Kansas City Star commentator Mary Sanchez, with my commentary:
Good for Sonia Sotomayor.
She called out her U.S. Supreme Court peers for their dismissive attitudes toward our nation’s troubling racial history and their wishful thinking on how far we have come in such matters.
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination," Sotomayor wrote in a withering 58-page dissenting opinion.Sotomayor has ruled in the highest court in the land that race should be a central factor in admissions at state universities. It is a plainly racist viewpoint.
How's that for 'speaking openly and candidly on the subject of race'?
Eight states have outlawed race as a consideration in admissions at state universities. The court’s decision opens the door to voting majorities in other states to reach the same conclusion, without considering the historical burdens many minority people still struggle with — a stark break from the court’s past role as a guardian of fairness and justice for all.Consideration of historical burdens with which minority people still struggle is for the people and legislatures to consider, in referendums and legislation, respectively.
Sotomayor's job as a jurist is to rule based on the law and the Constitution, both of which she flouted.
By writing her brave dissent, Sotomayor illustrated for America what she meant in a controversial remark she made during her Senate confirmation hearings. Remember that quote? The one where she said that a Latina jurist might "reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."
That prediction has come true.Bizarrely, Sotomayor believes that Wiselatinahood somehow serves as a basis for interpretation of the law and of the Constitution. Wisecaucasianhood, or Wisemalehood, or WiseWASPhood, seem not to have the same salubrious effect on jurisprudence.
Affirmative action applies not merely to college admissions, but now to judicial rulings, it seems.
I can't think of a more compelling reason to impeach her and remove her from the bench.
In this case, she showed herself to be a better guardian of a long legal legacy the high court set down in numerous prior decisions: protecting minorities from discriminatory laws enacted by electoral majorities. She accused her peers of abandoning that legacy. "We ordinarily understand our precedents to mean what they actually say, not what we later think they could or should have said," she scolded.What the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act "actually say" is irrelevant to Sotomayor. Both demand colorblind application of the law. Sotomayor's opinion is based entirely on what she "later think[s] they could or should have said".
The fact is that Sotomayor sits at the terminus of a long line of bigots. The electoral majorities who have discriminated against minorities were always progressive Democrat majorities-- progressive Democrat politics has traditionally been the politics of Jim Crow and segregation. Even those rare Progressives who have abjured personal racist politics-- Hubert Humphrey comes to mind-- spent hours in smoky rooms cutting deals with their racist segregationalist buddies to gain power.
Sotomayor sits at the end of a long line of racists. Her judical ruling in favor of racism makes perfect sense in that light. Sotomayor's nightmare is a colorblind system of law.
The good people of Michigan disagree with her, and she is intent on forcing racial discrimination on Michigan despite the colorblind wishes of the citizens of that state.
The court’s ruling does not by any means decide the complicated issues of how race or race-neutral considerations like socio-economic status will be used in college admissions. What it does is change how those decisions can be made. Michigan’s anti-affirmative action law was passed in 2006 by ballot initiative, with the support of 58 percent of Michigan voters.
In her dissent, Sotomayor pointed out what should be obvious: "Under our Constitution, majority rule is not without limit." Race still matters in America. The burdens of past racial discrimination — in the case of African-Americans, hundreds of years of slavery, terrorization and apartheid — are still palpable in unequal life conditions. And racial, ethnic and gender discrimination continues to abide.
Not a single white applicant to college in Michigan has been convicted of violating the rights of a black person. Yet Sotomayor insists that the government disadvantage white applicants simply because of the color of their skin.
What about the 14th Amendment guarantee of the right to equal protection of the law? What about the Civil Rights Act's prohibition of discrimination based on race? What about the 5th Amendment guarantee of the right to due process of law?
How can a government policy disadvantage a white (or Asian) college applicant on the pretext of past racial discrimination, without any legal finding that the applicant had any personal culpability in any discrimination? How can a government policy advantage a black college applicant on the pretext of past racial discrimination, without any finding that the applicant had actually suffered any personal harm from said discrimination? On what legal basis should a poor white or Asian kid from a single-parent home be disadvantaged to admit a rich black kid from a successful intact family or a recent black immigrant who personally suffered no racial discrimination in the United States at all?
The attribution of culpability and privilege based on race is the definition of racism, and has no basis in law or ethics.
Sotomayor's job is to apply those crystal-clear principles of black-letter law, which, in accordance with the 14th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act, are color-blind.
