Believe it or not, this is very similar to what happened with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and Brown v. Board.
There were entire State Supreme Courts that ignored some of the rulings because they declared SCOTUS's ruling unconstitutional. Even when Eisenhower sent troops, all that did was dig in the heels of the judiciary. It ended up taking the federal courts decades to reign in the state courts by basically replacing all of the old judges. Forcing it doesn't work.
Instead, like what's been happening with the Bruin case, you have to let them be retarded and bring thousands of lawsuits, including hundreds of class action lawsuits, one at a time. Each time making each lawyer, and each judge, get repeatedly decided against, one by one, until it becomes clear that even litigating the damn thing is a hopeless cause. Worse, you could be risking a larger court decision that not only ratifies SCOTUS's original point, but expands on it.
We all know what the aim is, but the language it's couched in is that of equality.
I guess a lot of it comes down to how easy CA makes it to "prove" racially-based over-charging by the prosecution.
However, the real point of this seems to be to send a message to prosecutors - those that aren't Soros-funded and minded to do so anyway - just drop cases against minorities.
I have some friends and relatives in California who live in red areas and they think they can make it red again whenever I try to tell them to move out
They're never going to make California red. The only chance they'll have is if states start splitting because of clear evidence that the governing body is legislating benefit to the mega-urban cities and harm to the rural communities.
Texas will not go blue for the same reason that California will never go red. Over a million California Republicans have moved out of state, mostly to Texas. It’s numerically impossible for Republicans to win in California now.
It's become clear that the whole world needs to split off from the mega-urban cities. They are a foreign cancer occupying and tyrannizing people in the countryside that still follow their national values, whatever nation that is. To prevent the problem u/alucard13mmfmj brings up, there needs to be laws that reduce or completely eliminate the voting power of cities. For example electoral colleges. Or just say if your population density is over X sorry you don't get a vote in what happens.
Also get rid of "capitol cities" and make sure the government is distributed across random community centers and churches or run out of some guy's trailer.
Completely disagree, and u/Smith1980 's friends are right to try.
As the state's condition worsens, the red areas have to just actually use power to break up the institutional power of the cities, mostly by dissolving the cities institutions and bureaucracies. Frankly, a lot of these places could probably go red except for institutional corruption. It's just that the right doesn't know how to properly fight and conquer their opponents.
Look at Ohio and Florida. Both used to be swing states, now both are becoming blood red. The political maps in the US change, sometimes very hard. Hell, there hasn't been a "Solid South" in about 30 years, and it used to be a one-party state.
Let’s see if your friends are willing to make some sacrifices. Because things will get a whole lot worse for them before it gets any better. And even if they somehow get a Republican in California, they still inherited a corrupted shithole.
u/Dekachin was right when he said “Americans vote with their feet”.
Sheeet, if I's a 80-90 IQ criminal, the biggest thought in my life is "Why am I getting sentenced 100% in Missouri when I'd get sentenced 60% in California."
Great way to reverse the exodus of California population and incentivize doctors and lawyers to take their "biznus" there.
Then, in 5 years when all the liberals have fled the consequences of their own policies, the conservatives tasked with rebuilding can simply jail people for being black without having to wait for them to commit a crime.
This is happening because we continue to deny real racial/ethnic differences. When all legal barriers to success have been removed, and one demographic continues to experience bad outcomes directly proportionate to their bad decisions, then the “blank slate” retards must create special advantages for that demographic in order to normalize results. If we could simply say “blacks have, on average, lower IQs, and this leads to worse outcomes in virtually all situations”, then the policy demands might have some justification. It would be ugly, but it would be honest.
Instead, we have to pretend that blacks experience bad outcomes for every reason except their own behavior, and the special advantages we give them are not to counteract any inherent disadvantages but rather to compensate for all of the nebulous and unfalsifiable evil we commit against them.
Generally speaking, it’s been permissible for government agencies to enact policies that specifically address past racial discrimination by that same agency. I doubt this narrow band of permissibility will extend to half-baked CRT theories about general unfairness to minorities in the legal system. Quite apart from the standard woke stupidity of acting like actions toward people now make up for or assuage past advantages/disadvantages granted to people who happen to share a supposed characteristic with the modern person, it’s going to be very hard to prove that the broad judicial discretion as to penalties for persons convicted by juries of their peers has (1) been “abused” to an actionable extent or (2) ought to be limited in a discriminatory way. On (2), it’s one thing if the legislature duly rewrites a criminal statute to narrow or reduce the allowable penalty range for EVERYBODY, but it’s quite another to say “consider lowering it for only some people.” It won’t survive SCOTUS review, though a few lucky criminals may get reduced sentences until the challenge works its way up, if the policy is in fact implemented. (I’d say that even in Commiefornia, that’s not guaranteed to happen).
