The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

Disallowing discriminatory groups is not discrimination. They are being considered on individual merit of their views.

 

The argument that anyone advocating for social justice or non-discrimination has to allow in racist, homophobic or other hate groups drives me insane.

[bigruss]

Disallowing discriminatory groups is not discrimination. They are being considered on individual merit of their views.

 

The argument that anyone advocating for social justice or non-discrimination has to allow in racist, homophobic or other hate groups drives me insane.

So because it doesnt fit your pattern of morals and beliefs it shouldnt be allowed?

[bmags]

just an fyi, any argument that begins with a definition is usually an awful one.

[StrangeSox]

Because it fits a clear definition of discrimination, it doesn't need to be officially recognized by a state university. They are still free to form their group and even have meetings on campus.

[bmags]

they would also probably be officially recognized if they stated they didn't believe in homosexuality, but still allowed gay members in their group.

[Jenksismyhero]

His entire argument is just an attempt to twist a non-discrimination policy back around on itself. He's arguing that they're discriminating against people who discriminate. It's the legal version of the "why do you hate racists?! I thought liberals were supposed to be open-minded!" argument. That is a pretty stupid argument.

 

They are. He's saying it's not constitutional for a school to say "hey, any group whatsoever can be formed and recieve X benefits" and then specifically deny one group those same benefits because of a specific belief. And not only did they do that, but they also ignored the fact that other groups were doing the SAME thing and they only did that because of that one specific belief. That's not constitutional.

 

 

I wouldn't have a problem if the University refused to grant official recognition to an atheist group that denied membership to religious people or required some silly "oath of faith." Plenty of minority groups on college campuses have a specific focus but let in anyone who wants to join. You can join the Korean Lawers group without being Korean.

 

They didn't deny them because they hate gays, they denied them because they refused memberships to gays, jews, muslims, etc. etc. If we follow Alito's brilliant argument, what stops the school from being forced to recognize a local Stormfront, KKK or other racist organization? You can't discriminate against discrimination, man!

 

That's actually a major tenet in freedom of speech/association jurisprudence. You can't, and you shouldn't. That's called the government (school) picking out specific beliefs and saying "that's not right." You're not allowed to do that IF you've set up a non-discriminatory policy which was the case here.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Because it fits a clear definition of discrimination, it doesn't need to be officially recognized by a state university. They are still free to form their group and even have meetings on campus.

 

but you're ignoring the part where the offered up those benefits to ANYONE. Alito's whole point is that the Court is setting some dangerous precedent, and they are.

 

This is also a different case because no one is actually claiming they were left out of the group. The school just looked at the membership requirements and said it's not ok based on nothing more than the "beliefs" of the group.

[bigruss]

They are. He's saying it's not constitutional for a school to say "hey, any group whatsoever can be performed and recieve X benefits" and then specifically deny one group those same benefits because of a specific belief. And not only did they do that, but they also ignored the fact that other groups were doing the SAME thing and they only did that because of that one specific belief. That's not constitutional.

 

 

 

 

That's actually a major tenant in freedom of speech/association jurisprudence. You can't, and you shouldn't. That's called the government (school) picking out specific beliefs and saying "that's not right." You're not allowed to do that IF you've set up a non-discriminatory policy which was the case here.

Very well said, totally agree.

[StrangeSox]

They are. He's saying it's not constitutional for a school to say "hey, any group whatsoever can be performed and recieve X benefits" and then specifically deny one group those same benefits because of a specific belief. And not only did they do that, but they also ignored the fact that other groups were doing the SAME thing and they only did that because of that one specific belief. That's not constitutional.

 

The school said "hey, any group whatsoever that meets our administrative guidelines..." Don't leave that out. They did it because the group excluded some classes of people in a manner that violated non-discrimination pretty blatantly (religious and sexual orientation exclusion), not because of their beliefs. And, recognizing the potential problem, the other groups were told to change. If CLA modified their standards, they would likely be admitted.

 

That's actually a major tenant in freedom of speech/association jurisprudence. You can't, and you shouldn't. That's called the government (school) picking out specific beliefs and saying "that's not right." You're not allowed to do that IF you've set up a non-discriminatory policy which was the case here.

 

But you're right back to a very stupid, meaningless definition of non-discrimination. Under Alito's (and your's and russ's) reasoning, a KKK group could apply for official status with a whites-only membership policy and cry "discrimination!" A non-discrimination policy doesn't mean that the school is forced to accept any and all membership applications, even from blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic etc. groups. That is an absurd position to hold. Go read Stevens' affirmation. He lays this out very well.