No one gives a sh*t about Sotomayor's personal views on racism or history. Yet she has scandalously imposed her own bigoted views on her judicial decisions, in plain defiance of the 14th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act, all of which demand equal protection of the law.
Asserting merely that the majority should rule, even in cases where it stacks the deck against minorities, is not fair in America. It wasn’t fair a century ago when literacy tests and poll taxes were put in place, and it’s not fair in 2014.The referendum's repudiation of affirmative action is an explicit rejection of racism. The public is demanding an end to racism in law and government policy, and Sotomayor is demanding that racism in law and government policy continue.
You decide who the racist is.
...That was not all there was to her dissent, however. There was a minute detailing of this country’s long history of discriminatory law, of states and municipalities using the vote of the majority to limit the rights of the minority. It’s a long and lamentable list. Grandfather clauses, good character requirements, poll taxes and gerrymandering provisions all were concocted to keep minorities in their place, and all were invalidated by the court.Affirmative action is racism, and is one more domino in a long line of progressive Democrat racist policies. It needs to end.
As the nation’s first Latina Supreme Court justice, she is in a unique position to speak to experiences that her colleagues can only read about — and apparently are all too ready to dismiss.WTF? Clarence Thomas needs to consult Wiselatina Sonya about racism? He can only read about racism?
Justice Thomas-- a man who has fought racism all his life-- was the victim of a high-tech lynching by Sotomayor's racist compatriots in his confirmation hearings because he was a black man who strayed off the Democrat plantation. He doesn't have to read about racism. He has experienced racism first-hand, from Sotomayor's patrons.
She is also a rigorous jurist, and she won’t let the court abandon its proud and righteous legacy without putting up a fight.Sotomayor is a rigorous racist, not a rigorous jurist, and nothing she wrote in that dissent has anything to do with jurisprudence. She is a bigot who has substituted her personal bigotry for law.
There is no place for racists on the Supreme Court.
She's also admitted that she was an affirmative action student at college. Her problem is that she suffers from a sense of insecurity. She wonders if she would have made it this far in life if she hadn't been afforded special treatment based on her race.ReplyDelete
She should wonder too, because the answer is: not very far at all.
The wise Latina comment was absurdly racist. She never should have been confirmed. What she was saying is that she can commiserate with certain plaintiffs, particularly with the poor and the minority, which will allow her to write better decisions. But that's not a judge's job. If justice is to be blind, the law is what has to decide cases, not the judge's sympathy for someone who looks like her.
Her problem is that she suffers from a sense of insecurity.Delete
Really? How do you know that, Joey? Did Jeebus tell you in a dream?
Idiot, Sonia told us that:Delete
Whether it was Princeton, Yale Law, the Manhattan district attorney’s office or an appointment to the bench, the challenges of a new environment would initially lead to a period “of fevered insecurity, a reflexive terror that I’ll fall flat on my face...
--- NYT Review of "My Beloved World" by Sonia Sotomayor
You one reeeley smart guy, Dutch Boi. Must be one hell of a scientist, with your research skills. What's your field? Troll-o-metrics?
BTW, Jeebus only appears at White House events (i.e., fundraisers) and sea level reductions.
Anyone who was granted such outrageous indulgences on account of her race and sex, from college to her first job, all the way up to the supreme court, will always wonder how she would have fared if she hadn't filled a category. It's called insecurity. She has already said that she got into her college of choice on affirmative action. Now of course she intended that as a flattery to the racist system she adores, but it came off sounding like she wasn't really among the best applicants to Princeton, only among the best minority female applicants.Delete
Even as a supreme court justice she was an affirmative action hire. Obama wanted another "first." (Miguel Estrada would have beaten her there but the Democrats killed his nomination to a lower court because he was a "dangerous Latino" whom they feared was on a trajectory to the supreme court.)
People who have benefited from this system are very uncomfortable thinking about it disappearing.
KW. Her insecurity accounts for her outrage when questioned by a senior law firm member as to whether the possibility of being seen as the beneficiary of Affirmative Action worried her. Obviously, it does worry her. If she were not worried, she would not be outraged. And of course the way to be sure that your achievements are known to be your own, and not the result of some special help, is to achieve them on your own. I mean, how many times have we been told that the only reason GW Bush got into Yale was because he was a 'legacy'. AA taints those it pretends to help.Delete
Sanchez is just another Professional Minority Person, like Touré, "Reverend"Sharpton, and any number of others, including Barack Obama.ReplyDelete
And they are symptoms of the most corrosive effect of affirmative action, which is the nagging doubt, in their mind as well as others', that they never would have achieved what they did without lowering the bar. Or, in the words of a black student describing the advantages of being black, "being praised for infinitesimal accomplishments".
