Quick– read the following paragraph and tell me what you think:
The women legally arrived…in 2002; (their employers) then confiscated their passports and refused to let them leave their home, authorities said.
Domestic slavery? Nightmarish abuse of Sri Lankan maids, at the hands of Arab employers? That’s what I thought. I was only half right (Thanks, KXB).
Two Indonesian women were subjected to beatings and other abuse and forced by a couple to work in their home in a swank Long Island neighborhood without pay for several years, federal prosecutors said Tuesday.
Authorities said they uncovered the abuse after one of the women was found by police wandering outside a doughnut shop on Sunday morning, wearing only pants and a towel…[IHT]
Apparently, employees at the store thought the woman was homeless, until she started slapping herself and trying to utter the word “master”.
Varsha Mahender Sabhnani, 35, and her husband Mahender Murlidhar Sabhnani, 51, both from India, entered not guilty pleas at their arraignment in U.S. District Court and were ordered held pending a Thursday bail hearing. Their attorney did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment. [IHT]
The women were only allowed outside of the house if they were taking out the garbage; when anyone visited, they were stashed in a 3×3′ closet. That’s pleasant compared to this:
The women were subjected to beatings, scalding water thrown on them, and forced to climb up and down stairs as punishment for misdeeds, prosecutors said. In one case, they said, one of the women was forced to eat 25 hot chili peppers at one time.
One of the women also told authorities she was cut behind her ears with a small pocket knife and both were forced to sleep on mats in the kitchen. They were fed so little, they claimed, that they were forced to steal food and hide it from their “captors.”[IHT]
It’s just so depressing. What quirk of destiny relegates one South Asian woman to endure the beatings of her Arab mistress while halfway around the world, her desi– albeit privileged– counterpart metes out similar viciousness to another brown human being? Sri Lankan and Fillipino maids get abused in the middle east, the Indonesian survivors from this cringe-inducing story were enslaved by people our parents might associate with, right here in the U.S and desperate, option-less women everywhere are exploited by those who should know better but don’t care. For shame.
What is this, a Prema-type thing, where you just repeat yourself until I give in? It’s just not as much fun without the underlining and the bolding, that’s for sure.
At any rate, I just told you, I was just being nice in my e-mail…ending the discussion quickly and painlessly. In truth, I don’t believe I was “stupendously” wrong. That’s it. You can trot that same e-mail out over and over again, and I’ll just keep saying the same thing.
So to be nice you admitted that you were wrong?
Also the reason, I did not publicly acknowledge you was because the sources you sent to me made no sense. Here is what I wrote to you about your sources:
I c what you are saying and I wholly disagree. I just read the two cases and your analysis of the Univ. of Mich v. Ewing case to mean that hearing prior to dismissal are not required is a plain incorrect rendition of the opinion. You are right about the hearing requirment in the Missippi v. Horowitz case. However this goes to the type of procedural due process and not whether the procedural due process exists to begin with.
My only contention with you is your initial characterization of procedural due process which you believed did not exist in public universities. I disgree and still disagree. As to the question of what that entails, yes it is open to litigation. But not the right itself.
I figured that airing this in public will embarass you but I guess I was wrong. Apparently, you just admitted to being wrong because you are nice.
embarrass*
I was posting over and over again because I kept getting the italics wrong. The SM people usually fix it.
I just read the two cases and your analysis of the Univ. of Mich v. Ewing case to mean that hearing prior to dismissal are not required is a plain incorrect rendition of the opinion.
I still disagree with you on that score, but really, where is this getting us? This is not a discussion I am interested in having at all.
So to be nice you admitted that you were wrong?
Yes. I do it in real life too. It’s more effective way to end a discussion than just telling someone “you’re wrong, now piss off.”
Also the reason, I did not publicly acknowledge you was because the sources you sent to me made no sense.
That’s not really relevant. You basically made a public assumption that you would never hear from me, but you were wrong. The only acknowledgment required was that you had in fact heard from me. The substance of what I said was not relevant. Plus, I disagree with your characterization of what I said as making no sense.
But again, what is the point of all this? And where is it getting us? Nowhere is my guess, and this is the ultimate threadjack, really. So why don’t we just call it quits.
I told you, persuasive in the non-legal sense, because Prema wasn’t making a distinction between persuasive in the normative sense and in the legal sense.
