This would seem to fall pretty squarely within the purview of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which is indeed a matter for SCOTUS. — Arkady

It would if there were actually a law that permitted the discriminatory murder of black suspects and the Court needed to strike it down. As it is, we're all in agreement as to the law. Some might debate the facts as to what is going on, but everyone is in agreement: racial discrimination is wrong.

Republicans aren't in favor of actually shrinking or weakening the government: they're for doing away with programs and regulations which they don't like (e.g. labor standards and environmental regulations) and building up those which they do (e.g. our already-bloated military). — Arkady

You sound like a Tea Partier, arguing for re-establishing the Republican ideology as it was intended.

Secondly, what does it say about the country when the majority party simply disregards procedure in order to stonewall a President from making the judicial appointments which it is within his power to make? — Arkady

What procedural rule was violated? My copy of the Constitution doesn't set out a timeline for when the Senate is required to evaluate Justice nominees.

How so? I didn't even offer any prescriptive statements about shrinking the government: I was just pointing out how Republicans lie about wanting to shrink the government, and then do anything but once in power. But thanks for the tacit agreement that Republicans' actions fail to live up to their stated ideals.

What procedural rule was violated? My copy of the Constitution doesn't set out a timeline for when the Senate is required to evaluate Justice nominees. — Hanover

I see. And so, if Senate Democrats refused to bring a President Trump nominee up for consideration for four years or so, you'd be fine with that? After all, there are no Constitutionally-mandated constraints on when the Senate must hold confirmation hearings and take a vote on the nominee.

(This is, of course, part of a general pattern of Republicans' stonewalling Obama appointees, which leaves key governmental positions unfilled, which hurts the country. So, once, again, party and ideology come before country with the Republicans.)

But thanks for the tacit agreement that Republicans' actions fails to live up to their stated ideals. — Arkady

I think that is what every Republican says, thus the significant anti-establishment sentiment among Republicans.

I see. And so, if Senate Democrats refused to bring a President Trump nominee up for consideration for four years or so, you'd be fine with that? After all, there are no Constitutionally-mandated constraints on when the Senate must hold confirmation hearings and take a vote on the nominee. — Arkady

You really don't stay on point very well. You said that the Senate violated procedure in its failure to vote on the Obama nominee and therefore put the party over the nation. I pointed out that there was no violation of procedure because there wasn't.

Now you're asking whether I'd be unhappy if the shoe were on the other foot. Sure, I'd want a Republican nominee to be voted on, and I'd want him or her to be approved. I wouldn't argue, though, that there was a violation of procedure in the Senate's failure to vote. If I did argue that, I guess I'd just be wrong and terribly inconsistent, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

You really don't stay on point very well. You said that the Senate violated procedure in its failure to vote on the Obama nominee and therefore put the party over the nation. I pointed out that there was no violation of procedure because there wasn't. — Hanover

Yes, and your response was sophistry. You are fully aware that the sole reason for delaying the vote (or refusing to hold it at all) is to deny Obama his right to appoint a judicial nominee while in office, which is his prerogative as president. Ergo, the Senate is failing to fulfill its role of confirming (or not) said appointment. My response was on point.

So, in other words, their party fails to live up to their stated ideals, and so Republicans...remain Republicans. Brilliant. (This is little different than apologists for Communism who simply claim that, once the right people are in power, this mode of government could go just swimmingly. But maybe, just maybe, there's an inherent structural flaw in a party which seeks to arrogate as much governmental power for itself as possible while simultaneously claiming to despise government. Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew makes this point very well.)

Once upon a time, so the story goes, we were ruled by a tyrannical leader, who cared little for the rights of the people and who governed with an iron hand. Through the force of violent rebellion, we broke free from our shackles, but remained forever skeptical of our leaders. Through careful thought, we devised a system that checked the power of anyone who was granted power so that never again would we be subjugated. These rules, among other things, divided the power of our legislature into two houses, provided an executive the full power to veto, and a court to review everything to be sure it complied with our lofty principles.

It is ironic that you describe this system as one that leads to submissiveness, because it does the opposite: it weakens the government and leaves the power to the people. It is for that reason that Republicans decry an increasingly central and controlling federal government.

This system is not at all depressing. It leads to great stability and certainty. It has provided the world with its greatest economy and a protector of all that is just and right in the world. — Hanover

You paint a lovely picture, yet, to describe the American system in your own words, a rigid two party system which allows for situations in which it is impossible for anything much to pass or in which nothing will ever pass, and which allows for four years of gridlock to ensue, and which was set up to protect the status quo, for some reason strikes me as problematic and far from ideal. What of efficiency and progress? I guess in your view they take a backseat to stability and certainty. Yet that doesn't address any underlying problems, it merely sets them aside.

