The mindset of the executive has no bearing on the Constitutionality of the order. the actually LANGUAGE of the order is what must be judged.
Whelp. So that is a syntactically valid combination of English words, but it turns out the idea it expresses is exactly wrong.
If your statement is taken generally ("The mindset of [a President] has no bearing on the Constitutionality of [an] order]"), then both 1st and 14th Amendment jurisprudence are against you.
Discriminatory intent is, in fact, *the* necessary element that transforms
-a facially neutral government action-
-that imposes a disproportionate burden on a protected class-
-from a perfectly valid (even though disproportionately impactful) action-
-into a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
(Note: We'll get to the 1st Amendment further below, since that's what is directly in play with the Travel Ban. We start at the 14th because it's a long-historied branch of case law that SCOTUS continually leans on as analogous in its 1st Amendment "intent" decisions.)
See Washington v. Davis; Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney; et al.
Quote from Davis: "to the extent that Palmer suggests a generally applicable proposition that legislative purpose is irrelevant in constitutional adjudication, our prior cases. . . are to the contrary.”
Quote from Hernandez v Woodward (N.D. Ill.): "Time and again over the past two decades, the Court has held that facially neutral laws may run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if they are enacted or enforced with a discriminatory intent."
Quote from Feeney: "[Discriminatory intent] implies that the decisionmaker... selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part 'because of,' not merely 'in spite of,' its adverse effects upon an identifiable group."
To put a finer point on it, critics have for years taken the Supreme Court to task for requiring those who invoke the 14th Amendment to strike down a discriminatory law to prove discriminatory intent in its enactment or enforcement in order to strike down facially neutral government actions that nonetheless have a disparate impact. So, intent is not just *a* thing but *the* thing when it comes to striking down a government action—at least where the 14th Amendment is applicable.
Ah, but if you've read this far, you've had your hand up the entire time, just waiting to make the argument that the 14th doesn't apply to this particular Executive Order because these are non-citizens who are not on U.S. soil. (There may be other ways to bring in the 14th, but the overseas foreign nationals themselves aren't within U.S. jurisdiction so as to enjoy "the equal protection of the laws.")
Ok. But then you'd have to contend with the 1st Amendment, where Establishment Clause (and Free Exercise Clause) jurisprudence has arrived at a similar "intent" space. See Town of Greece v. Galloway; Oregon v. Smith; Lukumi v. Hialeah; et al.
Mind you that the "intent" focus of Galloway is actually a *loosening* of previous strictures on government action in the Establishment space (found in e.g. the endorsement test and the Lemon test). But evidence of actual intent will definitely still get you there. See Alito's concurrence in Galloway: "I would view this case very differently if the omission of these synagogues were intentional." That's the same Alito who today wanted to lift the stay entirely and not just partially. In other words, even the conservative stalwart still sees intent as critical to Establishment Clause questions.
Wait, you say. Should the 1st Amendment even be in play? Well, that's the crux of the biscuit, isn't it? It seems pretty clearly to apply, but Alito may disagree with me on that. I suppose they'll tell us this Fall.
"TGR is a gritty post-metal nü-country mariachi fusion band from Austin that's currently burning up the Central Texas fair and carnival circuit." -- Pitchfork, probably
Eh. I'm pretty sure the "public" in your "public opinion" above doesn't give a hell about this case because:
1) They don't know about this case, nor do they care, nor will they ever.
2) They think this is how things work anyway, because it is. Language is a shared construct and the consensus is "engineer" means you have an engineering degree, while more formal terms ("licensed" or "professional" etc.) signify greater formality when needed.
3) The plaintiff has a commonsense, grokable, gut-feeling-it's-right position. The OR board has a nitpicky, facially counterintuitive position that manages to come across as both unfair and "over-regulatory". Which one sounds like an argument that tends to go over well with "the public"?
4) The public is generally aware of the 1st Amendment and has a vague notion that it's good. To the extent they understand what it protects, I'd wager they believe it covers "stopping the government from fining you for truthfully describing yourself in a public consultation regarding government activity."
5) If you took a nationwide poll of the non-technical folks that make up "the public", asking them why they don't like—or don't trust, or have a low opinion of—engineers and other science-types, "'misrepresenting licensure status' by truthfully communication educational background" wouldn't make the Top 25. In fact, it may not be mentioned once by a single person.
So... no, I don't think this case lowers "public opinion for all engineers." On the other hand, the handwringing pedantry (in favor of the OR board) you see all over this thread probably only reinforces low public opinion of engineers as handwringing pedants.
I was going to point this out, but you saved me the trouble and the negative karma of being a language nazi.
