“Justice Thomas is a Clown in Blackface”

[Zinthaniel]

I assure you I'm not a victim.

You keep saying that but I'm not convinced.

I'm just intrigued by what you think passes as debate commentary.

I'm intrigued that you keep coming back. Does "bye" mean "hello" in your vocabulary?

 

[CLAX1911]

You obviously have lost track of what is really important in life....long, long ago.

No, I simply recognize identity politics when I see it. Ifyou have to pretend to be a victim in order to support your position,firstyou are absolutely no different than Farrakhan or Sharpton. Second you are clearly playing identity politics.

 

[Kobie]

I keep on telling the truth, in that I'm very happy to be predictable.

Lol. The Truth, Republican Style.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I don't really see the comment as racist. It's pretty clear he is basically accusing Thomas of being an "Uncle Tom," or a racist against his own. Takei seems to mean it more broadly though, in that he is a minority who seems to have limited empthy with minorities in general, his own or others.

It's a poor choice of words and needlessly personal, as Takei basically said in his apology. But I don't really see how it can be read as racist -- just overly aggressive.

 

[American]

I've never thought of Japanese Americans as being part of a protected group.

They aren't, because they don't need protection. Except when another group decides to riot and smash their business all to hell.

 

[Harman]

What Mr. Takei said was insulting


But it was NOT racist

 

[WCH]

No, I simply recognize identity politics when I see it. Ifyou have to pretend to be a victim in order to support your position,firstyou are absolutely no different than Farrakhan or Sharpton. Second you are clearly playing identity politics.

No that's a Leftist ploy....

 

[JayDubya]

Because back then, northern liberals were Republicans, and now, since both of those actions took place, northern liberals are Democrats.

I'm sorry, FDR, the go-to champion for the American progressive movement, the man directly responsible for the unconstitutional human rights abuse that was Japanese internment camps on American soil... was not a "Northern Liberal?" :lamo

Like, literally, created by executive order...

 

[LowDown]

no, he's a complete partisan hack who would probably vote against his own interracial marriage if another Loving V. Virginia came before the SCOTUS. he's one of the lousiest justices on the court. but race has nothing to do with it. making snide comments about his race is weak.

No doubt he would vote not to strike down laws against interracial marriage because there is nothing in the Constitution that precludes those laws. He would say that the legislature should be the body that removes such laws, not the courts. Were he to do so it would not mean he's against interracial marriage, and this is what his so hard for liberals to understand and why they can't tell a good justice from a bad one. Or, that is to say, it's why liberals think that justices who re-write laws according to their whims or pull new laws out of their rears are good justices.

 

[LowDown]

What Mr. Takei said was insulting


But it was NOT racist

Of course it was. Takei was calling Thomas a race traitor. It assumes that one of a given race ought to hold certain political opinions. Nothing is more racist than that.

 

[CLAX1911]

No that's a Leftist ploy....

One which you engage in a lot.

 

[Helix]

No doubt he would vote not to strike down laws against interracial marriage because there is nothing in the Constitution that precludes those laws. He would say that the legislature should be the body that removes such laws, not the courts. Were he to do so it would not mean he's against interracial marriage, and this is what his so hard for liberals to understand and why they can't tell a good justice from a bad one. Or, that is to say, it's why liberals think that justices who re-write laws according to their whims or pull new laws out of their rears are good justices.

it seems to me that some people also have trouble interpreting this part of the constitution :

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

this means that if white heterosexuals are allowed to marry, then mixed race couples and homosexuals should be, as well.

 

[Harman]

Of course it was. Takei was calling Thomas a race traitor. It assumes that one of a given race ought to hold certain political opinions. Nothing is more racist than that.

Yes, it's an insult. That's the point. They are insulting him. No one has argued otherwise. It's a thing that is perfectly valid to do. It's accusing you of participating in your own race's oppression. Like by, say, voting to gut the VRA.



It's a completely valid criticism.




But just cause it's insulting doesn't mean it's racist.

 

[Ockham]

Lol. The Truth, Republican Style.

Still can't answer my question though... how very convenient.

 

[Kobie]

Still can't answer my question though... how very convenient.

Which question?

 

[Kobie]

No that's a Leftist ploy....

:lamo

 

[Ockham]

Which question?

Post #136.

 

[Kobie]

Post #136.

There were two questions in that post.

Should Takei be blackballed? That's up to the endorsers and convention organizers, but I would say probably not. What he said, while rather inelegant, was simply not as bad as what Trump said; Sulu doesn't have a three-decade history of being a total belligerent prick; and he apologized promptly.

 

[RAMOSS]

And, that makes his racist rant perfectly all right?

No, but it shows that he realizes that the words he did were hurtful, and made immediate amends. It is certainly better than doubling down on the racist remarks that many idiots do

 

[matchlight]

it seems to me that some people also have trouble interpreting this part of the constitution :

I don't have any trouble with it at all, because I know it has been pretty much a dead letter ever since 1873. In that year the Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause so narrowly in the Slaughter-House Cases, when it was only five years old, as to neuter it. Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, detailed the history of the clause and made a strong, eloquent argument for resuscitating it and using it instead of the Due Process Clause that comes right after it.

this means that if white heterosexuals are allowed to marry, then mixed race couples and homosexuals should be, as well.

