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.

> [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.

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.

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.

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?