No. Ignoring a disparate racial impact is not the same as seeking one under existing federal constitutional jurisprudence.
Supporting restrictive gun laws and stop and frisk are not liberal or conservative views - they are authoritarian.
Sure they are. You can push those ideas off the left-right scale if you like, but it doesn’t really change anything with regard to who supports them and who doesn’t.
The idea i didnt phrase well was that in Bloomberg’s case to be internally consistent his agenda for both shouldn’t be seen as liberal/conservative but rather as an authoritarian one. He is attempting to accrue more and more power to the State in terms of being able to control people’s lives.
Well actually, conservatives do have a history of supporting restrictive gun laws - towards people they consider enemies. Like blacks, or conquered foreigners like the Iraqis.
That still misses the point, though. His goal is dealing with these issues as he sees fit, not amassing more power for the state. New York had restrictive gun laws long before Bloomberg showed up.
And they will still be here long after he’s gone.
New York had restrictive gun laws before Bloomberg, and they continue largely at a state rather than city level. He is the lead of MAIG however, and he specifically pushes the agenda forward. In any case, yes he is dealing with various issues as he sees fit, by restricting soda purchases, or through a campaign to detain mass people on the street for whatever reason or no reason. It is all made possible by an increasingly authoritarian State (city).
I’m sure there are other areas of people’s lives that Bloomberg would like to control as well (not this thread) but in the case of stop and frisk, it’s clear he falls on the security side of the security/liberty scale. Is there any doubt he’d be for a stronger police state if he could get away with it? He’s probably not on the verge of demanding everyone’s papers. Probably. I would call his position on stop and frisk authoritarian, rather than conservative. That was my point.
The judge is a total idiot.
The judge does seem to have the evidence on her side. If the police were finding more criminal contraband in the possession of non-whites, then you could make the argument that the higher rate of non-whites being stopped and frisked was justified by the objective facts. A higher rate of being criminals justifies a higher rate of being suspects.
But that’s not what happened. Whites were found to have more criminal contraband on their persons than non-whites but non-whites were being stopped and frisked more often than whites. This indicates than the police were not following objective facts but were basing their decisions on their subjective beliefs about race.
Somewhat, but walking around isn’t enough to make someone a suspect by itself.
Why?
Because clothahum said so. That should be self-evident by now.
This is a local paper’s take on some of the comments that came out of mayor’s office on this decision. It is worth reading for anyone at least vaguely interested in the underlying issues.