[estearum]

Sure: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a443_new_kkg1....

Footnote on Page 7, written by Kavanaugh mere weeks after the Perdomo decision, says the opposite: "the officers must not make interior immigration stops or arrests based on race or ethnicity... “[T]he Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race”"

So is race a consideration or is it not? He says here that it's well-established that the Constitution prevents it.

Or did he just throw in that sentence as a complete non-sequitur, unrelated to the immediately preceding sentences?

[zahlman]

There is no contradiction between your quote and my quotes.

They cannot make the stop "based on" that sole factor.

It may become part of "the totality of the circumstances" that "contribute to" reasonable suspicion.

See also https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=46685060.

[estearum]

Kavanaugh literally says that it's well-established that race cannot be a consideration in the application of law.

You (and Kavanaugh a few weeks prior) are saying that it can be.

That's a contradiction.

[zahlman]

> [T]he Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race

> it's well-established that race cannot be a consideration in the application of law.

You seem to think these statements are equivalent. They are not.

"Kavanaugh a few weeks prior" is perfectly consistent, as explained in the other post I linked.

[estearum]

Please articulate a scenario that bisects them, then.

And no, your "solely due to" vs "contributing factor to" does not satisfy this. The quoted text (from Whren v United States) is extremely clear: race cannot be a consideration.

[zahlman]

No, the quoted text does not mean what you claim it does. The English words "based on" do not work that way.

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

Therefore I am done here, as well.

[lovich]

I followed your thread and can’t think of a situation where one case was satisfied and not the other.

Can you give us an example where the two statements are meaningfully different?