Sotomayor Hearings Start Today
Within weeks we should have a new Supreme Court associate justice, but the Republicans will try to make things interesting. Among the people that have been called as witnesses against Sotomayor are a Bush appointee who foresaw the need to create internment camps for Arab-Americans, anti-abortion activists and Frank Ricci, the dyslexic fireman from the New Haven firefighters case. I’m not clear on why Ricci is testifying. What expertise does he have on the law? As I understand it, Sotomayor and the rest of the Appeals Court ruled against Ricci based on settled law. The Supreme Court overturned the settled law? To me, that is the purpose and difference between an Appeals Court and the Supreme Court. What does Ricci bring to the table in the hearings?
TPM has found some interesting information about Ricci, however. Ricci was first hired as a result of a lawsuit alleging discrimination against dyslexic people (he failed the civil service test).
But flash back, if you will, to January 25, 1995, when, according to the Hartford Courant Ricci was singing the opposite tune: “A decorated firefighter has filed a lawsuit against the city, saying he was not hired because he is dyslexic.”
The lawsuit, filed recently in federal court, could shed light on the selection process used by the city, which has been beset with criticism over politics and nepotism.
Frank Ricci charges in the lawsuit that the city violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities.Ricci, a Wallingford native who now lives in Maryland, was one of 795 candidates who were interviewed for 40 openings. Ricci told interviewers that he has a learning disability, the lawsuit says.
Fire commissioners have said that although Ricci was qualified, many others also were qualified because they passed the Civil Service examination.
Two years later, that case was resolved. “In a confidential settlement, struck two years later, Mr. Ricci withdrew his lawsuit in exchange for a job with the fire department and $11,143 in attorney’s fees.”
So, will the hearings be anti-climactic or will they generate fireworks? Barring any expected new revelations I expect that Sotomayor will be confirmed easily.
Tags: Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court
This will be anti-climactic. I just don’t see the sense in having a litigant testify for or against a nominee. It seems like a bad precedent. If the Ricci was a cop, and they brought in one of the guys that he had arrested to determine if he got a promotion, Ricci would have sued.
I’m sorry — Sotomayor’s ruling on Ricci should be sufficient to stop her confirmation. At least it would be if we lived in a country where the Democrats took the 14th Amendment seriously.
If only minorities had passed that test, would new haven have set the results aside based upon “disparate impact”? If a group of white citizens had shown up and demanded the results be set aside in such a situation — threatening electoral retaliation against politicians if they didn’t set them aside — would the results have been set aside? And in either case, would a court have upheld rejecting the promotion list in such a situation? We know the answer is “no” to all three questions — makiing it clear tha there is an equal protection question that goes far beyond the issue or mere statutory interpretation.
So, RWR, under your logic, every judge everywhere who followed precedent should be disqualified from the Supreme Court. Interesting from a person who rails against activist judges. The Roberts Court overturned precedent in overruling Sotomayor in Ricci. You should try reading the decisions once and a while.
Well, if it’s worth anything, the Rs I run with, have no problem signing off on this one.
I just have to laugh being lectured to by a Republican about taking the Constitution seriously. Ha!.
Another humorous subtext is that Republicans are mad at Sotomayor because she declined to “legislate from the bench.”
The Constitution trumps precedent. You know — supreme law of the land and all that stuff.
Any precedent inconsistent with the Constitution ought to be challenged — if for no other reason than to get it reexamined by the Supreme Court.
And interesting that no one wants to take on my hypothetical. Must be because we all know the answer.
And I remind folks that Plessy was precedent — should it have been adhered to even though it was clearly wrong and out of step with the 14th Amendment?
At one time, the authors of Plessy and every other overturned precedent thought it was constitutional. They interpreted the Constitution differently than their successors. That is why the conservative strict constructionist argument is irrational in almost all circumstances. Under the strict constructionist approach, Plessy would still be good law.
So I see that RWR is now an adherent to the Living Constitution view. Welcome.
Not only that, but if she had reversed precedent, RwR would be saying that she was making new law. ACTIVIST JUDGE!!!
I can hear him now…
Only liberals are activist judges. When conservatives behave like an activist judge, they are protecting the Constitution! Remember, in all things, IOKIYAR.
Conservative hypocrisy is on full display here. Overturning precedent is fine if it’s one they don’t like but bad if it’s one they do like. You know, conservatives would sound a lot more coherent if they did accept the concept of the living Constitution. BTW, I read that the court’s conservative judges overturned a lot more precedents than the liberal ones. Activist judges, legislating from the bench!
