Radio LIVE (Featuring @NotJeff_) 12/14/21
Added 2021-12-15 04:32:57 +0000 UTC
Comments
Maybe this was covered on the stream, but Louie is only a quarter Mexican, his paternal grandfather fled Europe (I’ll leave this open to interpretation), his mother was an American Catholic, and he can’t really speak Spanish, so guy might not be white in an American sense, but he’s hardly Mexican.
Warren Oates
2021-12-17 00:06:16 +0000 UTCHey fellas, I dmed you guys before on Twitter re constitutional stuff like disparate impact. I deleted Twitter but still on here. Was just going to say re the 14th Amendment that you’re pretty much right about it’s impact and how it’s used as the “I win” card for progressives (lol). But I think you’re misapplying the “point” of it — I think Maarek briefly said the word “incorporation” but that’s really the point. It’s more of an anti-federalism thing than a woke thing. It basically just makes the Bill of Rights and constitution apply to the State governments. Previously, it only applied to the federal government. Though like I said, they do use it for that now, you are correct. But the reason why isn’t always clear. Like with Roe, you’re right that they located it in the 14th Amendment — but they didn’t really have to, there are multiple other sources they could use, including the 9th Amendment which is basically carte Blanche to create any “rights” you want. The 14th Amendment has two main clauses the court: the “due process” clause and the “equal protection” clause. The “equal protection” clause is basically what you guys are saying, it means you essentially have to treat everyone the same under the law, regardless of race etc. It’s also partially related to “disparate impact,” but as it stands now the court has ruled that disparate impact doesn’t work with the 14th Amendment — it only works with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The “due process” clause is essentially the same as the 5th Amendment. They’ve twisted “due process” into two things they call “procedural due process” and “substantive due process.” The “procedural due process” is probably what you think of and what was intended (and intended by the 5th Amendment) — things like a fair trial. The “substantive due process” is basically an excuse to make up new “rights” that can’t be infringed by the government (and especially because of the 14th Amendment, state governments). So like with Roe, the court says abortion is part of the “right to privacy” which is a nebulous aspect of the “liberty” that the 14th Amendment says can’t be infringed without the “due process” of law. This means, basically, the court gets to apply a different standard (“heightened scrutiny”) to any law a (state) government makes regarding abortion. The default standard is that laws passed by a legislature are given deference (the legal standard is called “rational basis review”) — basically this means that as long as the law has some rational basis, and meets all the regular requirements, it will be upheld. But “heightened scrutiny” (the court tries to differentiate between levels but it’s all bullshit…) means that the court gets to take an extra close look and decide for itself if a law doesn’t unnecessarily infringe on our rights (which they also get to essentially arbitrarily create by stretching the “due process” clause). In practice this usually means anything subject to “rational basis review” stands and anything with “heightened scrutiny” gets tossed or heavily modified. Ironically, Maarek mentioned Lochner. Lochner is funny because it’s basically held up as one of the worst decisions from the court; so the court tries constantly to distinguish itself from the previous regime (much like that court did with the Dredd Scott court). But the primary thing about Lochner is, what’s supposed to be bad about it, was that it was the court overreaching on striking down legislation. In that time, it was the court striking down various New Deal legislation, which was primary economic, etc. So this has led to the legislature basically having total control free pass to “rational basis review” for anything economic (which these days is generally bad). But these days obviously the court has total control over social issues. They strike down legislation constantly, much like the Lochner court. I.e striking down abortion laws, marriage laws, etc. This is all generally part of the old conservative type complaint about “legislating from the bench” etc.
G J
2021-12-16 08:47:57 +0000 UTC
