Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Personality cult for the rapist, serial adulterer, convicted felon, business fraudster, insurrectionist, nepotist dictator wannabe, peddler of state secrets and election thief is your holy ideological principle.

DEI in the military, schools and corporations? If it's so bad, why did not Trump do anything to stop it? Maybe because in truth he really doesn't care to govern, as was demonstrated by his first term.

The intensity of the battle doesn’t guarantee the longevity of the war. Sometimes, the defeated party accepts the public’s verdict and stops demanding rematches.

That may be happening in American civil rights law. In its name, contemporary progressives advocate the use of disparate-impact analysis to force private parties to treat Americans differently based on race and ancestry. Yet, after promising loudly to do otherwise, the Biden administration has largely avoided defending the legality of this practice in its enforcement of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Because of the size of the federal government, the stakes for Title VI enforcement are high. Federal outlays account for about 20 percent of American GDP. Title VI applies to all recipients of those outlays. Many non-recipients may plan to bid for federal contracts or grants in the future, so they’ll need to demonstrate compliance with Title VI, too. Title VI, then, directly or indirectly, effectively governs more than 20 percent of the national economy.

But Title VI is a nondiscrimination statute. Applying the theory of disparate impact—which seeks to uncover intentional but hidden discrimination—turns Title VI on its head by transforming the statute into a cudgel that would require discrimination. The Biden administration wants to compel the very practice that Congress passed Title VI to forbid. The administration has indeed deployed disparate-impact theory through Title VI, pushing for what it calls “equity” through a host of administrative actions.

Still, in at least two settings where parties challenged that deployment as illegal—school disciplinary policies and environmental policy—the administration has dodged consequent litigation. The White House implicitly concedes that it lacks the power to use civil rights regulations to require discrimination.
The intensity of the battle doesn’t guarantee the longevity of the war. Sometimes, the defeated party accepts the public’s verdict and stops demanding rematches.  That may be happening in American civil rights law. In its name, contemporary progressives advocate the use of disparate-impact analysis to force private parties to treat Americans differently based on race and ancestry. Yet, after promising loudly to do otherwise, the Biden administration has largely avoided defending the legality of this practice in its enforcement of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Because of the size of the federal government, the stakes for Title VI enforcement are high. Federal outlays account for about 20 percent of American GDP. Title VI applies to all recipients of those outlays. Many non-recipients may plan to bid for federal contracts or grants in the future, so they’ll need to demonstrate compliance with Title VI, too. Title VI, then, directly or indirectly, effectively governs more than 20 percent of the national economy.  But Title VI is a nondiscrimination statute. Applying the theory of disparate impact—which seeks to uncover intentional but hidden discrimination—turns Title VI on its head by transforming the statute into a cudgel that would require discrimination. The Biden administration wants to compel the very practice that Congress passed Title VI to forbid. The administration has indeed deployed disparate-impact theory through Title VI, pushing for what it calls “equity” through a host of administrative actions.  Still, in at least two settings where parties challenged that deployment as illegal—school disciplinary policies and environmental policy—the administration has dodged consequent litigation. The White House implicitly concedes that it lacks the power to use civil rights regulations to require discrimination.
-more-

Quote from: ersi on 2024-06-01, 01:42:27

Trump's lawyer was in turn compensated from campaign funds

This was neither charged nor litigated... But — that's your style!

As for the rest, ...

You don't (or didn't?!) recognize the egregious lapses of integrity performed by the Democrats throughout these "Trump prosecution"?

Let me quote a Berkeley law professor and former federal prosecutor:
John Yoo states it plainly:

Trump's lawyer was in turn compensated from campaign funds

if the political system values integrity and self-preservation. American political system clearly does not

"Regardless of the trial's outcome, its consequences will have a profound effect on the presidency. The weaker the Trump cases are, the more open the invitation is to future prosecutors of presidents of the opposite party. "After this Trump trial, any city, county, or state prosecutor might be encouraged to prosecute any federal officer for conjured violations of a state's criminal law or other patently partisan reasons."

To remedy "this breach of constitutional norms," Yoo indicated that Republicans' only recourse is to observe the Golden rule: "Do unto others as they have done unto you. In order to prevent the case against Trump from assuming a permanent place in the American political system, Republicans will have to bring charges against Democratic officers, even presidents."

Inflation, destruction of the auto industry, destruction of the energy sector; DEI in the military, schools and corporations...

The "Migrant Crisis" engineered by the administration...

[Biden's] "team" will, if he wins a second term, do everything possible to destroy America.