 

From the majority opinion:

 

27CLS briefly argues that Hastings’ all-comers condition violates the Free Exercise Clause. Brief for Petitioner 40–41. Our decision in Smith, 494 U. S. 872, forecloses that argument. In Smith, the Court held that the Free Exercise Clause does not inhibit enforcement of otherwise valid regulations of general application that incidentally burden religious conduct. Id., at 878–882. In seeking an exemptionfrom Hastings’ across-the-board all-comers policy, CLS, we repeat, seeks preferential, not equal, treatment; it therefore cannot moor its request for accommodation to the Free Exercise Clause.

28Finding the Ninth Circuit’s analysis cursory, the dissent

 

but you're ignoring the part where the offered up those benefits to ANYONE. Alito's whole point is that the Court is setting some dangerous precedent, and they are.

 

This is also a different case because no one is actually claiming they were left out of the group. The school just looked at the membership requirements and said it's not ok based on nothing more than the "beliefs" of the group.

 

Alito's whole point is nonsensical. Stevens explains this and points out numerous flaws and crap definitions in the dissent. The school is allowed to review membership requirements and refuse official recognition based on a non-discrimination policy. They don't need to grant them recognition first, knowing full well what their policies are, and then wait until someone tries to join and is denied. And you're wrong here, because they denied application based on the "stated membership requirements" of the group. Explained here:

 

The Law School’s policy aims at the act of rejecting would-be group members without reference to the reasons motivating that behavior: Hastings’ “desire to redress th[e] perceived harms” of exclusionary membership policies “provides an adequate explanation for its [allcomers condition] over and above mere disagreement with [any student group’s] beliefs or biases.”

 

And, now that this is settled law, I can simply say "you are wrong. It is Constitutional".

Edited June 29, 2010 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

The reason why I was completely unsurprised on who dissented is that I don't expect they'd have the same arguments for a White Supremacist group or an Islamic Caliphate in America group.

[StrangeSox]

The main opinion explains it well, and again punches many holes through Alito's position over and over.

 

15The dissent relies heavily on Healy, post, at 13–17, but its otherwise exhaustive account of the case elides the very fact the Healy Court identified as dispositive: The president of the college explicitly denied the student group official recognition because of the group’s viewpoint. See 408 U. S, at 187 (“The mere disagreement of the President with the group’s philosophy affords no reason to deny it recognition.”). In this case, in contrast, Hastings denied CLS recognition not because the school wanted to silence the “viewpoint that CLS sought to express through its membership requirements,” post, at 17, n. 2, but because CLS, insisting on preferential treatment, declined to comply with theopen-access policy applicable to all RSOs,

[StrangeSox]

More sloppy legal reasoning from Alito:

17Although the dissent maintains it is “content to address the constitutionality of Hastings’ actions under our limited public forum cases,” post, at 17, it resists the import of those cases at every turn. For example, although the dissent acknowledges that a university has the authority to set the boundaries of a limited public forum, post, at 17, 24, the dissent refuses to credit Hastings’ all-comers policy as one of thoseboundaries. See ibid. (insisting that “Hastings’ regulations . . . imposeonly two substantive limitations: A group . . . must have student members and must be non-commercial.”). In short, “the design of the RSO forum,” post, at 26, which the dissent discusses at length, post, at 24–31, is of its own tailoring.

 

Another example: The dissent pointedly observes that “[w]hile there can be no question that the State of California could not impose [an allcomers] restrictio[n] on all religious groups in the State, the Court now holds that Hastings, a state institution, may impose these very same requirements on students who wish to participate in a forum that isdesigned to foster the expression of diverse viewpoints.” Post, at 27. As noted supra, at 12–13, and n. 11, this difference reflects the lesser standard of scrutiny applicable to limited public forums compared toother forums. The dissent fights the distinction between state prohibi-tion and state support, but its real quarrel is with our limited publicforum doctrine, which recognizes that distinction. CLS, it bears repetition, remains free to express whatever it will, but it cannot insist on anexemption from Hastings’ embracive all-comers policy.

 

25Relying exclusively on Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U. S. 217 (2000), the dissent “would not be so quick to jump to th[e] conclusion” that the all-comers policy is viewpoint neutral. Post, at 31, and 31–32, n. 10. Careful consideration of South-worth, however, reveals how desperate the dissent’s argument is. In Southworth, university students challenged a mandatory studentactivity fee used to fund student groups. Finding the political and ideological speech of certain groups offensive, the student-challengers argued that imposition of the fee violated their First Amendment rights. 529 U. S., at 221. This Court upheld the university’s choice to subsidize groups whose expression some students found distasteful, butwe admonished that the university could not “prefer some viewpoints toothers” in the distribution of funds. Id., at 233. We cautioned that the university’s referendum process, which allowed students to vote onwhether a student organization would receive financial support, risked violation of this principle by allowing students to select groups to fundbased on their viewpoints. Id., at 235. In this case, in contrast, the allcomers policy governs all RSOs; Hastings does not pick and choose which organizations must comply with the policy on the basis of viewpoint. App. 221. Southworth accordingly provides no support for the dissent’s warped analysis.