Oh hell, you should try it! Being an absurdist, Funny-mod-seeking, borderline OT, typo nitpicker has been uniformly great for my karma. In fact, I only ever catch any real karmic flak around here for actual opinions—and really just politics modwars at that.
Researchers at MIT used a 3D printing approach to develop a biomimetic composite capable of withstanding 70-85% more resistance than typical helmet designs.
"AGGGHHH TOO MANY OHMS!! LITERALLY 1 MILLION OHMS! I'M NOT... going.. to... hey, wow this is a nice helmet! I really couldn't have withstood that resistance for much longer. Thanks ConchHat, you saved me!"
The US government no longer represents the people.
Shit, you're still using the old talking points they passed out in case Hillary got elected. Didn't you hear Trump won? The government is for the people bigly now. You've never seen a government so "for the people"—it's the most representative.
I'm a lawyer, but not an expert in international labor law, so I'm afraid I can't shed much light on non-US jurisdictions. As for why it's not being done more widely, it is kind of a megadick maneuver that would probably get you fired anyplace where you don't have full support and latitude from your boss and your boss' boss.
This method is illegal in many countries, by the way.
I'm honestly curious what kind of labor laws make it illegal for one employee of a company to charge another employee of that company for the privilege of interrupting them.
Beyond situations where a) the one doing the charging is your boss, or b) the exchange of currency is illegal in your country, I'm having a hard time seeing it.
No, declaring yourself an engineer is a violation of the regulations in most states.
I'm having a hard time even seeing your comment behind the enormous CITATION NEEDED sign.
I'm both an engineer* and a lawyer**, and I'm skeptical that any state would have a law/regulation—much less one that could pass constitutional muster—forbidding you in the abstract from saying, "I'm an engineer." Especially as regards people with degrees in engineering.
Does context matter? Of course. If you're saying, "I'm an engineer!" while inking your signature on a blueprint, that's unlicensed practice (in every jurisdiction that licenses engineers). You can also say "I'm a doctor" even if your doctorate is in Comparative Dishwashing. You just can't say "I'm a doctor" in the course of (here, illegally) attempting to provide medical care or advice.
*By education, but not a certified Professional Engineer.
4. Project Scorpio will achieve six-teraflops of GPU power using a customized design, with 1,172 GHz, 40 compute units, leveraging features from AMD's Polaris architecture.
Can someone who does GPU architecture confirm whether this is a) a typo, b) for real, or c) proof that Microsoft has finally invented a time machine, but is using it to do some oddly mundane shit?**
**Compared to, you know, going back and killing Hitler or snapping a selfie with Actual Jesus.
Man, it's even worse than you know. I've heard from some very reputable sources that:
- There are members of Congress, and Supreme Court justices, who are exempt from the National Fluoridated Water Mind Control Project because they're Skull & Bones Freemasons?
- Everyone born in the USA after 1977 can trace their mitochondrial lineage to a Russian hermaphrodite MKULTRA subject codenamed "Rosebud"?
- The Global Jewish Banking Cartel is behind the so-called "clean energy movement" because inhaling coal ash actually enhances the mental and physical abilities of Muslims and Christians?
- REDACTED
- Cubic Creation of 4 corner separate simultaneous 24 hour Days within 1 Earth rotation - transcends and contradicts the 1 Day rotation/1 God Creation of Christianity - and all ONEism / Singularity religions - proving them to constitute Evil on Earth for the parallel Opposites?
Before the West imported large numbers of Muslims, we did not have . . . somewhere between 6 and 12% of the terrorism we get in the West today.
I fixed that so the viewers at home could see the truth rather than a complete fabrication with no basis in reality. But by all means, don't let factsanddata get in the way of a good old fashioned islamophobic blame-the-brown-people polemic.
The employees of a corporation are not magically transformed into "government officials" under any legal or logical standard, not even when that corporation receives money from the government. Your absurd, post-hoc rationalizing argument means that you also think Catholic Charities, Jewish Federation, Lutheran Services of America, and Habitat for Humanity are government entities and their employees are government officials.
Being a government official has wide ranging legal effects from defamation standards to bribery laws to special criminal penalties for threatening one. Words have meanings, and if you want to talk in a grownup conversation, you should use the real definitions, not the special ones mi made up in his head.
"I went to the smart school and do intellectual things. My boss went to the party school and does PHB things. I think it's pretty clear who's winning here."
It's really gonna blow his mind that pot isn't even the opiate gateway for the rest of teen (any?) abusers, either. Their gateway is not pot but other people's opiate prescriptions. Yup, Oxy and its brethren are pretty much the universal entry point for opiate addiction, and have been for... decades now?
