Reposted by Kaelik
When we understand this, & we still seek to focus on eradicating Antisemitic logics, then we can't ever accept the mainstream discourse. Even if they weren't allowing liberal Zionists to define the agenda & lead to greater funding of policing that targets Arabs and Pro-Palestine activists
![Two additional concerns inform our decision in this case. First, McCleskey's claim, taken to its logical conclusion,
Page 481 U.S. 315
throws into serious question the principles that underlie our entire criminal justice system. The Eighth Amendment is not limited in application to capital punishment, but applies to all penalties. Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277, 463 U. S. 289-290 (1983); see Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U. S. 263, 445 U. S. 293 (1980) (POWELL, J., dissenting). Thus, if we accepted McCleskey's claim that racial bias has impermissibly tainted the capital sentencing decision, we could soon be faced with similar claims as to other types of penalty. [Footnote 38] Moreover, the claim that his sentence
Page 481 U.S. 316
rests on the irrelevant factor of race easily could be extended to apply to claims based on unexplained discrepancies that correlate to membership in other minority groups, [Footnote 39] and
Page 481 U.S. 317
even to gender. [Footnote 40] Similarly, since McCleskey's claim relates to the race of his victim, other claims could apply with equally logical force to statistical disparities that correlate with the race or sex of other actors in the criminal justice system, such as defense attorneys [Footnote 41] or judges. [Footnote 42] Also, there is no logical reason that such a claim need be limited to racial or sexual bias. If arbitrary and capricious punishment is the touchstone under the Eighth Amendment, such a claim could -- at least in theory -- be based upon any arbitrary variable, such as the defendant's facial characteristics, [Footnote 43] or the physical attractiveness of the defendant or the victim, [Footnote 44] that some statistical
Page 481 U.S. 318
study indicates may be influential in jury decisionmaking. As these examples illustrate, there is no limiting principle to the type of challenge brought by McCleskey](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:vpkw7cvu6eu742hvjk5wsxf2/bafkreiafliheupewekvtfgbcuknq6k3qqezgloofn65zk53eahlwudlqtm)
