Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse

[Michael Scally MD]

The deal President Trump called “incredible” and Gov. Scott Walker hailed as a “once-in-a-century” opportunity to bring the electronic manufacturing giant Foxconn to Wisconsin wouldn’t generate profits for the state until 2042, a http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lfb/bill_summaries/2017_19/0001_ss_ab_1_foxconn_fiserv_legislation_8_8_17.pdfprojects.

The state’s Legislative Fiscal Bureau, a nonpartisan agency that analyzes proposed economic investments, looked at Walker’s bid last month to bring a new flat-screen-display factory to the state in exchange for a roughly $3 billion-incentives package.

Foxconn said it would break ground in southeastern Wisconsin and hire 3,000 workers there over the next four years, with the “potential” to create 13,000 jobs.

If the company hits that growth target, Wisconsin would break even after 25 years, said Rob Reinhardt, a program manager who worked on the report. If 13,000 jobs never materialize, it could take decades longer.

“We kind of dig a hole for ourselves,” Reinhardt said.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

“Ignoring isn’t the same as ignorance, you have to work at it.” — Margaret Atwood, “The Handmaid’s Tale”

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Erik, in case you don't read your own newspaper, please be aware that checking things like party registration and other affiliations is a common practice among conservatives in the wake of mass shootings.

It let's then know which propaganda reel they have to cue up to defend (white guy) or attack (black, Latino, Muslim.)

Here's the general breakdown for you according to right wing media reporting standards:

White: mentally ill
Black: Gangsta thug who refused to halt.
Latino: MS13
Muslim: Terrorist

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

In Chief Justice John Roberts’s 5-4 opinion in Trump v. Hawaii deeming President Donald Trump’s third Muslim ban legally valid, one passage stands out as judicial clickbait: its two-paragraph discussion of Koremtasu v. United States.

Korematsu, of course, is a justifiably reviled Supreme Court decision, one long regarded as a leading case in the American constitutional anti-canon. It is not surprising, therefore, that this passage in Roberts’s opinion has garnered widespread attention. In her dissenting opinion in Trump v. Hawaii, Justice Sonia Sotomayor welcomes the Court’s “formal repudiation of a shameful precedent” as “laudable and long overdue,” characterizing Roberts’s opinion as “tak[ing] the important step of finally overruling Korematsu.”

However, especially in the context of a decision validating a policy https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/religious-liberty-for-a-few-the-supreme-court%E2%80%99s-decision-in-trump-v-hawaii, there is little to find “laudable” in Roberts’s self-serving discussion of Korematsu. Clearly, Roberts saw “rhetorical advantage” (to borrow his own phrase) in characterizing Korematsu as affirming the deprivation of Japanese Americans’ liberty “solely and explicitly on the basis of race” and then proceeding to forcefully denounce the decision. But the Court deserves very little credit for the manner in which it has sought to clothe a decision upholding Trump’s Muslim ban in the garb of purporting to “overrule” Korematsu.

In fact, a careful reading of both Trump v. Hawaii and Korematsu demonstrates that the Court has overruled precisely nothing. For one thing, on Roberts’s own terms the passage discussing Korematsu is entirely dicta. It is revealing for the Court to protest so loudly that Korematsu “has nothing to do with this case,” but in the next breath to proclaim, just as loudly, that it was thereby overruling that ostensibly irrelevant precedent.

More fundamentally, however, Roberts provides an incorrect and misleading account of Korematsu itself—which means that the decision he purports to “overrule” is not quite the one that the Korematsu Court itself actually rendered. Roberts’s opinion characterizes Korematsu as holding that “the forcible relocation of U.S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race” is constitutional. While that formulation operates effectively to make Korematsu seem more distant from Trump v. Hawaii than it actually is, it incorrectly describes what Korematsu actually purported to decide and fails to adequately grapple with the decision’s flaws.