No, it does not. Loving v. Virginia, which held unconstitutional several Virginia statutes that made miscegenation between a white and a colored person a felon, was a straightforward case decided on both equal protection and substantive due process grounds. It had nothing whatever to do with the Fourteenth Amendment Pr&I Clause. Neither did Obergefell, which was a substantive due process decision.

The "hey, man, like everything is totally equal" argument is mindless pap. As the Supreme Court itself has noted, the very purpose of many laws, if not most, is to discriminate against some identifiable group of persons. States are sovereigns, and they have power to regulate all sorts of acts by law. Nudists, for example, have no constitutionally-protected right to go nude in public, nor do mothers have any constitutionally-protected right to marry their daughters. Oh, the injustice! The unfairness!

 

[Helix]

I don't have any trouble with it at all, because I know it has been pretty much a dead letter ever since 1873. In that year the Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause so narrowly in the Slaughter-House Cases, when it was only five years old, as to neuter it. Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, detailed the history of the clause and made a strong, eloquent argument for resuscitating it and using it instead of the Due Process Clause that comes right after it.

if heterosexuals are granted the legal privileges of marriage, then homosexuals must also be allowed to marry. it's as simple as that.

No, it does not. Loving v. Virginia, which held unconstitutional several Virginia statutes that made miscegenation between a white and a colored person a felon, was a straightforward case decided on both equal protection and substantive due process grounds. It had nothing whatever to do with the Fourteenth Amendment Pr&I Clause. Neither did Obergefell, which was a substantive due process decision.

The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always co- extensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in Loving, where the Court in- voked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause

The "hey, man, like everything is totally equal" argument is mindless pap. As the Supreme Court itself has noted, the very purpose of many laws, if not most, is to discriminate against some identifiable group of persons. States are sovereigns, and they have power to regulate all sorts of acts by law. Nudists, for example, have no constitutionally-protected right to go nude in public, nor do mothers have any constitutionally-protected right to marry their daughters. Oh, the injustice! The unfairness!

marriage is a fundamental right :

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

and

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

so if heterosexuals are permitted to marry, then homosexuals must be, as well.

 

[Ockham]

There were two questions in that post.

Should Takei be blackballed? That's up to the endorsers and convention organizers, but I would say probably not. What he said, while rather inelegant, was simply not as bad as what Trump said; Sulu doesn't have a three-decade history of being a total belligerent prick; and he apologized promptly.

So you cop out and say it's up to the endorsers and convention organizers, then provide an opinion that Takei's racist comment about a SCOTUS "clown in blackface" wasn't as bad as Trumps comment.

:lamo

It's so amusing to watch you not answer a direct question and dance....

 

[Arbo]

Because back then, northern liberals were Republicans,

I know this lie has been told millions of times. It is still just a repeated lie.

 

[Kobie]

So you cop out and say it's up to the endorsers and convention organizers, then provide an opinion that Takei's racist comment about a SCOTUS "clown in blackface" wasn't as bad as Trumps comment.

:lamo

It's so amusing to watch you not answer a direct question and dance....

Sorry you don't like my answer. I really don't care.

Your desperation to draw an equivalence here is palpable, but that doesn't make it an equivalence.

 

[matchlight]

if heterosexuals are granted the legal privileges of marriage, then homosexuals must also be allowed to marry. it's as simple as that.

Simple-minded is more like it. Bare assertions are not arguments based on constitutional law.

marriage is a fundamental right

The Supreme Court has never even implied that it meant anything other than marriage between one man and one woman. That was so obvious it went without saying, because until a dozen years ago, no state had ever defined marriage in any other way. That is long after Meyer, Loving, or any other decision your wikilaw propaganda source may cite.

If the Court had meant to say that marriage, period, is a fundamental right, it would necessarily have meant to say eight-year-olds had a fundamental right to marry. It would have meant to say brothers and sisters had a fundamental right to marry each other. It would have meant to say that a person who was already married could marry someone else. And it would have meant to say that polygamy is a fundamental right, because plural marriage is still "marriage."

But obviously the Court did notmean that. There has never been a fundamental right to polygamy in this country. Just the opposite--Congress even required several states, as a condition of admitting to them to the Union, to ban polygamy forever in their state constitutions.

The Supreme Court said this in Reynolds v. United States, a decision involving a law against polygamy:

[W]e think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity . . . upon [marriage] society may be said to be built . . . In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests . . . there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion. (emphasis added) 98 U.S. 145, 165-166 (1878).


So much for your blanket assertion that "marriage is a fundamental right." You can tell yourself that fairy tale as many times as you like, but no amount of repetition will change the fact that before Anthony Kennedy's recent ukase, the Supreme Court had never suggested that anything in the Constitution guaranteed a fundamental right to any form of marriage except marriage between one man and one woman.