 

I feel sorry for the rest of the justices that have to serve with someone who is so clearly their inferior. That includes the rest of the dissenters.

 

Stevens all but calling Alito a moron without a leg to stand on:

 

3In a case about an antidiscrimination policy that, even if ill-advised, is explicitly directed at preventing religious discrimination, it is rather hard to swallow the dissent’s ominous closing remarks. See post, at 37 (suggesting that today’s decision “point a judicial dagger at the heartof” religious groups in the United States (internal quotation marksomitted)). Although the dissent is willing to see pernicious antireligi-ous motives and implications where there are none, it does not seem troubled by the fact that religious sects, unfortunately, are not the only social groups who have been persecuted throughout history simply for being who they are.

 

and again explaining why CLS's and Alito's arguments are invalid:

In this case, petitioner excludes students who will not sign its Statement of Faith or who engage in “unrepentant homosexual conduct,” App. 226. The expressive associa-tion argument it presses, however, is hardly limited tothese facts. Other groups may exclude or mistreat Jews,blacks, and women—or those who do not share their con-tempt for Jews, blacks, and women. A free society must tolerate such groups. It need not subsidize them, give them its official imprimatur, or grant them equal access tolaw school facilities.

Edited June 29, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

The school said "hey, any group whatsoever that meets our administrative guidelines..." Don't leave that out. They did it because the group excluded some classes of people in a manner that violated non-discrimination pretty blatantly (religious and sexual orientation exclusion), not because of their beliefs. And, recognizing the potential problem, the other groups were told to change. If CLA modified their standards, they would likely be admitted.

 

The problem is, as Alito points out, that when the group was denied the benefits the school DID have a policy that was NON-DISCRIMANATORY, yet despite having the same membership requirments, only this group was denied. You're right, they did EVENTUALLY change their policy, and attempted to back track during the case by saying that was the policy all along, but it wasn't. Just because they remedied the wrong and made it more "fair" doesn't mean the wrong didn't occur. That's why Alito attacked that lame ass excuse that during that time the group wasn't discriminated against "all that much."

 

And you still haven't responded. How is this different than an environmental group denying people membership because a potential member doesn't believe what they believe? It's the same thing. They're NOT discriminating on anything but BELIEF, which is entirely different than the discrimination you're trying to bring in here.

 

 

But you're right back to a very stupid, meaningless definition of non-discrimination. Under Alito's (and your's and russ's) reasoning, a KKK group could apply for official status with a whites-only membership policy and cry "discrimination!" A non-discrimination policy doesn't mean that the school is forced to accept any and all membership applications, even from blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic etc. groups. That is an absurd position to hold. Go read Stevens' affirmation. He lays this out very well.

 

Well, your position is equally as "stupid" because to you the word "discrimination" apparently is only used for certain purposes, i.e., whatever you choose is worthy of discrimination. Constitution is blind remember? It treats people equally remember? There's a clear difference between this case and a KKK group not allowing blacks in. This is all based on BELIEFS, not physical traits.

 

 

Alito's whole point is nonsensical. Stevens explains this and points out numerous flaws and crap definitions in the dissent. The school is allowed to review membership requirements and refuse official recognition based on a non-discrimination policy. They don't need to grant them recognition first, knowing full well what their policies are, and then wait until someone tries to join and is denied. And you're wrong here, because they denied application based on the "stated membership requirements" of the group.

 

You're just ignoring the facts here. Again, they had a NON-DISCRIMINATORY policy to begin with, and they denied this group, and ONLY this group, those benefits, and ONLY because of a specific belief that they didn't agree with. Then LATER they re-evaluated their policy and made other groups change (precisely because they knew they f***ed up). They claim diversity of beliefs is a great thing. Then they back tracked on that.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

More sloppy legal reasoning from Alito:

 

 

 

 

I feel sorry for the rest of the justices that have to serve with someone who is so clearly their inferior. That includes the rest of the dissenters.

 

Stevens all but calling Alito a moron without a leg to stand on:

 

Lol, I'm done.

[StrangeSox]

To clarify that statement, I feel sorry for the rest of the dissenters as well. Alito is not qualified for this job. Both the majority opinion and Stevens show where he's just making things up or being incredibly selective in his dissent.

Edited June 29, 2010 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

The problem is, as Alito points out, that when the group was denied the benefits the school DID have a policy that was NON-DISCRIMANATORY, yet despite having the same membership requirments, only this group was denied. You're right, they did EVENTUALLY change their policy, and attempted to back track during the case by saying that was the policy all along, but it wasn't. Just because they remedied the wrong and made it more "fair" doesn't mean the wrong didn't occur. That's why Alito attacked that lame ass excuse that during that time the group wasn't discriminated against "all that much."