John "Lurch" Kerry, Secretary of State, on the Boko Haram kidnappings:
I will tell you, my friends, I have seen this scourge of terror across the planet, and so have you. They don't offer anything except violence. They don’t offer a health care plan, they don’t offer schools.
But if they HAD a health care plan, would they still be terrorists? And would the website work? Should you get body armor with the Gold Plan?
But they actually do offer schools. They're called madrassas, Mr Secretary.
Boko Haram’s swelling ranks are filled with boys and young men who attended almajiri schools, West African madrassas.
Egnor and his fan-boys are incorrigible racist scum. I guess you don't believe in Wiedergutmachung either, do you Egnor?ReplyDelete
And regarding reparations for slavery and Jim Crow: I wouldn't object if the Democrat Party paid reparations.Delete
Frankly, Egnor, I think 360,000 Union Army casualties, not including what must have been thousands of "collateral" casualties, and the economic damage inflicted on the South by "Reconstruction", is reparation enough for slavery.Delete
But I wouldn't object if the Democrat Party were required to pay for Jim Crow, a system of law constructed and maintained by Democrat politicians.
And what any of this has to do with the industrial murder of millions of Jews, Poles, Gypsies, etc by Socialists - a colossal evil in which the Dutch were among the most ardent collaborators - is a mystery to me.
You poor beleaguered whites. Good thing you have Egnor to champion your race. If a smart black kid from a poor school in a poor neighborhood can’t overcome the disadvantages of the circumstances of their birth, fuck’em, there’s a white kid from a good school and a good neighborhood who scored higher on a test or wrote a better essay that clearly deserves it more. The scourge of helping black kids go to college at the expense of whites must be ended. Just remember, legacy admissions that overwhelmingly favor whites are totally different and totally OK.ReplyDelete
And remember conservatives, when discussing this subject it’s about being color blind! If somebody makes a little racist slip like naidoo above, follow Egnor’s example and point out it’s not about color and that some of them are actually OK.
Affirmative action is illegal because the law forbids it. No debate.Delete
I think it is immoral as well, but you can make a case (a racist case) for it. That can be hashed out in the legislatures, and the laws and Constitution can be changed if you win.
I have no problem with providing students with economic or social hardship a leg up on admissions. A poor kid from a bad neighborhood does have to work harder to do well, and there's nothing wrong with taking that into account.
But it is racist to take race into account, and it is illegal and unconstitutional.
It is no more difficult for a "smart black kid from a poor school in a poor neighborhood" to get an education than it is for a smart white kid from a poor school in the poverty-stricken hollows and backwoods of Appalachia.Delete
There was no law forcing Michigan state colleges to have an affirmative action program. They did it because the considered it the best policy for the school and for the community at large. They see the value of diversity on campus, and know that without affirmative action we can expect the number of black lawyers, doctors, generals, judges and teachers to track admissions and be cut in half.Delete
It was the voters of Michigan who forced the state schools to stop affirmative action, not the constitution, and for you to argue post facto that “Affirmative action is illegal because the law forbids it. No debate” is bullshit, the debate continues. For while there may be a few people naive enough to believe there is no racism but for college admissions, it was racists in the majority that carried the day and made the law in Michigan forcing colleges to change their policy.
You attack anyone that threatens white privilege as racist, and you’re an apologist for racists. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt however, and assume, as is so often the case with white privilege, that you’re just too ignorant to realize it
Popeye: "There was no law forcing Michigan state colleges to have an affirmative action program"Delete
Now there is.
That's how voting works.
the ban won support from more than 58 percent of voters
Popster: "you’re just too ignorant"
An amusing sentiment, coming from you.
Affirmative action, in a STATE university, is a policy indistinguishable from law.Delete
Affirmative action is illegal according to the plain language of the Civil Rights Act, and is unconstitutional according to the plain language of the 14th amendment ("Equal protection...") and the 5th amendment ("due process..."). There is no actual debate. There are people telling the truth about what the law says, and there are people not telling the truth. That is not a debate.
There is racism of varying kind and degree in a lot of places. There is real anti-black racism. There is a ton of pro-black racism (as the last two presidential elections demonstrate). There is anti-white, pro-white, anti-Asian, pro-Asian, etc racism in many places as well.
The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Two things are necessary:
1) We must obey the law, which requires colorblind law.