You are using legal terms in a non-legal sense? Anyway, let me break it down for you. Here is what you said:
In fact, the Court is only allowed to give persuasive weight to arguments made by the parties themselves
Even if you were using ‘persuasive weight’ in the non-legal sense, the above statement is still wrong. When you say that the ‘Court is only allowed’ to give persuasive weight to arguments by the parties, you are implying that the Courts cannot give any persuasive weight to arguments from non-parties, which is plain wrong.
I fixed it!
PS:
You are welcome. HMF, hema et al are the type of psuedo-intellectual hucksters who count on tiring out opponents in debate with what they imagine are “clever” twists, nitpicks, misrepresentations, ad hominem “humor” and other such slippery tactics. But as you can see, once they face an adversary who does not tire and give up they are exposed for the intellectually and ethically bankrupt con artists they are. I dont blame you for not agreeing with my strident tone but you got to admit anything less only encourages such dishonest creatures.
you are implying that the Courts cannot give any persuasive weight to arguments from non-parties, which is plain wrong.
It’s not wrong. The courts don’t give weight to issues not briefed by the parties, and non-parties don’t participate in oral hearings, etc. So in the normative sense (i.e. non-legal sense), only the parties have any actual influence/persuasion on the outcome of the case. The Court isn’t supposed to rely on issues raised by amici, and in fact, as suggested in the article I posted earlier, the Court almost never does make its decision on the basis of non-party briefs, partly to avoid making policy judgments (which is what amici are typically advocating).
Anyway, I’m done here. I really don’t see the point of this discussion, because you’re obviously not grasping what I’m trying to say here. The question isn’t one of legal persuasiveness, but rather the extent to which the Court allows itself to be influenced by non-party issues. It’s my thesis that the influence of amici is minimal in the vast majority of cases. That’s all.
It’s also 11 pm, and I’m very, very old, so it’s way past my bedtime.
Damn, you sure are as shameless as they come. That was the post I was responding to.
Hope you learned an important lesson from this humiliation: honesty is the best policy 🙂
Please re-read what you just wrote. Its for the ages. Let me post it here again.
That’s not really relevant. You basically made a public assumption that you would never hear from me, but you were wrong. The only acknowledgment required was that you had in fact heard from me. The substance of what I said was not relevant.
To summarize,
(1) I challenge you to provide sources. You email me sources which make no sense so I email you back privately chiding you for your crazy reading of the sources.
(2) You reply back to me on email acknowledging that you were wrong.
Apparently, you now claim that the acknowledement of your being wrong was because you were being nice and your statement that it was a good thing that you dont practice constitutional law was for comedic effect.
Ok, I am done with that topic. We can now move on to the current thread.
P.S. I will be watching you here like a hawk. Be careful when you make legal pronouncements. Good night!
Get a room already! 😉
Apparently, you now claim that the acknowledement of your being wrong was because you were being nice and your statement that it was a good thing that you dont practice constitutional law was for comedic effect.
Both 100% true (I was being nice, and the comedic effect was intended, but it’s also true that I don’t practice constitutional law). In fact, if I remember correctly, you also don’t practice in the area, which makes you about as much of an authority as I am…which is to say, not an authority at all.
And you’re failure to acknowledge that you did actually hear from me was low, and IMO, somewhat dishonest on your part. You called me out publicly for reneging, but didn’t acknowledge that you were wrong about that in the first place. Furthermore, if you did care so much as to only “chide” me in private, why the heck did you bother posting my e-mail now? Surely, this particular round of chiding could also have been conducted in private?
P.S. I will be watching you here like a hawk. Be careful when you make legal pronouncements
Oooooo. Should I be frightened? You’ve made a few incorrect legal (and non-legal) pronouncements yourself, but you didn’t see much jump all over them, did you? Sometimes, a little courtesy goes a long way, you know.
And with that, a good night to you too.
I am not done. I will be on this shit all night and for the rest of the week if need maybe.
It’s not wrong. The courts don’t give weight to issues not briefed by the parties, and non-parties don’t participate in oral hearings, etc. So in the normative sense (i.e. non-legal sense), only the parties have any actual influence/persuasion on the outcome of the case. The Court isn’t supposed to rely on issues raised by amici, and in fact, as suggested in the article I posted earlier, the Court almost never does make its decision on the basis of non-party briefs, partly to avoid making policy judgments (which is what amici are typically advocating).
(1) You are now conflating issues with arguments. I only mentioned issues in #285. My problem was with your statement that dealt with ‘arguments’. I am talking about the argument and not about the issues.
