Jump to content

SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    5281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

  1. 9 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

    Grrr.  News is saying in DACA suit in NY judge denied MTD but no article is linking the order.  Evidently judge said Trumps repeated racial epithets gave inference there was racial animus to the acts.  

     

    Anyone have the order?  Reading judges coolly call out his stupidity sustains my life force. 

    Just pulled it.

    Quote

    To establish discriminatory purpose, Plaintiffs identify a disheartening number of
    statements made by President Donald Trump that allegedly suggest that he is prejudiced against
    Latinos and, in particular, Mexicans. (BV TAC 89-99; State Pis. Am. Compl. Iff 57-77.)
    These comments include (1) then-candidate Trump's assertions that Mexican immigrants are not
    Mexico's "best," but are "people that have lots of problems," "the bad ones," "criminals, drug
    dealers, [and] rapists" (BV TAC 91-93; State Pis. Am. Compl. TIK 58-59); (2) Trump's
    characterization of individuals who protested outside a campaign rally as "thugs who were flying
    the Mexican flag" (State Pis. Am. Compl. ^ 61); (3) Trump's statements that a U.S.-bom federal
    judge of Mexican descent could not fairly preside over a lawsuit against Trump's for-profit
    educational company because the judge was "Mexican" and Trump intended to build a wall
    along the Mexican border (BV TAC ^ 96; State Pis. Am. Compl. 62); and (4) pre- and post-
    Inauguration characterizations of Latino/a immigrants as criminals, "animals," and "bad
    hombres" (BV TAC HI 97, 99; State Pis. Am. Compl. HH 65-66, 70).

    Accepting Plaintiffs' non-conclusory allegations as true and reading all reasonable
    inferences in their favor, the court concludes that these allegations are sufficiently racially
    charged, recurring, and troubling as to raise a plausible inference that the decision to end the
    DACA program was substantially motivated by discriminatory animus. Although the use of
    racial slurs, epithets, or other racially charged language does not violate equal protection per se.
    it can be evidence that official action was motivated by unlawful discriminatory purposes. See,
    e.g.. Williams v. Bramer. 180 F.3d 699, 706 (5th Cir. 1999); Smith v. Thomburg. 136 F.3d 1070,

    1089-90 (6th Cir. 1998); Freeman v. Arpaio. 125 F.3d 732, 738 n.6 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in
    part on other grounds bv Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2008); All v.
    Connick. 136 F. Supp. 3d 270,279-80 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (collecting cases). The court is aware of
    no authority holding that this rule does not apply simply because the speaker is, or is running to
    be, the President of the United States. The court expresses no view as to whether these
    statements (which as Defendants note, are not directly connected to the DACA rescission) would
    ultimately suffice to provide that the rescission was motivated by discriminatory animus; that is a
    question for summary judgment or trial. The court concludes only that Plaintiffs have alleged
    sufficient facts to raise a plausible inference that the DACA rescission violated equal protection,
    and thus to withstand a motion to dismiss.^

    Defendants do not defend the President's comments but argue instead that the court
    should simply ignore them. First, Defendants suggest that because the President's statements
    were "almost all made before he took the oath of office and [were not] made in connection with
    the [DACA rescission]," these comments "do not tend to show the existence of both
    discriminatory intent and discriminatory effect." (State MTD at 33.) Defendants cite no
    authority for the proposition that, to state an equal-protection claim, a plaintiff must point to
    some evidence that simultaneously demonstrates both discriminatory intent and discriminatory
    effect, or that evinces discriminatory bias directly in connection with the challenged official
    action. To the contrary, Arlington Heights states that courts may consider the background of

    facially neutral decisions to smoke out whether they were covertly motivated by discriminatory
    purposes. 429 U.S. at 267.

