Update:
âThe Constitution is for Americans,â Adams told reporters at his weekly City Hall press conference. âIâm not a person that snuck into this country. My ancestors have been here for a long time.â
What an idiot. First of all, the irony. The Dred Scott case declared that Adamsâs own ancestors were not citizens and, thus, not protected by the Constitution or other law. Second, yeah, his ancestors didnât âsneak inâ. They were brought here against their will and enslaved. Iâm not sure what his fucking point is. Itâs not like his ancestors immigrated âthe right wayâ. Third, he is absolutely, unequivocally, fucking wrong. The Constitution, and this nationâs laws, protect anyone under its jurisdiction. In other words, anyone who is a citizen or is currently within the borders of this nation. How do we know this? Because if such people commit crimes, they can be arrested and prosecuted. They are subject to this nationâs laws, which means they may also benefit from the protections afforded by those same laws. This isnât just my opinion. This is settled law. Itâs even in the Constitution:
14th Amendment, Section 1
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In addition, the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin.
The current SCOTUS may very well agree with Adams, but they havenât taken up the issue, and current precedent is clear: Anyone within the borders of the United States must be given due process.
ETA: Adams, and others like him, will probably argue that the sentence I quoted above from the 14th Amendment only applies to citizens. This is clearly not true. The sentences immediately preceding that one define citizenship. Itâs how the Dred Scott decision was rendered moot. Had the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended for the due process clause to apply only to citizens, they would have used the word âcitizenâ instead of âany personâ. Their intent was clear: even noncitizens are entitled to due process and equal protection.
Signed up for this lecture on January 15th, and will report back:
Interesting. I Googled that, and came up with this article from 2012, so apparently sheâs been researching this awhile. But this article does provide more context. https://www.advocate.com/health/health-news/2012/08/05/shocking-report-doctors-using-drugs-prevent-lesbian-intersex-children
Thanks for that effort!
Exactly what is âbehavioralâ about being born intersex?
And why am I hoping for consistent, logical thought from such people?
Is this something like eugenics?
Itâs in the ballpark, for sure.
Itâs referring to one specific intersex condition which isnât chromosomal. Actually, all of this involves one specific condition which can manifest either as homosexuality, an intersex condition, being transgender, or just generally gender nonconforming, from what I can gather. Regardless, itâs not anything that needs to be cured. Itâs all well within normal human expression.
Much earlier: This isnât the first time an appellate court ruled that Healey violated a defendantâs rights during sentencing.
In one rape case, Healey was criticized, and a 30-year sentence was overturned by the 1st District Court of Appeals because Healey lectured a Hispanic defendant that a âgood Catholic fellowâ shouldnât commit adultery. Makar also wrote an opinion in that case.
In the case of a woman who shoplifted $17.19 of food from Walmart, he declared her a âdanger to society,â something that should have been decided by a jury, the appellate court ruled.
And in a dissenting opinion a few months ago, Makar criticized Healeyâs demeanor in a case where the Department of Corrections waived supervision fees for a poor mother who was struggling with a part-time job as a janitor. In response to the departmentâs lenience, âthe trial judge went on a tirade,â Makar wrote of Healey. Healey even made offhand comments about the public defenderâs advocacy. (âHow lovely,â Healey said).
Recently: âAt the hearing, Healey said he shouldnât have offered [Alfred Scott] any lenience to begin with. âThat will teach me a lesson,â he said at the conclusion of the hearing.â
It seems to me that Healy is incapable of taking a hint and learning worthwhile lessons. And I expect some future half-way decent defense attorney picking up on the bias of Healyâs statement of being too lenient.
Jurors found Daniel Penny not guilty of criminally negligent homicide. Samantha Max, reporter covering public safety for WNYC/Gothamist, who was in the courtroom covering the trial. And Tiffany CabĂĄn, NYC Council Member (District 22, Astoria, Jackson Heights, East Elmhurst, Woodside and Rikers Island), reacts to the news and shares legislation sheâs working on related to mental health care.
Institutional lynching of Robert Brooks, perpetrated by NY prison guards, some smiling and laughing while watching him get beat to death, recorded by body cams in standby mode (four officers had body cams but none were set to record).
So the correction officers are going to be fired. Oh dear. Lucky they didnât kill a CEO. Then they would really be in trouble.
Guards like this arenât trusted with CEOs who, by some miracle, get sentenced to prison.