Rhymes With Grime wrote:
And I remind folks that Plessy was precedent…
Ha ha. Oh, sweet irony. I am sure that Rhymes with Spigot wishes that Plessy had not been overturned.
“I’m sorry — Sotomayor’s ruling on Ricci should be sufficient to stop her confirmation. At least it would be if we lived in a country where the Democrats took the 14th Amendment seriously.”
That’s nice for bullshitting at the bar, but the fact is that an entire forest has died for the case law on such tests. Unless you’ve studied that case law, with all due respect, you don’t know WTF you’re talking about.
Conservatives read the Constitution as selectively as they read the Bible.
I need a gravitron.
If you listen carefully to conservatives, judicial activism is reserved to assuage the resentments of angry white guys.
“Conservatives read the Constitution as selectively as they read the Bible.”
Amen to that.
I need a gravitron too, and even thought I signed up for one. Apparently this is one more thing I’m going to have to work at….
Actually, folks, it is my belief that Plessy was fundamentally wrong in that it ruled as constitutionally permissible those laws which mandated segregation. The elder Justice Harlan got it right in his dissent in Plessy — “But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.”
In other words, no government, at any level, may discriminate based upon race.
Actually, chief, nobody here cares about your views. Why don’t you try another site, where you can discuss these things with other jerkoffs of like mind?
RwR:
Since virtually all U.S. businesses and services use federal and state government services (infrastructure, security, transportation, etc.) paid for by ALL taxpayers, why do you believe that these businesses have some kind of “right to choose” to discriminate against the very people who pay for those services?
In your private U.S. apartheid fantasy, U.S. taxpayers who paid for the sidewalk or road wouldn’t be allowed to use the businesses or rent or buy housing on them based on the bigotry of the property owner.
I’m just sick of the whole living constitution crap. Its not a living document, it should be interpreted in the language of the time period in which it was written. It shouldn’t be bent or reexamined in today’s language. If there is a problem with a part of the constitution, it should be changed. That is why we have the amendment system, so we can change what we want to.
Phil wrote Its not a living document, it should be interpreted in the language of the time period in which it was written.
English majors rule!!!
Hmmm…”interpreted.” Since we can’t exhume the founding fathers to ask them what they think we’ll have to go with the system we’ve got. I think the FFs left the documents purposely vague because they wanted it to be a living document. I think this is also why we have the oldest working constitution.
To follow the high comedy, you can follow TPM Liveblog here. Apparently the Republicans are accusing Sotomayor is being biased against white men. I’m sure that will work out well for the GOP.
White men suck! Wait, white men rule! Wait . . . mmm . . . forget it, I need a beer.
Ted Kaufman was very good.
Franken opening statement just laid it out…..it’s the republicans who are judicial activists! and he’s very correct!
Exhume the founding fathers, right. No, a simple dictionary would do. For example, in their time, promote the welfare meant happiness, prosperity, or well-being. Not the organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or public assistance.
Because they are private actors, not public actors.
And given that apartheid was discrimination required under law, your representation of my beliefs is fundamentally inaccurate — as I have demonstrated multiple times.
And as i have also said, i believe that discrimination should be legal and out in the open so that decent people (me, and i would presume even you) would be able to determine what businesses not to patronize.
It was great to see Al Franken in the proceedings,
and I was also glad to see him bring up who it is
that *really* wants “judicial activism”, i.e., the
Republicans/Conservatives.
Also, I really hope that RETARD who started yelling
about “the unborn” got a good working over by the cops
taking him out of the room. Anti-choice terrorists eat shit.
For example, in their time, promote the welfare meant happiness, prosperity, or well-being.
In their time, “arms” meant muzzle-loading muskets.
Gee, Rich, should the Code Pinkos who interfere at hearings be similarly “worked over” by the cops? Or do you only believe in police brutality against your political enemies?
anon: And in their time “press” meant a manually operated printing press and did not include radio, television or the internet. Can government censor the latter three because they did not exist in 1791 when the BoR was adopted — or does the clear standard set forth by the First Amendment still apply?
For that matter, does the free exercise of religion cover any faith but Christianity and Judaism, excluding the non-Judeo-Christian faiths that did not exist in the US at the time and certainly excluding Scientology and other new religions?
RWR – Now you are starting to get it. If times compel us to change the definition of “press” and “arms,” maybe we can also bring our own modern interpretation to “promote the general welfare.” Who decides the meaning? We do, using the process left to us in the Constitution. The meaning of the Constitution does not belong to conservatives, as much as they would like to think so.