The problem we’re running into is this: if leftist courts uphold leftist legislation for 11 months out of every year, with the 12th and final month being reserved for correct constitutional rule of law, then how are we not living under de facto communist rule? At some point, the Supreme Court needs to address the routine abuses of the lower courts. We can’t continue to live under a system where every decision handed down by our Supreme Court is just an invitation for the commies to get creative.
I agree fully, and unfortunately that’s just a systemic problem, no matter who is on the Supreme Court - the other “side” will always get creative with its local laws wherever it has power and the laws will last a little while, at least, since SCOTUS can’t touch them until a case comes before it that lets it rule on the general type of law at least, if not the specific law itself. My best take on how to solve the problem in the existing system is for the federal Courts of Appeals to do their jobs better. But even then those courts have known biases, same as SCOTUS: so with our current conservative SCOTUS, a liberal state within a conservative Circuit Court’s territory would quickly see a knowingly BS law struck down, but a liberal state within a liberal Circuit Court’s territory will see the law upheld until the very last challenge at SCOTUS. I expect to see a lot of BS continuing to come out of the West Coast states, for example, since the 9th Circuit is just about Communist itself and will uphold whatever SJW nonsense those states pass until SCOTUS can finally toss the nonsense out.
Another day, another effort by Democrats to pass a blatantly unconstitutional law.
Immediately after the Supreme Court announces their decision no less.
Frankly there should be harsh, harsh penalties for wasting the courts time by purposefully ignoring SC decisions.
Ignoring the SC is a democrat tradition as far back as Andrew Jackson:
“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
It doesn't work well when they do.
Believe it or not, this is very similar to what happened with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and Brown v. Board.
There were entire State Supreme Courts that ignored some of the rulings because they declared SCOTUS's ruling unconstitutional. Even when Eisenhower sent troops, all that did was dig in the heels of the judiciary. It ended up taking the federal courts decades to reign in the state courts by basically replacing all of the old judges. Forcing it doesn't work.
Instead, like what's been happening with the Bruin case, you have to let them be retarded and bring thousands of lawsuits, including hundreds of class action lawsuits, one at a time. Each time making each lawyer, and each judge, get repeatedly decided against, one by one, until it becomes clear that even litigating the damn thing is a hopeless cause. Worse, you could be risking a larger court decision that not only ratifies SCOTUS's original point, but expands on it.
I'm not sure it is, you know.
We all know what the aim is, but the language it's couched in is that of equality.
I guess a lot of it comes down to how easy CA makes it to "prove" racially-based over-charging by the prosecution.
However, the real point of this seems to be to send a message to prosecutors - those that aren't Soros-funded and minded to do so anyway - just drop cases against minorities.
It's already inshrined in law in Canada btw.
With the predictable outcome of even more violent but diverse criminals ruining the country.
I have some friends and relatives in California who live in red areas and they think they can make it red again whenever I try to tell them to move out
They're never going to make California red. The only chance they'll have is if states start splitting because of clear evidence that the governing body is legislating benefit to the mega-urban cities and harm to the rural communities.
Agreed. I live in Texas and I frequently worry about it flipping. Although I’m noticing a shift to red by a number of Hispanics.
Texas will not go blue for the same reason that California will never go red. Over a million California Republicans have moved out of state, mostly to Texas. It’s numerically impossible for Republicans to win in California now.
That’s why I stopped getting mad about Californians moving here. I learned they were mostly Republicans fed up with California
Problem is lets say north california splits and its red. It will eventually form its own liberal metro urban cities and the cycle starts again.
Reasons why authoritarian, nationalist fascism is great
It's become clear that the whole world needs to split off from the mega-urban cities. They are a foreign cancer occupying and tyrannizing people in the countryside that still follow their national values, whatever nation that is. To prevent the problem u/alucard13mmfmj brings up, there needs to be laws that reduce or completely eliminate the voting power of cities. For example electoral colleges. Or just say if your population density is over X sorry you don't get a vote in what happens.
Also get rid of "capitol cities" and make sure the government is distributed across random community centers and churches or run out of some guy's trailer.
.>Gruesome Newsome calls an Article V convention
.>Cali, New Yawk, Chiraq, Disastertown and New Jersey South don't like the results, but the other 64 states do.
Completely disagree, and u/Smith1980 's friends are right to try.