Nobody ever says, "Gee, this marijuana is entertaining, I think I'll go buy a bag of gross dirt that's been in someone's rectum and inject the liquified contents into my arm!"
But I knew kids in HS (20 years ago) who were reduced to writhing-on-the-floor tears when their Oxy connection went dry. It would take more than two hands to count just the kids from my community and age group, that I knew, who've died from opiates, including a dear friend of mine. Dozens more who were or are in the thick of it. And from everything I can gather, not one of them started that journey with an opiate that was illegally produced.
I think this manual would be Exhibit A supporting the truckers. Abstracting the rule from the example: "If your list includes a prepositional phrase that could be construed ambiguously, draft the list so it's no longer ambiguous."
Just like the phrase "of 3,000 pounds gross weight or less" could be modifying one or multiple things, the phrase "for shipment or distribution" could be referring to one or multiple things. It was well within the legislature's power to follow the manual and write it as:
"The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, packing for shipment or distribution, marketing or storing of:"
That's much clearer**, and it doesn't even break up the logical flow of "things you do to move food through the supply chain." Even better, just say "...packing, shipping, distribution..."
**Though even this construction leaves a possible mini-list interpretation at the end. This is but one example of why I always include the fucking Universal Grammatical Separator whenever I need to, you know, grammatically separate things. #oxfordorgtfo
tl;dr: The instruction to omit the Oxford comma is inseparable from the instruction to rewrite the list if such omission leaves it ambiguous.
As a parent, I get how easy it is to be absolutely paralyzed by fear of $everyBadThingEver happening to your child.
If you are that afraid, you should not have children. I don't have any of my own. ..
It's cool, this is one you're just not going to get. No knock, I didn't either—no one does until they're actually responsible for a little human they made. If you do end up going that route, don't be too hard on yourself when you feel those irrational fears. It's hardwired in.
Slashdot Mirror
The mindset of the executive has no bearing on the Constitutionality of the order. the actually LANGUAGE of the order is what must be judged.
Whelp. So that is a syntactically valid combination of English words, but it turns out the idea it expresses is exactly wrong.
... selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part 'because of,' not merely 'in spite of,' its adverse effects upon an identifiable group."
If your statement is taken generally ("The mindset of [a President] has no bearing on the Constitutionality of [an] order]"), then both 1st and 14th Amendment jurisprudence are against you.
Discriminatory intent is, in fact, *the* necessary element that transforms
-a facially neutral government action-
-that imposes a disproportionate burden on a protected class-
-from a perfectly valid (even though disproportionately impactful) action-
-into a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
(Note: We'll get to the 1st Amendment further below, since that's what is directly in play with the Travel Ban. We start at the 14th because it's a long-historied branch of case law that SCOTUS continually leans on as analogous in its 1st Amendment "intent" decisions.)
See Washington v. Davis; Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney; et al.
Quote from Davis: "to the extent that Palmer suggests a generally applicable proposition that legislative purpose is irrelevant in constitutional adjudication, our prior cases. . . are to the contrary.”
Quote from Hernandez v Woodward (N.D. Ill.): "Time and again over the past two decades, the Court has held that facially neutral laws may run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if they are enacted or enforced with a discriminatory intent."
Quote from Feeney: "[Discriminatory intent] implies that the decisionmaker
To put a finer point on it, critics have for years taken the Supreme Court to task for requiring those who invoke the 14th Amendment to strike down a discriminatory law to prove discriminatory intent in its enactment or enforcement in order to strike down facially neutral government actions that nonetheless have a disparate impact. So, intent is not just *a* thing but *the* thing when it comes to striking down a government action—at least where the 14th Amendment is applicable.
Ah, but if you've read this far, you've had your hand up the entire time, just waiting to make the argument that the 14th doesn't apply to this particular Executive Order because these are non-citizens who are not on U.S. soil. (There may be other ways to bring in the 14th, but the overseas foreign nationals themselves aren't within U.S. jurisdiction so as to enjoy "the equal protection of the laws.")
Ok. But then you'd have to contend with the 1st Amendment, where Establishment Clause (and Free Exercise Clause) jurisprudence has arrived at a similar "intent" space. See Town of Greece v. Galloway; Oregon v. Smith; Lukumi v. Hialeah; et al.
Mind you that the "intent" focus of Galloway is actually a *loosening* of previous strictures on government action in the Establishment space (found in e.g. the endorsement test and the Lemon test). But evidence of actual intent will definitely still get you there. See Alito's concurrence in Galloway: "I would view this case very differently if the omission of these synagogues were intentional." That's the same Alito who today wanted to lift the stay entirely and not just partially. In other words, even the conservative stalwart still sees intent as critical to Establishment Clause questions.