2) We should work to end racism everywhere, of all kinds.
If that happened, the Democrat Party would never win another national election, so racism ain't about to end anytime soon.
Egnor: "If that happened, the Democrat Party would never win another national election"Delete
Or another Congressional election in many districts, as you can see here and here.
Egnor is championing anyone's race.Delete
You think this is all a zero sum tribalist gum. That's the idea we're trying to get beyond. We're over race, you're not.
You obviously believe that blacks are less capable. If you didn't you wouldn't want lower standards for them. Why are you so racist, KW?
Megnor, the strategy is as follows:ReplyDelete
1) Flood America with third-world immigrants by leaving our borders open, granting amnesty to illegals and promoting multiculturalism.
2) Claim victimhood status for minorities.
3) Constant stream of PC propaganda in politics, media and academia portraying whites as the privileged oppressor class. Wrap emotional rhetoric around catch-all "equal rights" rights terminology in order to reinforce guilt complex.
4) Declare that something must be done. Push through onerous laws, redistribution programs, affirmative action, equality in the workforce, etc. In this way, the "victims" is handed whatever they want without having to earn it. Anyone opposing their "equal rights" crusade is declared a bigot.
5) Wash, rinse, repeat.
Of course, there is nothing "equal" about taking something which doesn't belong to you in the first place. White Americans cannot walk into another country and make demands of their government to fork over special privileges, wealth and perks. Try entering Mexico illegally and see what happens. Sotomayer should deport herself.
Sotomayor is white, KW. Am I a white racist against whites?Delete
Perhaps I'm a white racist against whites who are racist against white racists.
Racism is eeeeeverywhere...
Yeah sure Boggs, except Cruz is from another country and only recently renounced his foreign citizenship. Sotomayor was born in the Bronx.Delete
Apparently Sotomayor is either white or Latina depending on what is most convenient for the conservative argument of the day. Latina covers a wide range of possible skin tone, but for your average conservative white bigot, the term Latina is enough to get you lumped in with the rest of “them”. I’d be willing to wager that conservatives are far far more likely to call Sotomayor a Latina than they are to call Cruz Latin; They like Cruz.
Popeye, now you're just babbling. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother. He is just as much a citizen as I am. Are you a citizen? I doubt it.Delete
A person Cruz's age, born abroad, is an American citizen if
1. The person's parents were married at time of birth
2. One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born
3. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child's birth
4. A minimum of 5 of those 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.
--- Wiki: United States nationality law
You fucking racist bigot.
And it's not "a Latin", it's Latino. And Cruz is a Cubano. Is your ignorance bottomless? Do you exist simply to provide others with an entertaining object of mockery?
Why am I a racist bigot why exactly? Just 'cuz? I never said Cruz wasn’t a citizen you moron. Try arguing my points instead of against straw men. Cruz was a Canadian citizen by birth and only renounced it recently, He is a naturalized U.S. Citizen, as am I having been born in Turkey to two American parents. Is Cruz eligible to be President? I don't think so, and for the exact reasons that the birthers use to argue Obama’s illegitimacy, except in Cruz's case it's all trueDelete
Latino, off course, oops. I take since that since you chose to respond with straw-man arguments and grammar corrections you concede my larger point. It's always that way with you. My larger points are always left standing and untouched. It's an almost daily confirmation of my correctness.
Yes born in Turkey, some low hanging fruit for your mocking pleasure. Have at it.
Popeye: "Why am I a racist bigot why exactly? Just 'cuz?"Delete
Ooooh. Mr Touchy! Can't take your own medicine, eh?
Can't take the heat, troll-boy, get outta the kitchen.
Cruz was not "naturalized". Maybe YOU were naturalized, but he was born an American citizen, idiot. Can you not read? The answer is one comment above. Yes, Cruz is eligible to be President. I don't think he has renounced his Canadian citizenship yet; why should he? I wouldn't, if I were him.
All your "larger points" are wrong, as usual.
Somebody oughta check your green card. If you have one.
"Yes, Cruz is eligible to be President. I don't think he has renounced his Canadian citizenship yet; why should he? I wouldn't, if I were him."Delete
NO. Cruz is *not* constitutionally eligible to be president of the US. And neither is Obama, not Jindal, nor Rubio, for none of these are natural born US citizens.
Yes, Ted is a US citizen.ReplyDelete
But he's not a natural born US citizen ... any more than the interloper currently illegally occupying the Oval Office is.