As the state's condition worsens, the red areas have to just actually use power to break up the institutional power of the cities, mostly by dissolving the cities institutions and bureaucracies. Frankly, a lot of these places could probably go red except for institutional corruption. It's just that the right doesn't know how to properly fight and conquer their opponents.
Look at Ohio and Florida. Both used to be swing states, now both are becoming blood red. The political maps in the US change, sometimes very hard. Hell, there hasn't been a "Solid South" in about 30 years, and it used to be a one-party state.
You aren’t wrong. I guess it just seems an impossible task in California
Let’s see if your friends are willing to make some sacrifices. Because things will get a whole lot worse for them before it gets any better. And even if they somehow get a Republican in California, they still inherited a corrupted shithole.
u/Dekachin was right when he said “Americans vote with their feet”.
Sheeet, if I's a 80-90 IQ criminal, the biggest thought in my life is "Why am I getting sentenced 100% in Missouri when I'd get sentenced 60% in California."
Great way to reverse the exodus of California population and incentivize doctors and lawyers to take their "biznus" there.
Yes, please do this.
Then, in 5 years when all the liberals have fled the consequences of their own policies, the conservatives tasked with rebuilding can simply jail people for being black without having to wait for them to commit a crime.
Anarcho-tyranny based on race/ethnicity? Sure, let’s get that ball rolling lol
Be black - get mugged by another race :
Be white - get mugged :
The “justice is blind” legal system is being destroyed by Marxist activists.
This is happening because we continue to deny real racial/ethnic differences. When all legal barriers to success have been removed, and one demographic continues to experience bad outcomes directly proportionate to their bad decisions, then the “blank slate” retards must create special advantages for that demographic in order to normalize results. If we could simply say “blacks have, on average, lower IQs, and this leads to worse outcomes in virtually all situations”, then the policy demands might have some justification. It would be ugly, but it would be honest.
Instead, we have to pretend that blacks experience bad outcomes for every reason except their own behavior, and the special advantages we give them are not to counteract any inherent disadvantages but rather to compensate for all of the nebulous and unfalsifiable evil we commit against them.
Marxists value neither justice nor law.
Be black - get murdered by another Nig
MFW blacks don't actually want to be judged on the content of their character.
Generally speaking, it’s been permissible for government agencies to enact policies that specifically address past racial discrimination by that same agency. I doubt this narrow band of permissibility will extend to half-baked CRT theories about general unfairness to minorities in the legal system. Quite apart from the standard woke stupidity of acting like actions toward people now make up for or assuage past advantages/disadvantages granted to people who happen to share a supposed characteristic with the modern person, it’s going to be very hard to prove that the broad judicial discretion as to penalties for persons convicted by juries of their peers has (1) been “abused” to an actionable extent or (2) ought to be limited in a discriminatory way. On (2), it’s one thing if the legislature duly rewrites a criminal statute to narrow or reduce the allowable penalty range for EVERYBODY, but it’s quite another to say “consider lowering it for only some people.” It won’t survive SCOTUS review, though a few lucky criminals may get reduced sentences until the challenge works its way up, if the policy is in fact implemented. (I’d say that even in Commiefornia, that’s not guaranteed to happen).
The problem we’re running into is this: if leftist courts uphold leftist legislation for 11 months out of every year, with the 12th and final month being reserved for correct constitutional rule of law, then how are we not living under de facto communist rule? At some point, the Supreme Court needs to address the routine abuses of the lower courts. We can’t continue to live under a system where every decision handed down by our Supreme Court is just an invitation for the commies to get creative.
I agree fully, and unfortunately that’s just a systemic problem, no matter who is on the Supreme Court - the other “side” will always get creative with its local laws wherever it has power and the laws will last a little while, at least, since SCOTUS can’t touch them until a case comes before it that lets it rule on the general type of law at least, if not the specific law itself. My best take on how to solve the problem in the existing system is for the federal Courts of Appeals to do their jobs better. But even then those courts have known biases, same as SCOTUS: so with our current conservative SCOTUS, a liberal state within a conservative Circuit Court’s territory would quickly see a knowingly BS law struck down, but a liberal state within a liberal Circuit Court’s territory will see the law upheld until the very last challenge at SCOTUS. I expect to see a lot of BS continuing to come out of the West Coast states, for example, since the 9th Circuit is just about Communist itself and will uphold whatever SJW nonsense those states pass until SCOTUS can finally toss the nonsense out.
Unironically, absolutely yes and they explicitly said so in no uncertain terms.