Reposted by @bshiffrin.bsky.social
To keep track, the proposer of the Green's "Zionism is Racism" motion:
- Wants Hamas de-proscribed
- Said that God willing, a time will come when Zionists "are hunted in the same way as Nazis...We will retake freedom, it won't happen without force"
- And this - www.jewishnews.co.uk/zionism-is-r...
jewishnews.co.uk
'Zionism is Racism' motion creator described as 'close friend' of Al Qaeda terrorist - Jewish News
Lubna Speitan confirmed she is still close to Minh Quang Pham, who plotted to murder hundreds at Heathrow airport, claiming that he had been "demonised"
![The majority’s order grapples with virtually none of this.
Indeed, it does not even acknowledge that the District
Court’s discriminatory-intent finding is reviewed for clear
error. Much of its reasoning rests on its assertion that, even
as to the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim, “the Dis-
trict Court’s analysis departed from Callais.” Ante, at 3.
That is wrong twice over. First, Callais “said not a word
about the standard for Fourteenth Amendment intentional-
discrimination claims.” Caster, 608 U. S., at ___
(SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 4). Instead, Callais
was focused on changing the Court’s law on “exactly what
§2 of the Voting Rights Act demands,” not what the Consti-
tution demands. 608 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 19). Second,
Callais said that its newly fashioned test for §2 disparate-
impact claims is not an intent-based test. It acknowledged
that §2 “does not demand a finding of intentional discrimi-
nation.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 23). It also denied JUSTICE
KAGAN’s charge that the majority’s new test was an intent
test in all but name. Id., at ____ (slip op., at 35). It is hard
to see how the District Court’s finding of discriminatory in-
tent under the Fourteenth Amendment could have de-
parted from an opinion that purported to say nothing about
how to find discriminatory intent under the Fourteenth
Amendment. The Court’s apparently oblivious insistence
to the contrary today cannot be squared with what Callais
said on its face just over one month ago. See id., at ___, n.
5 (KAGAN, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 25, n. 5) (“[T]he major-
ity closes its opinion by suggesting it is not requiring a vote-
dilution plaintiff to present evidence of ‘discriminatory in-
tent.’ Which, if true, would be welcome news” (citation
omitted](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreihd4do2eirxszmxkxmtifhkxrkoyyqj6s2rbmioafbeusioqgwme4)