    The court recognizes that searching for evidence of discriminatory motivation in
    campaign-trail statements is potentially fraught. Old statements may say little about what lay
    behind a later decision. Statements made in the throes of a heated race may be "contradictory or
    inflammatory," and considering them may indeed incentivize litigants in future cases to embark
    on an "evidentiary snark hunt" in search of past comments indicative of some sort of bias.
    Washington v. Trump, 858 F.3d 1168, 1173-74 (9th Cir. 2017) (Kozinski, J., dissenting from
    denial of reh'g en banc); ^ Regents nrbUb") Order. 2018 WL 401177, at *7 (recognizing that
    consideration of campaign statements "can readily lead to mischief in challenging the policies of
    a new administration"). Moreover, an equal-protection claim brought against the President raises
    difficult questions of whether—and, if so, for how long—^any Executive action
    disproportionately affecting a group the President has slandered may be considered
    constitutionally suspect.
    While these are all good reasons to tread lightly, the court does not see why it must or
    should bury its head in the sand when faced with overt expressions of prejudice. Arlington
    Heights calls for a "sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as
    may be available," and campaign-trail statements by the official allegedly responsible for a
    challenged policy would seem to fall squarely within this inquiry. Ct IntT Refugee Assistance
    Project V. Trump. 883 F.3d 233, 266 (4th Cir. 2018) (en banc) (declining to consider pre-election
    statements while noting that they "certainly provide relevant context when examining the
    purpose" of a challenged Presidential proclamation suspending entry of individuals from
    specified countries), pet, for cert, docketed. No. 17-1270. At the very least, one might

    reasonably infer that a candidate who makes overtly bigoted statements on the campaign trail
    might be more likely to engage in similarly bigoted action once in office.
    Defendants' attempts to pass the buck to Acting Secretary Duke are no more persuasive.
    Defendants argue that the President's statements are legally irrelevant because Acting Secretary
    Duke "was the only official vested with authority... to make the decision at issue," and
    Plaintiffs do not point to similarly objectionable statements by her. (BV MTD at 22; State MTD
    at 34.) To the extent Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have insufficiently alleged racial animus on
    the part of Acting Secretary Duke or the Attorney General, the court is inclined to agree:
    Plaintiffs have not identified statements by Acting Secretary Duke or the Attorney General that
    would give rise to an inference of discriminatory motive. Although the Batalla Vidal Plaintiffs
    insinuate that the Attorney General referred to immigrants as "filth" (BV TAG H 100; BV Pis.
    Opp'n at 20), his prepared remarks make clear that this term was used only to refer to
    international drug-trafficking cartels and the gang MS-13 (Dep't of Justice, Press Release,
    Attorney General Jeff Sessions Delivers Remarks Announcing the Department of Justice's
    Renewed Commitment to Criminal Immigration Enforcement (Apr. 11, 2017),
    https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attomey-general-jeff-sessions-delivers-remarks-announcingdepartment-
    justice-s-renewed). This comment therefore does not support a plausible inference
    that the Attomey General was motivated by racial discrimination when he advised that Acting
    Secretary Duke end the DACA program.
    The court rejects, however. Defendants' remarkable argument that the President
    apparently cannot be liable for rescinding the DACA program because only Acting Secretary
    Duke had the legal authority to end that program. (State MTD at 34.) Our Constitution vests
    "executive Power" in the President, not in the Secretary of DHS, who reports to the President

    and is removable by him at will. U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 1. This position appears to be at
    odds with the stated position of the President himself, who tweeted that if Congress were unable
    to "legalize DACA," he would "revisit this issue," implying that he (correctly) understands that
    he has ultimate authority over the program. (Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump),
    Twitter.com (Sept. 5,2017 7:38 PM),
    https://twitter.eom/realdonaldtrump/status/905228667336499200.) If, as Plaintiffs allege.
    President Trump himself directed the end of the DACA program (e.g.. State Pis. Am. Compl.
    16), it would be surprising if his "discriminatory intent [could] effectively be laundered by
    being implemented by an agency under his control" (BV Pis. Opp'n at 18). As courts have
    recognized in far more mundane contexts, liability for discrimination will lie when a biased
    individual manipulates a non-biased decision-maker into taking discriminatory action. Cf.
    Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Serv.. Inc.. 835 F.3d 267,272-73 (2d Cir. 2016) (discussing
    "cat's paw" liability, under which an organization may be held liable for employment
    discrimination when a prejudiced subordinate manipulates an unbiased superior into taking
    adverse employment action); Back v. Hastings on Hudson Union Free Sch. Dist., 365 F.3d 107,
    126 & n. 18 (2d Cir. 2004) (applying cat's-paw theory to equal-protection claim).
    Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' equal-protection claims is
    DENIED.

