Build the Wall, Biden style
Democrats yesterday: Walls and guns and men are evil.
Democrats today: We need to build a wall around the Capitol and get lots of men with guns in there to protect Joe Biden.
1 Like
While Wednesday’s transfer of power from one presidential administration to another represents one of the enduring traditions of American democracy, President Trump’s refusal to concede defeat to President-elect Joe Biden has set the stage for several norms to be broken. At the White House, Trump and first lady Melania Trump will not greet Biden and incoming first lady Jill Biden, nor will the couples attend a ceremonial tea.
" before going to their new home, the Bidens will head to Arlington, Va., for a wreath-laying ceremony with three former presidents and first ladies that will not include Trump."
This is being done by the Trump administration.
Did anything happen recently that may have caused this situation?
There was a violent assault on the US Capitol where people were killed and wounded. And there are continuing multiple terrorist threats to attack the inauguration and the participants.
If you were in charge of security, what would you do?
“Political violence is an attack on everything we cherish as Americans. It can never be tolerated.”
Update
I was off by one day. The elections of Messrs. Ossoff and Warnock were certified earlier TODAY (Tuesday). This means both men will be sworn in tomorrow, very shortly after Biden’s inauguration speech. Apparently Mr. Padilla, from California, will be sworn in at the same time as the two men from Georgia.
Once those three new Senators are sworn in, the Democrats will control the Senate. But of course by then Trump will be a private citizen.
Never forget how Trump got us here.
"The inauguration of a new president typically draws hundreds of thousands of visitors, but COVID-19 took that off the table some time ago.
Then the deadly, Trump-incited Capitol siege of January 6 turned DC into a locked-down police state, with curfews in effect until the day after the inauguration, and 25,000 National Guard troops manning fortified checkpoints."
Source: WTOP
Trump has declassified documents related to the 2016 Russia investigation. These presumably are exculpatory for Trump.
VP Pence will be unable to attend Trump’s Andrew AFB event tomorrow because of an earlier commitment to attend the inauguration and the physical impossibility, related to travel, of doing both.
Weather forecast for inaugural: 35 MPH winds and cold temperatures.
I hope Biden comes through the event in good shape. The old gentleman will be out in the cold and wind a long time. Last thing we want now is for anything whatsoever to happen to Biden. It would be a catastrophe.
Trump “pardon for vote” exchange he can pretend isn’t a pardon.
1 Like
The second sentence of the IBD article: “Attorney Gen. Loretta Lynch said she and her civil-rights goons are “bolstered by this important ruling” by the high bench, which by a narrow 5-4 vote upheld bogus disparate-impact theory” (emphasis mine) - seems like neutral journalism. So I’m not going to accept at face value their opinions of what they think may happen/what they claim the effects are. They don’t even mention the actual case.
Since you seem to have a problem with the principle in general, this is from the case that that case cited:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, [42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., ] as amended, prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Title VII prohibits both intentional discrimination (known as “disparate treatment”) as well as, in some cases, practices that are not intended to discriminate but in fact have a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities (known as “disparate impact”).
557 U.S. 557.
This case was decided in April 2009. The five Justices appointed by Republican presidents joined in the opinion.
The case that IBD is referring to states this in interpreting the HUD regulation:
Under the regulation, a plaintiff first must make a prima facie showing of disparate impact. That is, the plaintiff “has the burden of proving that a challenged practice caused or predictably will cause a discriminatory effect.” [24 CFR § 100.500(c)(1) (2014)]. If a statistical discrepancy is caused by factors other than the defendant’s policy, a plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case, and there is no liability. After a plaintiff does establish a prima facie showing **2515 of disparate impact, the burden shifts to the defendant to “prov[e] that the challenged practice is necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests.” [§ 100.500(c)(2)]. HUD has clarified that this step of the analysis “is analogous to the Title VII requirement that an employer’s interest in an employment practice with a disparate impact be job related.” [78 Fed.Reg. 11470]. Once a defendant has satisfied its burden at step two, a plaintiff may “prevail upon proving that the substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests supporting the challenged practice could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect.”
(emphasis added). I don’t agree with your characterization that cases are “brought under that theory precisely because they could not prove and did not have any evidence of actual discrimination.” Second, the defendant can overcome by making a showing that there are legitimate reasons for a particular policy.
Happy to read the other cases you refer to.
This article appears to show that this is not new for Obama, and Bush’s admin seems to indicate they think Clinton used it too much.
The article doesn’t prove this, or even allege it?
No. Incorrect. Full stop.
You’re conflating disparate impact with an inherent problem. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the reason half of convicted murderers in the US are black is because half of murderers in the US are black. Then yes, there’s disparate impact. That doesn’t necessarily mean the policy needs to be changed. That’s not what the disparate impact doctrine says.
Pretty sure foreign heads of state are immune from prosecution, except in an international tribunal.
Manuel Noriega was convicted in a US court, but don’t know specifics on any rules.
Here’s a lot more on the education problems from Obama -
A year ago the academics finally got around to backing up Trumps DOE for ending the Obama era “disparate impact” letter to schools warning them not to suspend minority students for bad behavior more often than white ones. To no ones great surprise, race is a very minor or non-factor when disciplinary histories were considered (those had not been considered in the stats used to justify the policy), and badly behaved students had, until the leinent policy change, been getting what they deserved. Here’s some background on the damage done to the schools that implemented these ill-conceived “reforms”, both in terms of student safety and learning.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-racial-preferences-made-schools-dangerous-11545767080
the [Obama] administration was demanding racial parity in school discipline, regardless of who was being disruptive, which is as silly as demanding racial parity in police arrests, regardless of who’s committing crimes.
The message to administrators nationwide [was] quite clear: Get your discipline data in line, even if that means under-disciplining certain groups of students, or else you can expect a civil rights investigation. This is why many of us don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the 2014 policy imposed racial quotas on discipline and has likely had a chilling effect on discipline nationwide
school districts that have effectively attempted to prohibit teachers from exercising subjective discipline by banning suspensions for “willful defiance” have seen great academic harm. In Philadelphia, researchers estimate that it decreased academic achievement by 3 percent in reading and 7 percent in math after three years. Another study, still pending peer-review, examined the effects of suspension bans in four California school districts and found no effect on reading but a large harm to math achievement, large enough to drag a student from the 50thpercentile down to the 39th after three years.
Years of under-achievement due to disruptive classrooms doesn’t sound fair to me. Maybe under a “restorative justice” approach, these students can get a “I’m sorry” from the prior DOE head?
No, the proponents of racial social engineering are conflating disparate impacts with a “problem” that can be solved by giving their favored groups more benefits or fewer punishments or other special privileges. The problem is in the recent application of the disparate impact concept or political pressure to act when any such difference arises. This is why I criticize the concept generally since it’s being used to destroy equality under the law and a generally law-abiding society.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/capitol-rioter-allegedly-posted-outside-201900338.html
“Political violence is an attack on everything we cherish as Americans. It can never be tolerated.”
– POTUS
What does one make of Trump refusing to even meet the new American President when he has no problem meeting Kim Jong-Un and Putin?
Trump revoked his own executive order on ethics that was part of his “drain the swamp” pledge.
1 Like
2 Likes