President Obama was born on August 3, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. He's a natural born citizen.Delete
Ilion, put the crack pipe down. Obama was born here. He's a crappy president but a legitimately elected one nonetheless.Delete
Francisca S.: "President Obama was born on August 3, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. He's a natural born citizen."Delete
Ben:"Ilion, put the crack pipe down. Obama was born here. He's a crappy president but a legitimately elected one nonetheless."
OK, so you know how to parrot the Democrats' and other anti-US leftists' talking points. Now, are you willing to see the truth and reason correctly from it?
Being born on US soil does not make one a natural born US citizen, any more than being born on foreign soil makes one not a natural born US citizen.
Due to faulty interpretation and enforcement of the 14th Amendment, almost anyone born on US soil to foreign parents has dual citizenship (and that's where we get "anchor babies"); that is, such persons are (erroneously) automatically awarded coveted US citizenship along with the natural citizenship in some foreign state that they inherit from their parents.
Wherever he was born -- and both he and his wife have claimed that he was born in Kenya -- Obama is not, and never can be a natural born US citizen, because at the time of his birth, his father was not a US citizen, but was rather a subject of the British crown. Furthernore, there is good reason to question whether he even is a US citizen at all.
Why don't you read up a bit on a certain Constitutional controversy involving the former president, Chester Arthur.
Furthermore, even if Obama weren't Constitutionally disqualified from holding the office, he could hardly be said to have been "legitimately elected", what with all the election fraud the Democrats had to employ to get him "elected".
By the way, the GOP also wants people to ingore, remain ignorant, and/or shut up about what the Constitution says and requires because they also want to run non-natural-born candidates for president.Delete
As US citizens, it is our duty (and defence against tyrrany) to uphold the Constitution, rather than to advance the interests of the politicians.
But Barack Obama's mother was born in Wichita, Kansas, which makes him a natural-born American.
That Obama's mother was born on US soil to a family of many generations standing as US citizens doesn't make him a natural born US citizen, any more than that Chester Arthur's mother was born on US soil to a family of many generations standing as US citizens made *him* a natural born US citizen.Delete
Chester Arthur's father had been a subject of the British Crown. At some time, he became a naturalized US citizen. The dispute over Chester Arthur's status as a natural born US citizen involved whether the father was naturalized as a US citizen before or after the birth of the son. If the father's naturalization was after the son's birth, then Chester Arthur was a US citizen, but not a natural born US citizen, and never could be. If the father's naturalization was before the son's birth, then Chester Arthur was both a US citizen, *and* a natural born US citizen.
In the case of Obama, there is no question that his father never was naturalized. Obama *may* be a US citizen -- though no one has reason to believe even that -- but his is *not* and never can be a natural born US citizen.
Also, Arthur wasn't a bastard ... which status still does figure into the legalities.
That most US citizens are also natural born US citizens does not make the two states equivalent.
So why doesn't Barack Obama being born on American territory to an American born mother not make him a natural-born American?
You don't really read, do you? I just explained why, and I don't play the game you trying to play.Delete
I do read. I read Boggs' 'cut and paste' extract from the Wikipedia as to what a natural born American is. Being born on American territory to parents, one of which is also an American citizen, are part of the requirements.
Obama being born in Hawaii to a mother who was also born in America would seem to fit the definition. If you don't think that Obama qualifies as a natural born American then it's up to you to explain why.
His father not being an American citizen isn't sufficient.
Oh, well, then, Wikipedia!Delete
Where one is born has no bearing on whether one is a natural born US citizen.
"His father not being an American citizen isn't sufficient."
But, of course it is; that was the whole point of dispute when the Democrats wanted to disallow Chester Arthur being vice-president and then president.
Moreover, in 1875, the US supreme Court, in ruling on whether a a woman citizen had the right to vote by virtue of her citizenship, discussed what "natural-born US citizen" means -- briefly: a natural-born US citizen is a person, no matter where born, both of whose parents are US citizens at the time of birth (or whose deceased father would have been ... as with my grandfather). A person born out of the US to a father who is a US citizen, is also a citizen, but not a natural-born citizen. A person born in US territory is (in most cases) a US citizen, though not necessarily a natural-born US citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of his parents. BUT, to be a natural-born US citizen, both of one's parents must be (or must have been, in the case of a deceased father) US citizens, and it doesn't matter whether one is born in or out of the US.
It's bad enough that ignorant Americans refuse to understand this matter, but for some damned foreigner to bloviate when he doesn't know what he's talking about, takes the cake.