The Court's ruling on guns is based upon the 2nd Amendment. That is but one of the checks on the federal government designed to weaken the power of the federal government (for what it's worth). — Hanover

Yes, and the Second Amendment needs to be amended or simply done away with. It's outdated and does more harm than good.

The US is extremely religiously permissive. You guys still have a national religion don't you? — Hanover

Yes, we have a national religion, but c'mon Hanover, we both know that religion has a far greater political influence in the U.S. than the U.K. It influences laws regarding abortion and it influences homophobia in the political realm, like, for example, that appalling and notorious televised convention that Ted Cruz attended. That simply wouldn't happen over here.

Racial discrimination by police officers has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. It's illegal to kill the innocent already and the courts haven't said it's ok, so I'm not sure how that concern fits into this discussion. — Hanover

That may be so, but the Supreme Court does determine when the use of deadly force is reasonable, and some legal experts criticise the current framework because it allows for such events as the two recent police killings in Louisiana and Minnesota to transpire.

I can say that the US has at least figured out how to spell center. — Hanover

You misspelt "centre".

You paint a lovely picture, — Sapientia

I do. Optimism, positivity, and patriotism are things Europeans can't understand (or stand) about Americans. What confuses and annoys them most is our belief in the rightness of everything we do. We call that faith.

What of efficiency and progress? I guess in your view they take a backseat to stability and certainty. Yet that doesn't address any underlying problems, it merely sets them aside. — Sapientia

Your question asks why a conservative doesn't wish to be more progressive. Obviously these are competing world views, although no one is entirely stagnant nor entirely progressive. Despite what you say, we do address our issues. It's not as if the US is in the dark ages or that life in the US is significantly different than life in Europe (other than it being more affordable and generally more consumer friendly).

Yes, we have a national religion, but c'mon Hanover, we both know that religion has a far greater political influence in the U.S. than the U.K. It influences laws regarding abortion and it influences homophobia in the political realm, like, for example, that appalling and notorious televised convention that Ted Cruz attended. That simply wouldn't happen over here. — Sapientia

There's a difference between what individuals do and what a legislature may require. In the UK, I'm guessing you have the whole gamut, from racist, homophobic skinheads to civil rights leaders. The same holds true in the US. I think we both agree (but am not sure) that all these folks have the right to exist and believe whatever they want without legal restriction. In some parts of the country, they try to pass laws limiting abortion (Texas), although in others they pass laws expanding homosexual rights (the Bay area). In no instance though, can any jurisdiction pass a law that violates the Constitution, so all homosexuals can marry, no one can be denied an abortion (within certain limitations), and no black person can be legally discriminated against.

Regardless, it's pretty clear that you could move to the US and do exactly what you do in the UK without fear of government restriction. It wouldn't be like if you moved to Saudi Arabia or something. It'd take you a few months to meet like minded folks here in the US, and you could go about advocating the same old nonsense you did while in the UK.

That may be so, but the Supreme Court does determine when the use of deadly force is reasonable, and some legal experts criticise the current framework because it allows for such events as the two recent police killings in Louisiana and Minnesota to transpire. — Sapientia

The Supreme Court can only proclaim the Constitutional minimum for when deadly force may be used by an officer ((1) defense of officer's life, and (2) keeping a person from escaping who may pose a threat to life of others)). A police department or state could place greater limits on the officers. Regardless, if the cops in Lousiana or Minnesota are not convicted, it won't be because of some limitation on charging the officers set by the Supreme Court. It will be because a jury decides there's insufficient facts to convict.

It is difficult to maintain perspective in the FaceBook of first-person streaming of police shootings and their aftermath.

Per the Washington Post... In 2015 he police shot 965 persons; 564 were armed with a gun, 281 were armed with some other weapon; only 90 were not armed. only 4% of those killed by police fire were unarmed. The Washington Post found that the great majority of people who died at the hands of the police fit at least one of three categories: they were wielding weapons, they were suicidal or mentally troubled [another significant problem], or they ran when officers told them to halt.

The killing of Fhilando Castile might not have happened if he were white; it might also not have happened if he was unarmed (he was armed with a gun, legally). It might also be the case that his record of 55 driving citations (some dismissed) played a role in his being stopped in the first place.