(2) Your second part is not substantiated by empirical evidence. The question here is not about what is proper for the Courts to do but what the Courts in fact do.
Oooooo. Should I be frightened?
VERY.
Ok, SM Intern wants me to get a room for you. So I am going to go book a room at Motel 6.
This exchange is amusing and a very good example of how to expose slippery, lying, con artists like hema and HMF:
hema: you can stuff your sorries in a sack. I wasn’t actually wrong about the procedural due process issue, and certainly nothing on the level of stupendously wrong.
acfd: Oh really! Now you say you were not wrong. I digged up your email. This is what you said to me at the end of the email: At any rate, in conclusion, you are right, I am wrong. Mea culpa and all that other good stuff. It’s a good thing I don’t practice constitutional law! -hema
hema: I was just being nice in my e-mail…ending the discussion quickly and painlessly. In truth, I don’t believe I was “stupendously” wrong. That’s it. You can trot that same e-mail out over and over again, and I’ll just keep saying the same thing.
acfd: I figured that airing this in public will embarass you but I guess I was wrong. Apparently, you just admitted to being wrong because you are nice.
LOL. She really should be embarrassed. Its thick-skinned, ignorant hucksters like her who give lawyering a bad name.
(1) Well, in that case we’re not talking about the same thing, so why are you arguing with me? Bored, are you?
(2) I’m suggesting that there is, in fact, not a huge disconnect between what the Court does in fact and what the Court is supposed to do. The empirical evidence tends to bear that out too, especially if you extend observation out to all appellate courts in general, and not just the US Supreme Court.
so why are you arguing with me? Bored, are you?
I am not arguing.
Heh. Well, anyone who can end a discussion with a Python clip is alright by me. 🙂
You’re absolutely correct, the moment I decided to engage you……I had a made a huge fool of me. Hope you learned an important lesson from this humiliation: honesty is the best policy 🙂
Honesty, as in quoting completely, without the use of ellipses, to alter the subtext of the quote? You can’t make this kind of irony up:
“You’re absolutely correct, the moment I decided to engage you (assuming you’re capable of human being like discussion) I had a made a huge fool of me. Silly Rabbit. Trix are for kids.”
You really are hopeless. Whats the point of including an irrelevant, absurd remark whose only purpose was an idiotic attempt to save face? That remark does not even make any sense. You stupidly mangled future tense with past tense.
Just deal with the fact that you did make a “huge fool” out of yourself with such impressively “human being like discussion” as : “what the f*ck is “condemnation” going to do…….. America didn’t give a flying #()$@# what the rest of the world thought” and then finding out that you were completely clueless after all 🙂
Umm.. the truth?
I have. It seems like you can’t.
These two miserable excuses for human beings are going on trial today.
For once, I am so glad to find someone in this website who stands up for herself and the truth, and not follow the crowd like cows in a herd. Prema, keep up the good work of highlighting about child slavery in India. I personally know many sordid stories of Indian child exploitation, kids even young as 5 or 6. Persoanlly, I think writing about them here won’t help much as you would only be branded as anti-India, racist, culturally insensitive, not brownie….and whatever terms some people will think of. I suggest you channel those postings in Human Rights and Amnesty Int’l sites. They will be more appreciated there (and hopefully, more productive).
At the same time, I am sad and ashamed to know that a lot of Indians born and raised in the US could still be so biased and racist in their remarks. I have been reading SP for a few days, and I can’t tell the no. of times I have come across words like “kala”, “gora”, “whities”, “ghetto dwellers” while describing others, and at the same time highlight the “India Shining” “we earn lots”, “We’re educated” lines. I think some respect for people of other races (whether they acn hear you or not/whther they read your words or not) and a little humility will go a long way. After all, wealth and education is not synomymous to decency, just like it’s not in this couple’s and their children’s case.
Lastly, for those condoning Indian child slave labor with reasonings like “500 teenagers die in US every year at their work places”, “US had slavery 150 years ago” are so lame. Those “500”/year (which is a staggering no) are of legal age to work. Teenagers, Ok, but 16 is okay to work and they are doing so out of their consent. They can leave anytime they don’t want to, and NOTE: they are paid prevailing wages. And oh yes, the slavery in US “150 years” ago is so relevant, like you’re admitting that India is 150 years behind US.
Bottom line is love your country of origin, but don’t let it become your sole identity that you have defend its wrongs.