I'm sure you're frustrated with me, but so far as I can tell you're not actually giving me an answer here. Act like I'm ignorant. What exactly are you talking about? What segregationist legal theory are you talking about? Who resurrected it and for what the hell reason? I don't know what the hell you're talking about, and there's not even enough specificity in there for me to effectively google it.
Meh. I didn't remember the name before, which made that difficult, but it appears that what I'm thinking of is
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.
But what should raise every alarm bell available is not just the ruling in Cedar Point Nursery; it’s how the conservatives got there. The argument Roberts and the conservatives used against union organizers in this case was effectively repurposed from arguments segregationists used against civil rights activists. By giving it new life, Roberts has not only opened the door to continued union-busting but also reinvigorated long-discredited views of how property owners might use that property as an excuse to deny civil rights across the spectrum.
By putting this in the category of a
per se taking, Roberts
adopted the logic of Barry Goldwater and other segregationists during the battle over the Civil Rights Act.
These white supremacists were the first to argue that the right to “exclude” should allow white business owners the right to deny service to Black customers. They came up with the novel idea that the Fifth Amendment somehow nullified the government’s ability to promote the equal protection and due process guarantees of the 14th Amendment without just compensation—as if my tax dollars should compensate some racist white man for his sadness at allowing me to exist in his store. Racist people have some freaking nerve, I tell you.
The Supreme Court
rejected that argument, unanimously, in 1964, but Roberts resurrected it yesterday. All of a sudden, the right to exclude is back on the table as something that property owners can use to thwart basic human rights, and we’d be foolish to think that this rollback of rights will stop with farmworkers in California.
Harvard Law professor Niko Bowie tweeted out a few examples of where Roberts’s logic could lead next: “Antidiscrimination laws ‘take’ employers’ ‘right to exclude’ workers of color, pregnant workers, and LGBTQ+ workers.… Fair housing laws ‘take’ landlords’ ‘right to exclude’ renters of color, families, and renters with vouchers. Rent control laws ‘take’ landlords’ ‘right to exclude’ renters unable to afford market rates.… Endangered species laws ‘take’ landowners’ ‘right to exclude’ conservationists. Environmental laws ‘take’ landowners’ ‘right to exclude’ inspectors who are needed to enforce their restrictions.”
This decision is a game changer for labor laws. It’s a game changer for how white owners will seek to deny rights. And it’s a game changer for how their corporations will attempt to fight regulations. It opens a Pandora’s box of terrible possibilities by casually throwing out decades of regulatory takings precedent in favor of an extremist, potentially limitless view on the rights of property holders. And it will be decades before most people even realize how much damage was done here.
In and of itself, that was a particularly alarming decision, one where the logic and history is very relevant to the issue of segregation. As noted when I brought it up the first time, though, it's not some slavery is allowed now thing, but it certainly was a big step towards that and undermines the protections in practice.
Okay... It seems that by "gutted" you mean the removal of the sections that applied extra rules for only some specific states to get permission from DC to make any changes to their voting laws, whereas other states were allowed to make changes as they saw fit with no oversight? That's what I'm finding, so if you mean something else, speak up.
I'm not a fan of having different requirements for different states. On the other hand, I'd probably have been just as happy to see the exact same requirements be applied to all states rather than removing them. But it was also nearly half a century and at some point you've got to stop treating a portion of the country like they're forever evil.
There are two possibilities for the quoted. The first is that it's a mischaracterization along lines that you have made rather unsurprising to hear from you. The actual rule did apply to all. Violate set criteria and verification that you're not up to no good comes into play. Hardly something either permanent or onerous even then, if you're not up to no good, and a rather restrained approach to addressing a long history of serious abuses overall. The second possibility is that
you are claiming that those parts of the country are forever evil, but we should just overlook that and do nothing for some reason.
Whichever the case may be, the moment that the restraint was removed was the moment that Republicans acted to pass things that would have been stopped by it, so your complaint is very hard to treat as if it even could be in good faith.
You mention Reps working to enact racial discrimination into law since then - and I don't know what you're talking about. Be more specific.
In the context there, I find myself with simple question. Have you really been that blind to the various Republican efforts to make things disproportionately harder for minority voters? To disenfranchise legitimate voters in ways that disproportionately affect minority voters? No. You haven't. You've recently acknowledged such happening, no less, even if you want to lay it all at the feet of partisanship as motivation. You're just giving me more and more reason to treat you as asking this in distinctly bad faith.
I honestly don't understand why so many people seem to have this caricatured view wherein everyone nowadays is totally just as completely racist as their grandparents were have a century ago. I particularly don't understand how it gets presented as "the exact same forces" when the opposition was largely coming from southern Democrats, and it's the same party that it was then.
Yeah, all the more reason to conclude bad faith. Is all you have really just distortion and diversion? You're sure making it look that way here with how utterly dishonest this response to what I said is. Much of this is effectively already dealt with in what you're responding to, either way, so I'm not going to immediately rehash such.
Even the Huffington Post (I can't believe Huffpo is being held up as a credible source) says that the money was going to be used to create a training program... to measure correlation for something they already know is correlated. But you're also taking the word of un-named people anonymously reported over the actual program's own language. Okey dokey then.
Yeah, another dishonest reply. Again, largely already addressed.
Seriously, come on. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point, and for no good reason.
www.cbsnews.com