Meanwhile, a 2 year old was killed and a 15 month old was injured by stray bullets from one of two shooters firing away at each other in North Minneapolis (our 'ghetto'). The connections between 32 year old Philando and the dead 2 year are guns.

Carrying a gun may be legal, but we see over and over that it is ill-advised. The presence of a gun alone can lead to adverse outcomes that wouldn't otherwise occur.

None of this alters the fact that proportionately police kill more blacks than whites, while numerically killing more whites than blacks. That is a real problem, but it isn't the case that blacks come into contact with the police on a random basis. Blacks tend to be involved in crime much more often than their population would predict. Whites on the other hand, are involved in crime about as often as their population would predict.

Coming in contact with the police in any negative context raises one's risk. Being armed, male, and black increases personal risk more, because the police identify such characteristics as increasing the threat level.

I couldn't quite figure out from the AP article whether this was Castile's 52nd traffic stop, or 53rd. Regardless, he was a veteran. The author of an article in Slate was wondering if this was a routine part of local government finances - can you shed any light on that BC? Anyway, he averaged three stops a year. I wonder how many traffic stops I would survive as an out of state white with a gun on my person?

Larpenter Avenue, the street Philandro Castile was stopped on, is an E-W thoroughfare, running from downtown Minneapolis to a large park on the east side of St. Paul. It's bordered by 2 or 3 little "suburbs" which are more like neighborhoods of St. Paul. Both of these suburbs--Falcon Heights and St. Anthony--have very solid property values and numerous amenities. I doubt if either one needs income from traffic fines. Both are roughly 85%-90% white.

the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area is quite large and facilities of all kinds are scattered all over the place. One has to travel across many municipal boundaries to carry on a normal life. The main avenues of urban travel are Interstate 35 and 94, and state highways 61, 52, 55, and 36. These are patrolled by the MN Highway patrol. Minneapolis and St. Paul police patrol their cities' streets, along with county sheriffs. Smaller suburbs frequently share police costs. I don't think fines figure into local budgets in a significant way.

Speed traps and ticket factories are usually found in really small rural Minnesota burgs where property tax income is very low.

I have no information on whether Mr. Castile revealed that he was a registered concealed gun carrier in any of his earlier stops. If he did, it apparently wasn't an issue.

What I have heard on NPR is that the best procedure for gun carriers who are stopped by the police is:

1. roll down your window
2. put your hands on the upper half of the steering wheel
3. tell the officer you carry a gun, or have a gun in the car, and where it is
4. ask the officer what he (or she) wants you to do next.
5. keep your gun and car registration someplace other than your back pocket -- like on the visor or in your shirt pocket, where reaching for it doesn't look threatening.

I don't drive, and the Second Amendment anti-personnel missiles I carry on my bicycle are always visible. Police seem to be OK with that.

I do. Optimism, positivity, and patriotism are things Europeans can't understand (or stand) about Americans. What confuses and annoys them most is our belief in the rightness of everything we do. We call that faith. — Hanover

Have you seen The Newsroom? I've just started watching the first season. I like how the main character, Will McAvoy, eventually answers the question: "What makes America the greatest country in the world?". At least the first part, before he gets all mushy.

Your question asks why a conservative doesn't wish to be more progressive. Obviously these are competing world views, although no one is entirely stagnant nor entirely progressive. Despite what you say, we do address our issues. It's not as if the US is in the dark ages or that life in the US is significantly different than life in Europe (other than it being more affordable and generally more consumer friendly). — Hanover

Sure, issues get addressed, but whether they end up getting resolved, or whether any progress has been made, is another matter. And it is clear with gun control that raising and addressing the issue has not been enough, and that there has been a failure to cooperate or reach a compromise for the greater good. This, at least in part, seems indicative of a broader systematic fault. It raises the question of whether the system cannot be reformed so as to avoid or reduce the occurrence of such failures.

The Supreme Court can only proclaim the Constitutional minimum for when deadly force may be used by an officer ((1) defense of officer's life, and (2) keeping a person from escaping who may pose a threat to life of others)). A police department or state could place greater limits on the officers. Regardless, if the cops in Lousiana or Minnesota are not convicted, it won't be because of some limitation on charging the officers set by the Supreme Court. It will be because a jury decides there's insufficient facts to convict. — Hanover

Supreme Court or not, this is clearly a problem, and something should be done about it. The statistics show a racial disparity which is alarming, and the percentage of police offers who don't get convicted, and the percentage of those who get convicted but do not end up serving a prison sentence, is also deeply concerning, and is due in no small part to bias.