Except we can’t.
“Why not?” you may ask.
Because it really requires no redefinition of the terms in question to follow their given meaning from the time of the adoption of the Constitution and BoR.
“Keep and bear arms” meant to carry weapons suitable for military use in defense against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Doesn’t matter if it is a musket or a machine gun, even though the latter did not exist at the time of the adoption of the 2nd Amendment.
Free exercise of religion is equally clear –the addition of new religions to the fabric of the American Republic doesn’t change that.
And since the technological innovations regarding the means of publishing one’s views have come along, the act of publishing them is no different.
None of these is a wholesale redefinition of the term like some would propose with the notion of promoting the general welfare.
But beyond that, there is a different problem. The phrase “promote the general welfare” appears in the Preamble, which is a statement of purpose. What powers are given to accomplish this end? Only those that appear in the active clauses of the Constitution, as contained in the rest of the document. And unfortunately for your argument, nowhere is the power to create a modern welfare state delegated to the federal government by the states or the people. Indeed, such charitable actions were clearly set outside the realm of government by the practice of that day — it was to be the actions of private individuals, organizations, and religious groups.
RwR wrote:
Because they are private actors, not public actors.
If businesses are using public infrastructure paid for by the tax dollars of all citizens, then it is only right that they not be allowed to discriminate against those same people that are paying for that infrastructure.
I know it breaks your bigoted little heart, but no matter how hard you try, you can’t weasel out of that argument. There is no moral, legal, or ethical justification for your “freedom to choose to discriminate.”
Every hearing will always be contentious for years to come. Both sides will take shots and it will be up the nominee to speak up to defend her record.
For those who complain about the harshness remember the “Borking” by Dems and of course the convenient no votes by Senator Obama.
Mike Protack
Helping the poor and offering public services increases the well-being and prosperity of all Americans. Demand-side economics (priming the pump) have always existed and have been effective throughout history. A well-fed, well-educated populace is the single greatest driver of economic prosperity, whereas a malnourished populace inevitably leads to crime and political upheaval, under which commerce suffers greatly. The wiser emperors of Rome understood this; Louis XVI did not. Just as political power must derive from the consent of the governed, so too must wealth derive from the consent of the consumer. But I digress.
It was an established, millenia-old practice at the time of our nation’s founding for governments to build and maintain roads and other public works paid for by tax revenue. Here’s a quote from Thomas Jefferson:
Game.
Set.
Match.
1. Bork was borked because he is an extremist anti-American nutcase.
2. RWR’s 9:07 response show he want some parts of the Constitution to be frozen in place, while others should float freely as needed to support conservative theories du jour. Just like Bork wanted.
Thanks for that, XStryker! Game. Set. Match. Indeed!!! Great stuff.
anonone — then by your argument, there should be no such thing as private clubs, because they also use the public infrastructure.
hell, by your argument there should be no such thing as a right to forbid me from walking into your house and sitting down to watch television. After all, your house is served by that same public infrastructure — and I’m one of the people paying for it.
Face it, you just don’t like private property and the rights that go with it.
anon — no, I don’t argue that.
I argue that each part of the Constitution should be treated as it is written. Technological changes do not constitute a change of meaning of the words of the document. And a change in the contemporary usage of the word “welfare”, which appears in a prefatory rather than operational portion of the document, does not mean that we get to ignore the entire rest of the document.
I know conservatives really, really wish the Constitution has a clause about how there has to be a conservative limited government, and that we aren’t allowed to spend money on certain services. But it just doesn’t say that anywhere. Instead, it says we get to figure it out ourselves.
There you go…unleash the govt media reports on the firemen until you find something that sticks…or say it enough times that people start to believe it regardless of the truth.
Your quote is really good, unless you know what the definition of a workhouse in the the 1700’s, and early 1800’s was. You didn’t join a workhouse for fun, you were incarcerated into them. These places were hardly any different than correctional facilities. This wasn’t welfare in the sense that you mean today, it was a punishment and deterrent to being a drain to society.
I guess Thomas Jefferson thought the people placed in workhouses were as well dressed and fed as his slaves were.
Actually Anon, it does. It protects personal property and wealth. Roads, power generating facilities, and other forms of infrastructure are for all to use, therefore legitimate. But taking money from one person, just to transfer it to another is not legitimate.