Wait, you say. Should the 1st Amendment even be in play? Well, that's the crux of the biscuit, isn't it? It seems pretty clearly to apply, but Alito may disagree with me on that. I suppose they'll tell us this Fall.
However that's no
Don't blame people for the sins of their ancestors. I am my own person. I am not my father. I am not my mother. I am not my grandparent.
I presume this statement is in reference to DACA kids, right?
"TGR is a gritty post-metal nü-country mariachi fusion band from Austin that's currently burning up the Central Texas fair and carnival circuit." -- Pitchfork, probably
He can bet you're ass Trump's kids don't eat baby food with lead in it.
I dunno, have you seen them? Maybe he saved a few bucks and imported it in bulk from GINA.
Eh. I'm pretty sure the "public" in your "public opinion" above doesn't give a hell about this case because:
1) They don't know about this case, nor do they care, nor will they ever.
2) They think this is how things work anyway, because it is. Language is a shared construct and the consensus is "engineer" means you have an engineering degree, while more formal terms ("licensed" or "professional" etc.) signify greater formality when needed.
3) The plaintiff has a commonsense, grokable, gut-feeling-it's-right position. The OR board has a nitpicky, facially counterintuitive position that manages to come across as both unfair and "over-regulatory". Which one sounds like an argument that tends to go over well with "the public"?
4) The public is generally aware of the 1st Amendment and has a vague notion that it's good. To the extent they understand what it protects, I'd wager they believe it covers "stopping the government from fining you for truthfully describing yourself in a public consultation regarding government activity."
5) If you took a nationwide poll of the non-technical folks that make up "the public", asking them why they don't like—or don't trust, or have a low opinion of—engineers and other science-types, "'misrepresenting licensure status' by truthfully communication educational background" wouldn't make the Top 25. In fact, it may not be mentioned once by a single person.
So... no, I don't think this case lowers "public opinion for all engineers." On the other hand, the handwringing pedantry (in favor of the OR board) you see all over this thread probably only reinforces low public opinion of engineers as handwringing pedants.
I was going to point this out, but you saved me the trouble and the negative karma of being a language nazi.
Oh hell, you should try it! Being an absurdist, Funny-mod-seeking, borderline OT, typo nitpicker has been uniformly great for my karma. In fact, I only ever catch any real karmic flak around here for actual opinions—and really just politics modwars at that.
But will it also be useful against Borg assimilation?
On the contrary, the better the helmet withstands, the more resistance is futile.
Researchers at MIT used a 3D printing approach to develop a biomimetic composite capable of withstanding 70-85% more resistance than typical helmet designs.
"AGGGHHH TOO MANY OHMS!! LITERALLY 1 MILLION OHMS! I'M NOT... going.. to... hey, wow this is a nice helmet! I really couldn't have withstood that resistance for much longer. Thanks ConchHat, you saved me!"
Read parent again, really slowly. Several times. Eventually, you might come to see - he is being fucking sarcastic.
Read parent again, really slowly. Several times. Eventually, you might come to see - he is being fucking sarcastic.
Looks like it's Reddit comments all the way down, boys!
The US government no longer represents the people.
Shit, you're still using the old talking points they passed out in case Hillary got elected. Didn't you hear Trump won? The government is for the people bigly now. You've never seen a government so "for the people"—it's the most representative.
I'm a lawyer, but not an expert in international labor law, so I'm afraid I can't shed much light on non-US jurisdictions. As for why it's not being done more widely, it is kind of a megadick maneuver that would probably get you fired anyplace where you don't have full support and latitude from your boss and your boss' boss.
This method is illegal in many countries, by the way.
I'm honestly curious what kind of labor laws make it illegal for one employee of a company to charge another employee of that company for the privilege of interrupting them.
Beyond situations where a) the one doing the charging is your boss, or b) the exchange of currency is illegal in your country, I'm having a hard time seeing it.
Incidentally, the headline for TFS is one excellent answer to YFS's headline question: Ask Slashdot: What Is the 'Special Appeal' of Apple Products?
For all the talk of "walled gardens," Microsoft has been demonstrating for years that they'd love to put up the same wall around an uglier garden.
No, declaring yourself an engineer is a violation of the regulations in most states.
I'm having a hard time even seeing your comment behind the enormous CITATION NEEDED sign.
I'm both an engineer* and a lawyer**, and I'm skeptical that any state would have a law/regulation—much less one that could pass constitutional muster—forbidding you in the abstract from saying, "I'm an engineer." Especially as regards people with degrees in engineering.
