculous precedent.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Because these laws largely govern who the state or the federal government do business with, and they target corporations with divestment, not individuals with criminal actions. If laws go beyond that, they would likely be shut down quickly.

Ironically, the laws protecting the organizers of BDS protect anti-BDS laws!

[publicunofficial]

To my knowledge, Boer South Africa never forciblly sterilized non-white immigrants or trained it's snipers with child sized targets, or murdered an American woman with a bulldozer, or had a secret nuclear program while also demanding the bombing of any country that tries something similar, so they're actually better than Israel.

[KingSweden]

I will admit that I mainly find this troubling because of my own interest in a complete boycott of corporations and banks that invest in private prisons, and selective patronage efforts by black consumers, especially with regards to the hair care industry. I think this sets a ridiculous precedent.

I’m curious about this hair care patronage thing. More black women switching to natural hair rather than weaves would be a big positive IMO, that stuff is crazy expensive/bad for you.

[Pyro]

Any attack on the right to support BDS is an obvious violation of First Amendment rights.

[Joey1996]

To my knowledge, Boer South Africa never forciblly sterilized non-white immigrants or trained it's snipers with child sized targets, or murdered an American woman with a bulldozer, or had a secret nuclear program while also demanding the bombing of any country that tries something similar, so they're actually better than Israel.

Definitely not better for black South Africans.... hate the comparison of oppression

And they did have a secret nuclear weapon program, ironically it was supported by Israel

[Joey1996]

I will admit that I mainly find this troubling because of my own interest in a complete boycott of corporations and banks that invest in private prisons, and selective patronage efforts by black consumers, especially with regards to the hair care industry. I think this sets a ridiculous precedent.

I’m curious about this hair care patronage thing. More black women switching to natural hair rather than weaves would be a big positive IMO, that stuff is crazy expensive/bad for you.

Not what I was getting at, the black hair care industry is one of the most lucrative in the country, and yet black ownership of beauty supplies and stores is relatively non existent. There is a legitimate conspiracy to exclude black people from profiting off of goods marketed for them. 

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.essence.com/hair/korean-beauty-supply-store-ban

[America needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The courts can only deal with the cases that reach them.  In cases like the Kansas law, where contractors are being affected by an anti-BDS law, it's fairly simply to show the plaintiff has standing, thus allowing a case to proceed.  But laws that merely require State pension funds not be investing in companies with BDS policies would be practically impossible to bring to trial because investment decisions are opaque and thus it would be practically impossible for a company to show it had standing, much less that it had been harmed.

I mean, there's also the fact that the BDS movement is essentially little more than anti-Semitic hate group.

Numerous people, myself one of them, have Jewish families, and also support BDS.

Calling BDS supporters anti-Semitic is fundamentally stupid, because you are calling a subset of Jewish people anti-Semitic when you do so.