Except, anon, a clear reading of the document indicates that the powers explicitly delegated to the federal government were the only powers it had. And if there were any question about that, the Federalist Papers, other writings of the Framers, and the proceedings of the various state ratification conventions make it clear that the powers of the federal government are so limited. Therefore, absent an affirmative authorization of such social welfare programs, the federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to carry them out.
It is, of course, a moot question — the notion that there are any restraints on federal power has become a quaint notion for a huge segment of the American public, as your argument indicates.
See? You are both wishing for that magical clause you dream about…. “The powers explicitly delegated, blah blah blah…” None of that stuff you are saying tonight about prohibiting transfers and social welfare spending is actually in the Constitution, either explicitly or by exclusion. That is all wishful thinking on your part.
Here’s the thing: The Constitution grants the government the power to tax, and the power to spend. No limits – as long as we follow the process. That is what infuriates you, that the process didn’t have the outcome you wanted.
It was, in fact, made legitimate via the 16th amendment.
Rhymes With Spigot wrote:
“hell, by your argument there should be no such thing as a right to forbid me from walking into your house and sitting down to watch television. After all, your house is served by that same public infrastructure — and I’m one of the people paying for it.”
No, my house is not a business open to the general public, so your statement is absurd on its face. We are talking about businesses and services open to the public. However, when people sell their houses, then it then becomes a business transaction and they can’t discriminate against buyers on the basis of race, gender, etc..
The fact that you bring up such a ridiculous and non-sensical point shows the extremes that you’ll go to to justify your ugly and despicable belief in legalizing discrimination.
Its ok, we’ll see how far the welfare and military state can continue before we have a monetary collapse.
anonone — aslong as that business remins private property, the same rules apply.
About 35 years ago, back during my college days, we had one local business refuse to print shirts for the College Republicans because “I don’t do work for the Republicans” — even though they were a business open to the general public and we were part of the public that paid for all that infrastructure stuff you talked about. The owner was well-within his.her rights to do so. Do you think his actions were somehow wrong? And if they were not, on what basis were his actions any different than those I argue should be legal? Oh, and don’t argue “that’s legal and the other isn’t” — it sort of would beg the question.
Gee, anon, that “magical clause” that I mentioned does, in fact, exist in the Constitution. It is called the Tenth Amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You see, I was choosing my language very carefully in framing that answer.
Now, show me where the power to transfer wealth from one person to another fur purposes of income redistribution and social welfare programs is delegated to the federal government by the US Constitution, given that my “magical clause” was adopted by the several states in 1791.
Rhymey,
Political affiliation is a choice, not something you’re born with like skin color, gender preference, sex, ethnicity, etc. Get it? There is a big difference. Get it?
If the business person was serving white republicans and not black republicans, for example, then he would be breaking the law. Otherwise, no.
I am amazed at how hard you try to justify something that is so fundamentally and universally understood to be immoral and despicable.
Oh, you’re a Tenther.
See, just because you pasted the text of the Tenth or any other amendment, doesn’t mean that you have found your magic clause that prohibits taxing the rich or spending on the poor. You haven’t.
The Constitution explicitly grants the Federal government the power to tax, and the power to spend. No limits on who you can tax, how much you can tax, and what or who you can spend it on.
Keep dreaming.
anonone — I respectfully disagree with you. If you are going to argue “can’t deny services to those who pay for the infrastructure”, then your “choice/no-choice” dichotomy doesn’t work.
Andif it does, what about religion? After all, that Muslim can renounce hi/her faith and become a Christian in a heartbeat. So under your theory we should permit discrimination based upon religion.
And I often defend the right to engage in things that are fundamentally and universally understood to be immoral and despicable. It is why I was one of the lone voices at the 2000 GOP state convention arguing against a platform plank defending the state’s sodomy law, and similarly opposing one that called for the defeat of the state judges that declared it unconstitutional. If liberty is to mean anything, it must include the right to act in ways which society disapproves of — just as freedom of speech is meaningless if it only protects the voicing of non-controversial and generally accepted sentiments.
anon — the federal government has been delegated certain powers and areas in which it can operate. It cannot operate outside of those areas. Where is the clause PERMITTING spending for those social programs?
Of course, perhaps I should ask you a different question — does the Tenth Amendment mean what it says? If your answer is “no”, then I guess our discussion is over, because it means you believe the only limits on federal power are explicit prohibitions written into the Constitution (which is, of course, precisely the opposite of what the Tenth Amendment says).
The power to spend for the General Welfare is explicitly granted. The narrow interpretation of General Welfare was never widely shared and is less so today. The broader view of General Welfare has been validated by the courts and by settled law.