Does context matter? Of course. If you're saying, "I'm an engineer!" while inking your signature on a blueprint, that's unlicensed practice (in every jurisdiction that licenses engineers). You can also say "I'm a doctor" even if your doctorate is in Comparative Dishwashing. You just can't say "I'm a doctor" in the course of (here, illegally) attempting to provide medical care or advice.
*By education, but not a certified Professional Engineer.
**Bar certified and practicing.
4. Project Scorpio will achieve six-teraflops of GPU power using a customized design, with 1,172 GHz, 40 compute units, leveraging features from AMD's Polaris architecture.
Can someone who does GPU architecture confirm whether this is a) a typo, b) for real, or c) proof that Microsoft has finally invented a time machine, but is using it to do some oddly mundane shit?**
**Compared to, you know, going back and killing Hitler or snapping a selfie with Actual Jesus.
Two shills and raw data. What sort of argument are you making here? That there is still room in your echo chamber?
Broadly? That the way to support—and debunk—factual assertions is with sound data. Where's yours?
Before the West imported large numbers of Muslims, we did not have . . . somewhere between 6 and 12% of the terrorism we get in the West today.
I fixed that so the viewers at home could see the truth rather than a complete fabrication with no basis in reality. But by all means, don't let facts and data get in the way of a good old fashioned islamophobic blame-the-brown-people polemic.
My point was, any and all government employees — be they policemen, firefighters, teachers, or indeed Planned Parenthood officials . . .
As usual, mi, you are full of shit. For someone who rails against government so much, you'd think you would have a basic grasp of what government is.
Planned Parenthood is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that is incorporated in the state of New York (session-based, search for"Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc."). You see, a corporation is "a legal entity, other than a natural person which often has similar rights in law as a person."
The employees of a corporation are not magically transformed into "government officials" under any legal or logical standard, not even when that corporation receives money from the government. Your absurd, post-hoc rationalizing argument means that you also think Catholic Charities, Jewish Federation, Lutheran Services of America, and Habitat for Humanity are government entities and their employees are government officials.
Being a government official has wide ranging legal effects from defamation standards to bribery laws to special criminal penalties for threatening one. Words have meanings, and if you want to talk in a grownup conversation, you should use the real definitions, not the special ones mi made up in his head.
"I went to the smart school and do intellectual things. My boss went to the party school and does PHB things. I think it's pretty clear who's winning here."
It's really gonna blow his mind that pot isn't even the opiate gateway for the rest of teen (any?) abusers, either. Their gateway is not pot but other people's opiate prescriptions. Yup, Oxy and its brethren are pretty much the universal entry point for opiate addiction, and have been for... decades now?
Nobody ever says, "Gee, this marijuana is entertaining, I think I'll go buy a bag of gross dirt that's been in someone's rectum and inject the liquified contents into my arm!"
But I knew kids in HS (20 years ago) who were reduced to writhing-on-the-floor tears when their Oxy connection went dry. It would take more than two hands to count just the kids from my community and age group, that I knew, who've died from opiates, including a dear friend of mine. Dozens more who were or are in the thick of it. And from everything I can gather, not one of them started that journey with an opiate that was illegally produced.
+3 Internets.
As a pro-comma language nerd, I'm genuinely curious to find situations in which the Oxford adds ambiguity. Do you have any examples?
I think this manual would be Exhibit A supporting the truckers. Abstracting the rule from the example: "If your list includes a prepositional phrase that could be construed ambiguously, draft the list so it's no longer ambiguous."
Just like the phrase "of 3,000 pounds gross weight or less" could be modifying one or multiple things, the phrase "for shipment or distribution" could be referring to one or multiple things. It was well within the legislature's power to follow the manual and write it as:
"The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, packing for shipment or distribution, marketing or storing of:"
That's much clearer**, and it doesn't even break up the logical flow of "things you do to move food through the supply chain." Even better, just say "...packing, shipping, distribution..."
**Though even this construction leaves a possible mini-list interpretation at the end. This is but one example of why I always include the fucking Universal Grammatical Separator whenever I need to, you know, grammatically separate things. #oxfordorgtfo
tl;dr: The instruction to omit the Oxford comma is inseparable from the instruction to rewrite the list if such omission leaves it ambiguous.
As a parent, I get how easy it is to be absolutely paralyzed by fear of $everyBadThingEver happening to your child.
If you are that afraid, you should not have children. I don't have any of my own. . .
It's cool, this is one you're just not going to get. No knock, I didn't either—no one does until they're actually responsible for a little human they made. If you do end up going that route, don't be too hard on yourself when you feel those irrational fears. It's hardwired in.