    (footnote 8)

    ® Because the comments identified above are sufficient to raise a plausible inference of discriminatory purpose, the
    court need not decide whether Plaintiffs' remaining allegations support an inference of discriminatory purpose. For
    example, Plaintiffs allege or argue in their briefs that the President decided to pardon former Maricopa County,
    Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio (BV TAG ^ 98; State Pis. Am. Compl. 67-69), that he has made offensive statements
    about Muslims, Native Americans, transgender individuals, and "shithole countries" (BV Pis. Opp'n at 19-20), and
    that, during the campaign, then candidate Trump retweeted a post apparently criticizing former Florida governor Jeb
    Bush for speaking "Mexican" (BV TAG If 95). The court observes, however, that these allegations would seem to
    offer only weak support, at best, for the notion that the President's alleged decision to end the DAGA program was
    motivated by desire to harm Latinos and especially Mexicans.

    giphy.gif

     

    We are being governed by some absolute ace quality people.  I cannot imagine being a lawyer having to go in front of a federal judge, knowing that I'll be seeing him for the next couple of decades of my career, and knowing my signature will forever be on these pleadings, having to take these positions and advocate in the face of this evidence.

  2. Grrr.  News is saying in DACA suit in NY judge denied MTD but no article is linking the order.  Evidently judge said Trumps repeated racial epithets gave inference there was racial animus to the acts.  

     

    Anyone have the order?  Reading judges coolly call out his stupidity sustains my life force. 

  3. 9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    Don't know why this didn't work last time. In addition to the obligations that were personal to Trump in the agreement, this seems like a killer.

    Haha.  That’s great.  

    • Like 1
  4. Before his association with the Trump administration, I would have been for it.  I don’t think his work there was bad, but I just think there is too much fallout possible to marry ourselves to him before we know what’s going to come out of current investigations, and even ignoring that I’d be concerned with just plain old historical perception of the Trump administration which has the possibility of looking pretty embarrassing. 

  5. 47 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    I’d argue Amazon is becoming increasingly anti-capitalist and more monopolistic with their vertical integration of delivery and crushing small online competitors along with brick and mortar retailers.

    I’m not blaming Amazon for exploiting the marketplace to grow, that’s what they’re supposed to do. However, to remain a capitalistic environment, there needs to be competition and a level playing field.

    Just saying, may need a check put on Amazon in the future if we want to be honestly pro-capitalist.

    I think there might be some antitrust stuff in there as well, but that’s not what Trump is bitching about.  It’s them not paying their “fair share” of taxes, a hilariously retarded position for someone like Trump to take.  

    IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

    OF WASHINGTON

    UNITED STATES

    V

    AMAZON

    CAUSES OF ACTION

    1. IT’S NOT FAIR

    • Like 2
  6. 36 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    If Trump starts throwing pardons around, he still can't pardon them from any of the charges brought about by the state AGs.  I actually think Kushner has more to fear from the state AGs.

    And if Trump starts throwing pardons around, he will definitely give the House over to the Dems this year, and the Senate in 2020.

    I really don't think Trump wants the Dems going through his business dealings in public hearings in Congress next year.  There is a reason why he would not show his loyal followers his tax returns, and I don't think he wants the Dems pointing out all of the people/companies he did business with.

    I think the political fallout is the bigger risk to Trump for issuing pardons.  I just don’t think that state prosecutors would put guys away that the president just pardoned.   Too much respect for the office.  

  7. Also, those sentencing documents are must reads.  

     

    The first is: sure he lied to the FBI to help cover up attempts to undo the independence of our nation and collapse the integrity of the constitutional order this court works under, but isn’t losing a job at Skadden enough?

     

    the second is: maybe rich people should go to jail too?

  8. 11 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

     

    The urgency to strike a deal reflected the growing sense that the spending bill represented the last chance for the Trump administration to secure substantial wall funding, at least in his first term. Top Republicans believe it is all but certain that Democrats will gain House seats in November’s midterm elections — and perhaps take the majority — greatly enhancing their bargaining position in future spending negotiations.

    i noted this bit of 14-D chess earlier. He got a pittance for the wall in exchange for an entitlement-heavy budget.  He’ll never see another penny for it.  So, depending on your math, you can say he will end up with enough money for between 2 and 6 percent of the Wall.  

     

     

  9. 17 minutes ago, Royalfan5 said:

    Why shouldn't people be able to shout down views they find abhorrent? I think a bigger problem with society is people expecting headpats for their dumbass views, than a preponderance of safe spaces.

    Because it denies others the opportunity to hear a message. 

     

     I went to see a number of speakers on campus when I was a student, and invariably there would be somebody standing up and yelling their position in the middle of a presentation. I’ll listen to your retarded views, but please can you wait until the guy we paid $100,000 to speak and who I waited 4 hours in line for tickets is done?

×
×
  • Create New...