Thursday, June 23, 2016

Welcome To The Big League


  • Several opinions from the U.S. Supreme Court today on repeat offender convictions, DUI breath vs blood tests, and affirmative action. [SCOTUSblog]
  • A former robbery defendant takes to Youtube to proclaim his innocence and critique the prosecution. [RJ]
  • A last minute attempt to change the sex offender registration law before it goes into effect next month. [RJ]
  • The extortion case with the prominent anonymous local businessman was back in the news. [RJ]
  • No preliminary injunction for the woman banned from the library district after her open carry incident. [RJ]
  • Starting in 2017, Las Vegas will be the home of an NHL team. [RJ]
  • First a hockey, then maybe a football, baseball, and/or soccer team? [NY Times]

23 comments:

  1. The affirmative action case boggles my mind. How can we be over a decade into this century, yet still think we need to provide a qualifier based on someone’s ethnicity or skin color to measure their accomplishments? Why not judge them based on their efforts alone? How is it fair for Asian-Americans to have to preform significantly better than a similarly situated white/black candidate just to get equal treatment? It is an antiquated policy that needs to be retired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am torn between pro and anti affirmative action. I am anti for the reasons you listed above, but I am also pro because there are still many minorities that are living in a much lower and unequal socioeconomic conditions, and many of the public schools (just like many of ours in Nevada) are piss poor and do not provide adequate or competent education. i will admit I am a minority (not black, and do have the advantage of looking white) that may or may not have been a product of affirmative action (i ultimately will never know), although I did achieve above average results in mixed race area high school and community college (in CA) and ended up in a top 3 public university in the country. I also find it ironic that Clarence Thomas, who went to Yale and has openly stated he believes his accomplishments were buoyed by AA, is very anti-AA. Now that, to me, is a real irony. I also think Justice Thomas is an "uncle Tom"

      Delete
    2. Tell that to the kids born and raised in East St. Louis (and elsewhere) with substantially fewer opportunities to succeed than the average student.

      Delete
    3. Asian-Americans, it's now official. To the extent SCOTUS recognizes you exist at all in the context of affirmative action, it considers you to be white. Welcome aboard, I guess.

      9:22, your "pro" argument is for economic-based affirmative action, not race-based. Statistically, more racial minorities will benefit from economic-based affirmative action, but it won't be racist like it is now. Poor whites won't just get screwed based on their skin color, and rich non-whites will have to get by on merit.

      Delete
    4. 9:22, your comment about Justice Thomas is explicitly racist. Also, why is it ironic for someone who benefitted from AA to oppose it generally? I oppose a lot of government programs, but why would I cut off my nose to spite my face by refusing benefits under such a program when I don't have the ability to end the program? It exists, and I can't change it. I'm not going to be a sucker and spurn the benefits.

      Delete
    5. 9:22 here. 9:51, i see what you're saying, and I agree with it at face value since i am not familiar with the actual data as compared with the data i already know. I would surmise that it cannot be that different.

      9:55, my comment about Justice Thomas is not racist. also, i am definitely not a racist. the term "Uncle Tom" comes from the book, Uncle Tom's Cabin. and, for the sake of brevity, the term "Uncle Tom" means any person perceived to be complicit in the oppression of their own group as stated by Wikipedia (yea i know not the best source but you get the idea). Anyway, Justice Thomas as time and again made rulings that are heavily conservative and significantly have a negative affect on minorities, especially blacks. Now, as for a person who reaped the benefits of AA, for Justice Thomas to be completely against is just paradoxical and obviously hypocritical. As one would say, "His entire judicial philosophy is at war with his own biography."

      Anyways, my point is that AA can be a benefit for those who are disadvantaged for socioeconomic reasons out of their control. However, AA is also being misused or mishandled in applying it for the benefit of the greater good of the public. To me, I simply cannot look at the merits of one individual residing and gaining education from Beverly Hills and another from Compton 100% equally (regardless of race). There are inherent differences that obviously will need to be addressed to "level the playing field."

      Delete
    6. 9:55, yes, your comment was racist. You condemned a man for his beliefs based on his race. It doesn't get any more straightforward than that. Everyone knows the origin of the term. That has nothing to do with its substantive merits. It's not totally your fault. You have probably been through schools that have dumped this kind of garbage into your head since an early age, i.e., that a person of a certain race should blindly favor policies that benefit the group to the detriment of the out-group, otherwise he's some kind of a traitor. You should probably critically reexamine your views in this area. If you have substantive arguments to make against Justice Thomas's opinions, by all means make them, and then criticize him for poor reasoning or something. But you criticized him for holding a given opinion, not because it was wrong in substance, but because of his race. That is racist.

      Delete
    7. Would it be racist to offer the non-white honky 9:22 some aloe vera for that burn?