Boggs, quoting Wikipedia: "A person Cruz's age, born abroad, is an American citizen if ..."Delete
"US citizen" and "natural born US citizen" are NOT equivalent terms, despite that everyone wants to pretend otherwise.
The Constitution commands this: "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President ..."
Why does it state it in just that way? Because at the time there were no natural-born US citizens. Both George Washington, born in America to American parents, and Alexander Hamilton, born on Nevis (West Indies) to non-American parents, were eligible to be President -- because both were US citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted -- yet neither was a natural-born US citizen.
The first president who was a natural-born US citizen was Martin van Buren, born in 1782.
Well, Barack Obama is a natural born American, because he was born in America to an American citizen mother.
To show that he isn't you need to show that either he wasn't born in America, his mother wasn't an American citizen at the time of his birth or his mother didn't fulfilled the residency requirement (she hadn't resided in America for at least 10 years, including 5 years after the age of 14).
Anyway. Martin van Buren wasn't a natural-born citizen, if he was born in 1782, because the United States didn't exist then. And his parents would not have been American citizens either.
Obama was qualified to be POTUS. And the courts which were asked to decide have agreed. If you disagree, then you're wrong. No one has seen it worthwhile to take it to SCOTUS to decide, which would be definitive.
And your 1875 Supreme Court decision is irrelevant. The court was asked to decide whether citizenship conferred the right to vote. It decided that it didn't.
Anyway. The reason why the prohibition of non-natural born Americans from being elected President was because of the fear that a European aristocrat would migrate to America. Become naturalised. And then become President by virtue of wealth and buying an election.
And as a result, the President would have allegiance to a foreign power (which is one of the reasons Catholics were regarded with suspicion, because they were thought to owe allegiance to a foreign power - the Pope).
Regardless of how you feel about Obama, there's no doubt that he's American and qualified to be POTUS.
Slightly off-topic --ReplyDelete
I find it amusing that the very people who for reasons of leftist/feminist man-bashing politics purposely butcher the language by saying/writing "she" when English grammar calls for "he", are so punctilious to make the Spanish o/a gender distinction.
I'm a little bit torn here. Sometimes white people are clueless about the existence of racism. They just can't see it. But on the other hand, I don't think that discrimination should be countered with discrimination. At very least, it diminishes our moral authority to speak out against it when we practice it ourselves.ReplyDelete
"So please don't make blanket statements about the way "white people" are."Delete
Really! How raaaaacis! of her.
M.Egnor: "I agree. There is a lot of anti-black racism on the part of whites. We whites don't always recognize it, but it is real. I think it is often subtle, but from the standpoint of a black person, it is very real and can be very unpleasant."Delete
You know, just because leftists (who generally are racists) constantly assert that doesn't make it true.
Liberals get a little worried when you say that there's no room for racists on the supreme court. The racist judges have been their favorites--Sotomayor, Marshall, and the late great Hugo Black. Oh how they adore Hugo Black. The former klansman plucked the term 'separation of church and state' from one of Thomas Jefferson's letters, and inserted it into our jurisprudence. Terrible case law. But what would they have done without that particular racist on the supreme court?ReplyDelete
Interestingly Ben, Black's invocation of "separation of church and state" probably comes more from his Klan experience than Jefferson's letter. The initiation oath in the Alabama Klan included a sworn promise to work for "separation of church and state" as a way to exclude Catholics and prevent public support of Catholic education, and Black's job in the Alabama Klan was recruitment director-- he personally administered the oath.Delete
Black hated blacks, of course, but he REALLY hated Catholics. He made his name politically be (successfully) defending a man who murdered a Catholic priest in cold blood.
"Separation of church and state" is more from the KKK than it is from Jefferson's letter.
It's not true that Hispanics were never lynched. Liberals' favorite supreme court justice, Hugo Black, once defended a klansman who murdered a Puerto Rican man and his new bride on their wedding day. He got them off. Southern "justice" at its best.ReplyDelete
Black went on to join the klan himself, before FDR appointed him to the supreme court and he made a lot of crappy decisions that liberals love.
We're bombarded with PC gibberish about how supposedly privileged white people are in order for some minority group to claim victimhood status and then make incessant demands. Seems we're the only ones who are not allowed to celebrate our cultural heritage, not without someone brandishing the bigot card. Progressives want for us to become second-class citizens in our own country.ReplyDelete
Well, Commissar, you blew Troy out of the water!ReplyDelete
"You decide who the racist is."ReplyDelete
Oh, we've already done that.
Did you get your award from the NAACP yet?