Where is the power to “spend for the General Welfare” explicitly granted? Article, Section, and Clause, please.
And don’t point to the Preamble — that simply states the purpose of adopting the Constitution.
“We the People, in order to. . . promote the General Welfare. . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
See, just a statement of purpose, not a grant of powers.
However as I noted above, It is, of course, a moot question — the notion that there are any restraints on federal power has become a quaint notion for a huge segment of the American public, as your argument indicates.
Still, it would be nice if you could point to a place where the Constitution permits the government to do what you say it is permitted to do — after all, it is sort of nice to pretend that the Constitution has relevance to the operation of our government today.
Here. Article I, Section 8. I’ll put it on the bottom shelf for you:
An appropriation, by the way, is a Law.
Damn anon, beat me to it. I was just going to tell Rhymes with Right he needed to re-examine his 7th grade civics book or actually read the Constitution before lecturing about it.
More broadly though, the genius of the Constitution is in the tiny bit of flexibility it allows within it’s grander scheme of liberal-democractic republican government. Jefferson (himself a states’ rights, anti-Federal man) could find no strictly enumerated power in the Constitution to buy Louisiana, but he had the flexibility to do it. I think any Cubs, Mardi Gras or Budweiser fans out there will agree: that was a good thing.
Madison, Adams, et. al may not have been able to predict the internet, but the certainly did a good job leaving us the ability to interpret (and argue over) how we should apply the Constitution when new issues come up.
RWR – as you say, your view is ‘quaint’ in the sense that most people accept that income taxes used for social programs is not a bad, nor Unconstitutional, thing, even if they disagree on teh extent to which it should be done. Keep fightin the good fight, though!
I am happy to engage in a policy debate on social spending – but not a Constitutional debate.
Apart from a few narrow issues that a few states have – which they are welcome to take to the Supreme Court if they feel strongly enough – the Tenthers are crackpots.
The willful misinterpretation of the general welfare clause is the bane of constitutional government. The Tenth amendment supercedes the original constitution. It is called an amendment for a reason.
The Supreme Court is not the arbiter of the tenth amendment. Madison wrote it and he believed that the states were the ones to with the right to assert themselves. Having the federal court do it would be giving the power solely to the federal government. That would defeat the purpose of the amendment.
Rarely am I proved correct so swiftly.
Yes, I know that an appropriation is a law.
That said, on what basis do you argue that the original understanding of Article I, Section 8 allows for such transfers of wealth from one citizen to the other. Citations from the Framers, the Federalist Papers, and the proceedings of the ratification conventions will carry significant weight.
Rhymey:
Is your computer screen braille?
You wrote “If you are going to argue “can’t deny services to those who pay for the infrastructure”, then your “choice/no-choice” dichotomy doesn’t work.”
My argument works because I am saying that you can’t deny services based on inherent congenital attributes such as skin color, gender preference, sex, ethnicity, etc. It isn’t about political party or even religion. A people should not be discriminated against because of the circumstances of their birth or their genetic coding, like having more or less pigment in their skin than another person or different genitals. Get it yet?
I am specifically not talking about political or religious beliefs. Please read that sentence over and over until it sinks in.
I’ll agree with you — people SHOULD NOT be discriminated against on those grounds. It is immoral. However, are you really advocating for the legal imposition of morality — and if so, then whose?
I am glad that you finally agree with me.
All law is a legal imposition of morality, and we happen to have a system for determining whose morality gets imposed by being codified into law.
wow. i never realized what an incredibly vicious ass hole Lindsey Graham is.
Actually, anonone, I’ve ALWAYS said that people SHOULD NOT be discriminated against on those grounds. What I have argued is that a state mandate that said moral principle be followed is questionable in my eyes. BIG DIFFERENCE.
And I’ll remind you of your morality comment the next time you argue that certain groups have no right to enact their moral values into law.
No, its not a big difference at all, except to people who have prejudice in their hearts. Slavery was once considered “moral” by people with the same backward mentality as you, as clearly demonstrated by your refusal still to acknowledge that discrimination is repugnant enough to be worthy of being a crime.
As you chose to not respond to my comment, let me repeat: We HAVE a system for determining whose morality gets imposed by being codified into law. I have never *never* said somebody doesn’t have a right to try to enact their moral values into law, and I never would. Everybody has a right to try to get their morality enacted, if they want. And others get to try to stop them. That is a good thing.
In fact, I encourage you to take your campaign to repeal anti-discrimination laws into the street with a big sign. You can wear your KKK outfit for effect, if you’d like. Try a big city some place so you get lots of visibility.