      Delete
    8. I feel bad for poor white, asian and male kids. It used to be a good SAT could make up for lower class upbringing and shitty schools. Now it doesn't matter. Colleges and not looking for intelligence, they are looking for ethnic pedigree. Ridiculous.

      For anyone on the fence about the election this recent crop of SCOTUS decisions brings home the urgency of not voting for Clinton. Her election would mean a generation of Warren court idiocy and subversion of the Republic.

      Delete
    9. You say that like this is the first time EVER any college has used race as a factor in admission, like this never happened in the history of the universe and now the world will end because of the SC decision. Lighten up on the chicken little bullshit, whitey.

      Delete
    10. 12:25. The conservatives had a majority for this decision. Kagan recused herself and Kennedy authored the opinion. The fact that the conservatives couldn't win with the majority shows the frailty of their position. Any consideration of race requires passing strict scrutiny, which the university did. Framing this election about recent decisions with a 4-4 conservative/liberal court denigrates the rule of law. Meritorious positions should win Supreme Court cases, not conservative or liberal majorities.

      Delete
    11. ...says the person who counts Antony Kennedy as a conservative.

      Delete
    12. 9:22 here. I am not going to argue with you over what you perceive as racism based on calling someone an Uncle Tom. Muhammad Ali called Joe Frazier an Uncle Tom. I guess Ali is racist too.

      Delete
    13. No one wants to take on the elephant in the room. The reason whites, asians and blacks perform differently on tests and in school is because of the racial differences in intelligence and ability to defer gratification. You can legislate and affirmative promote all you want, but you cannot overcome this fact.

      Poor Charles Murray. He tried to remind us of a basic scientifically proven truth and they railroaded him for it. I always chuckle when some liberal gloats about wanting to apply "science" to religion, but not to his religion of we-all-be-the-same-mon.

      Delete
    14. 13 foot poles here! Get'cher 13 foot poles here! Get'em while they're hot!

      Delete
    15. 3:26, you don't have to guess. The evidence is readily available to anyone who cares to examine it that Muhammad Ali was a notorious racist.

      www.giantbomb.com/ forums/off-topic-31/muhammad-ali-is-a-racist-it-seems-so-disappointed-542228/

      Delete
    16. Biologically, there is no such thing as a particular "race" of people. We nevertheless categorize groups of people based on their so called "race" when what we are really doing is describing them based on their particular physical characteristics, be it skin color, eye color, etc. To say, then, that there are "racial differences in intelligence and ability" is profoundly misleading and I'm confident Murray would agree with me, as would any social scientist worth his or her salt. The differences in test scores between people with different skin color has nothing to do with skin color - biologically - and everything to do with skin color - socially. Despite knowing, truly knowing, that there are absolutely no meaningful biological differences between any two people of the same gender, people who look a certain way (black) have been and continue to be treated differently than people who are not. Can anyone honestly, credibly claim otherwise? Affirmative action is a response to this fact and an attempt to remedy it. It's not perfect, but it doesn't have to be because, for now, it's constitutional. So anyone who believes affirmative action to be a bad thing should spend a few years living in real city with a high concentration of people who are black living in specific areas/neighborhoods that we know to be poor, filled with shitty schools, drugs and crime - like most of Detroit, South Los Angeles, Hunter's Point, Cleveland, Baltimore, Newark. Take your white kids and move with them to one of those cities or neighborhoods and enroll them in public school and let's see how well they do and then let's talk about how affirmative action is unfair to white people. Although I am a liberal, I know people are not all the same, but I also know it's not because we are, in fact, different; it's because people like 4:10 think we are.

      Delete
  2. On an unrelated note, who are some good private investigators in town who charge less than average, or average, for their services? I am doing a few "locates" for a civil action.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.yelp.com/biz/nova-investigations-and-security-las-vegas

      Delete
  3. Verdict: Stairway to Heaven intro not stolen. Hopefully this nonsense stops.

    The "blurred lines" verdict needs to be overturned or these lawsuits are going to become commonplace. Is there a less cynical reason why this case went forward decades after Stairway was a massive hit and the knowledge of the alleged theft would have been known?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be nonsense if there weren't a freakin' MOUNTAIN of verdicts and settlement through the last few decades giving credit for multiple songs that Led Zepplin stole from other artists. This had nothing to do with the Blurred Lines verdict, Led Zepplin has been paying the real creators of the music they play for decades.

      Delete
  4. Can someone paraphrase the SCOTUS DUI case? Pretty please. I'm lazy and don't want to read it myself but it sounds interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. States can make it a crime to refuse a breath test, but not a blood test following an arrest. A warrant is need for blood tests, but not breath tests because the intrusion on privacy and other interests is greater with the blood test. It does not matter if there is time to get a warrant for a breath test because it is a categorical exception, not a case-by-case determination.

      Delete