 

Did you read the majority opinion? They address Alito's argument on this very point. CSL agreed that the current policy is what's at stake here. They don't have to be retroactively admitted under an old policy and then grandfathered in forever.

 

6The dissent spills considerable ink attempting to create uncertaintyabout when the all-comers policy was adopted. See post, at 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11. What counts, however, is the parties’ unqualified agreement that the all-comers policy currently governs. CLS’s suit, after all, seeks only declaratory and injunctive—that is, prospective—relief. See App.

 

And you still haven't responded. How is this different than an environmental group denying people membership because a potential member doesn't believe what they believe? It's the same thing. They're NOT discriminating on anything but BELIEF, which is entirely different than the discrimination you're trying to bring in here.

 

I responded to your hypothetical atheist group example right away. It was a poor choice because 1) I hate evangelical atheists and 2) I'm not an atheist. If they really do have an all-comers policy, as is agreed by both Hastings, CSL and the majority (but strangely not by Alito), then those groups should be corrected. They have been. Future groups should not be let in if they have similar policies. What is the problem, again?

 

 

 

 

Well, your position is equally as "stupid" because to you the word "discrimination" apparently is only used for certain purposes, i.e., whatever you choose is worthy of discrimination.

 

No. This is just the common argument that "if you're so tolerant, you can't be intolerant of intolerance!" It's redefining terms into meaninglessness. It's akin to the "no true altruism" argument.

 

Constitution is blind remember? It treats people equally remember? There's a clear difference between this case and a KKK group not allowing blacks in. This is all based on BELIEFS, not physical traits.

 

Ok, a neo-Nazi group not letting in Jews.

 

Also, being gay is not a belief.

 

 

 

 

You're just ignoring the facts here. Again, they had a NON-DISCRIMINATORY policy to begin with, and they denied this group, and ONLY this group, those benefits, and ONLY because of a specific belief that they didn't agree with. Then LATER they re-evaluated their policy and made other groups change (precisely because they knew they f***ed up). They claim diversity of beliefs is a great thing. Then they back tracked on that.

 

Eh, no, they didn't, please read the majority opinion or both consenting to see where you're wrong instead of Alito's nonsense.

[StrangeSox]

Jenks, you're disagreeing with the entire legal argument the majority is presenting. As I see it, you're saying state schools should not be allowed to have any form of non-discrimination policy for RSO's because it will 'discriminate' (using your novel definition of the term) against some groups. Precedent and now this decision strongly disagree.

[Balta1701]

The Kennedy school releases a study consistently finding that the news media referred to waterboarding almost unequivocally as torture until 2002.

[Balta1701]

The Democratic National Committee has named four cities as finalists to host the 2012 Democratic convention.

 

The potential sites for the convention, to be held during the week of September 3, 2012, are St. Louis, Charlotte, Minneapolis and Cleveland.

Interesting list. The RNC has already chosen Tampa. The only one on the list I'd disagree with is Minny, because they just hosted the RNC. At some level, all 4 are swing state locations.

[bmags]

go missouri...

[Balta1701]

[BigSqwert]

How many of those are Kap?

[kapkomet]

How many of those are Kap?

 

Good question.

 

I can't spend a lot of time right now but I will read that really closely and come up with one for me.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Man, Steele really has some memory issues...

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele may be misremembering exactly how and when the Afghanistan war began.

 

At a Republican Party fundraiser in Connecticut on Thursday, Steele declared that the war in Afghanistan "was a war of Obama's choosing" that America had not "actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in," in a response to an attendee's question about the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal -- which Steele called "very comical."

 

"The McChrystal incident, to me, was very comical. And I think it's a reflection of the frustration that a lot of our military leaders have with this Administration and their prosecution of the war in Afghanistan," said Steele. "Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

 

6 Months Ago...

"Although this decision took far too long and it should not have, I am glad the president will finally provide General McChrystal with the troops he needs," Steele said in December in response to President Obama's decision to greenlight a surge in Afghanistan. "However, tonight's speech must be the beginning, not the end, of the case President Obama makes to the American people as to why this is, as he said during the campaign, 'a war we have to win.' If the president remains committed to this crucial fight, Republicans - and the American people - will stand with him. But sending mixed signals by outlining the exit before these troops even get on the ground undermines their ability to succeed."

Edited July 2, 2010 by Athomeboy_2000

[StrangeSox]

Don't you remember Obama choosing to invade Afghanistan in 2001? Bush was just an Obama puppet.

 

I'm shocked that Steele is talking out of both sides of his ass. Shocked!