Actually, it is a big difference.
Unless, of course, you would agree that “personally opposed to abortion but believe it should remain legal” people are, in fact, lying as well.
And anonone, two words — “gay marriage”. Do the people of the several states have the right to ban it based upon their morality.
By the way — absent the taking of a human life, an act of physical violence against another human being, or the taking of someone’s property (or, of course, public safety), I take a libertarian point of view. That includes supporting the liberty of people to act in ways that I view as fundamentally immoral and which personally disgust me.
That you don’t see the difference between that and bigotry is an indication that you have an unhealthy desire to regulate the conduct of others — an authoritarian streak a mile wide.
Clearly and revoltingly, you think that the law should enforce a person’s so-called right to discriminate over a person’s basic human right not to be discriminated against. Thus, you view the infringement of a person’s so-called “right to discriminate” as the greater moral evil over infringement of a person’s basic human right not to be discriminated against.
The simple fact is, sir, that the law would not and could not remain neutral. The law would either forcibly enforce a business owner or landlord’s so-called “right to discriminate” or it would enforce the rights of people not to be discriminated against. You would side with the bigot forcibly throwing a family out of their apartment because of their skin color over the right of that family to equal housing opportunity.
I know that you think that regulating the conduct of bigots so that they don’t throw families out of their homes or let them die in the streets because of skin color is “unhealthy.” Fine, I can live with that. The fact that you think that it is “unhealthy” for our society to legally prevent bigots and racists from hurting others with their hate shows how morally depraved you really are.
You keep trying to change the subject because you have no legal or moral standing on this issue. This discussion is not about gay marriage or abortion.
There is no human right not to be discriminated against by private actors — only by government.
And another way of looking at this is enforcing the right of people to control the use of their own property and businesses vs. enforcing the right of other people to use that property in a manner contrary to the desire of the owner.
And i’m not “changing the subject” — I’m using a technique called “analogy”. Look it up in a dictionary (you know, one of those big books with all the words in it, along with their meanings).
Your values system is so utterly screwed up it is beyond belief. As I pointed out earlier, the government cannot be neutral – it either forcibly enforces laws allowing discrimination or it enforces laws prohibiting discrimination. Get it?
You clearly want the government to do the bidding of bigots and racists by enforcing your “so-called right to discriminate.” We already know what that world looks like, and so we, as a country, decided to enact anti-discrimination laws, much to your obvious chagrin.
The “right to choose” comes when a business owner chooses to open a business – that is when he/she chooses to work within the established laws or not.
It is amazing to me that you go to such lengths to defend such an ugly and immoral viewpoint. As I pointed out to you, your arguments about property rights are exactly the same used by slave owners. You can try to mask your obvious love of feeling superior, but all your pseudo-intellectual nonsense and convoluted logic to try and justify government enforcement of actions rooted in hate and prejudice speaks only to an utter lack of empathy or regard for your fellow human beings.
We have lots of conservatives that comment on this site, but not a single one has come to the defense of your repulsive and malformed viewpoint. Not one.
And, by the way, your analogies just are not relevant or applicable. They suck. Look that up in the dictionary.
Yes, racists are jackasses, but they’re free to be jackasses. If you don’t like a “No Blacks Allowed” club, make a picket sign and start protesting outside. I’ll be happy to join you.
“It is amazing to me that you go to such lengths to defend such an ugly and immoral viewpoint.”
Would you defend the right of racist speech? Would you have government shut down the Stormfront website? They have an ugly and immoral viewpoint, but don’t they have a right to free speech? If you would have them shut down, then I guess you might as well stop reading here. I believe those assholes have every right to their website. I also wouldn’t cry if they all died tomorrow. That is not a joke; the world would be better off without them. I’m not defending their viewpoint, I’m defending their rights. RWR isn’t defending a viewpoint. He’s defending property rights. There is a distinction, and I hope you are deliberately trying not to see it. The only other reason I can determine is that you are unable to see it, which would be sad.
A restaurant is not a public place, despite cries to the contrary. The public cannot sell the restaurant. They cannot change the menu. They cannot hire and fire the kitchen staff. They cannot remodel the dining room. Only the owner can do these things. Something which can only be controlled by the owner is by definition private property. We can enter, but only because the owner has invited us. It’s why I can walk into a restaurant but not into your house. And in both cases I have a right to refuse the invitation if it is offered.
At some point we, the public, decided we were equal owners with the proprietor, but we were flat fucking wrong.