Racial Injustice is Alive and Well
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/05 … ca-racism/
Whitewashing of American Racism is one of the main goals of the former conservative Southern Democrats now known as the Republican Party or RINOs.I don't think the problem rests with American's whitewashing racism or admitting it is a serious problem. However, I think it is being used as a political cudgel by Democrats and the media. I might add without regard for what it is actually doing to make the problem worse. No solutions just turning the screws. with rhetoric that is dished up to inflame the situation.
My common sense tells me the Dems are doing a great job at what they set out to do. A lot of hate spreading at this point.Until the dems want to give everyone an equal playing field regardless of skin color I'm going to assume that they are the ones most guilty of racism, creating more racism, and fueling racial tensions in America. This was no better evidenced in the modern era than when we saw violent racial clashes between people during the BLM-inspired protests and riots, some of us (myself) being on the ground to witness these events, and the media only pushing one half-baked, racist narrative.
Come to the table as equals, where I find most Republicans get bashed by self-proclaimed anti-racists over their skin color (usually white, but sometimes even black, or other), and you'll find Republicans are quite understanding. If we can't meet in the middle because of our skin color, or gender, or religious beliefs, then it is the ideologues who are to blame. You can't have your cake and eat it too, but we can all share a bland cake of cold objectivity; something tells me everyone likes a variety to their flavors, though, and this is why no one, especially the ones veiling their racism, truly wants these issues to end favorably for all sides.
"Us versus them," is all I get, in every facet of life, from my more progressive peers. My more conservative peers seem to be in a fetal position, defensive, against the mob justice the left favors. Then again, I'm a moderate who leans right so all I can do is observe and interfere when it counts. I can't tell you the amount of hate crimes I've witnessed in the last year and a half, and it is only getting worse.
Indeed, "Racial injustice is alive and well."
Credence, I thought you might appreciate this footnote I just wrote for my book Conservatism in America.
" On April 29, 2026, the conservative Roberts Court delivered a fatal blow to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of two seminal laws resulting from the Civil Rights protests of the 1950s and 1960s. That decision basically voided Section 2—the law’s central tool for challenging racially discriminatory voting maps and practices. Along with earlier Roberts’ decisions, the VRA is effectively dead. The VRA was enacted to dismantle the disenfranchisement regime that followed Redemption and Jim Crow, and this decision is a major step to reestablishing Jim Crow in the 21st Century."I do, ESO, thanks for furnishing it. At the critical points of power and wealth, this has never been a “colorblind society”. The ballot is the last bastion of power to keep the authoritarians from taking everything, so of course Republicans need to control this. Conservatives are notorious with their mumbo-jumbo and lies trying to convince us all otherwise. They, the rightwingers and the reactionaries on the Supreme Court, are saying that redistricting remain within the purview of the states. This would allow for “partisan gerrymandering”. But here in the South particularly, that means excluding or nullifying the Black vote as the partisan lines are starkly drawn. However, based on the Courts explanation as to their reasoning, i better not hear them make a fuss about California and Virginia and the other blessed blue states having the same options. Yes, ESO we are moving backwards and I loath the reactionaries that are driving us in that direction.
https://www.salon.com/2026/04/30/suprem … -0-ruling/
Color blind, my foot? Ask Whiskey Petey why he has red lined qualified black and female officers for the rank of General and yet does not believe that he should have to provide an explanation?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation … rcna266062
I am now at the point where I don’t care how, where and when Trump and his administration of errors are to be dispensed with, lets make it soon. I can only offer these people my utter contempt.Southern States are rushing to implement this new Jim Crow ruling.
Trump started this race-to-the-bottom morality play but the Conservatives on SCOTUS finished it (I was surprised Barratt went along with it). So, you might find this outcome interesting if all states decided max out the gerrymandering.
Reliable blue states (226 EV):
Reliable red states (219 EV):
Purple states (93 EV):
Arizona (11), Georgia (16), Michigan (15), Nevada (6), North Carolina (16), Pennsylvania (19), and Wisconsin (10).
Game is over for Republicans if the Blue wall states can deliver for the Democrats.Trump started the race to the bottom? Democrats have been, and still are, the kings of gerrymandering. They have, for decades, used it as a common tool to cheat elections of the intended "Democracy", and they did it with crocodile tears in their eyes about how inhumane, how illegal, how unethical Republicans are in our elections.
Republicans are taking up the same tool now...only to be accused of massive cheating for doing what Democrats have done for decades.It would be helpful if you stopped making up history.
This passage reminds me of what Louisiana did today - suspend the primaries for House seats do that they could gerrymander based on race (meaning make sure black votes are diluted)
"After four years of war, with hundreds of thousands dead, and a brief attempt to make the republic’s promises real based on equal citizenship, equal protection, and a place in public life for those once excluded, the end came not with a final battle. Instead, it came with a surrender of moral courage.
The disputed Hayes–Tilden election produced the Compromise of 1877, a political handshake that traded the presidency to Republicans for the withdrawal of federal troops from the South, and with it the federal will to defend Black freedom in practice. Reconstruction did not collapse; it was deliberately put away. What conservatives could not permanently secure on the battlefield, they set out to secure afterward through law, local power, and intimidation . Within months, “Redeemer” governments rewrote state constitutions and reset the machinery of the state to erase what had been built—and the hopes of millions, hopes that would not be meaningfully recovered for roughly seventy-five years. What followed was law wearing the mask of order. Jim Crow statutes segregated schools, cars, waiting rooms—entire lives. The Supreme Court supplied the doctrine. In the Civil Rights Cases (1883), it declared that private discrimination was beyond federal reach, "I think you’re mixing a few different things together that don’t actually operate the way Reconstruction-era analogies suggest.
Louisiana’s primary scheduling and congressional redistricting are separate processes, and neither is legally permitted to be based on race. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional, even when states argue it serves political or representational goals. In fact, in Louisiana v. Callais (April 29, 2026, 6–3 decision), the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s congressional map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause. That ruling reaffirmed that while states must comply with the Voting Rights Act, they still cannot draw districts in a way that improperly relies on race.
It’s fair to be concerned about gerrymandering in general, but both parties have been involved in it. Describing a specific action as intended “to dilute Black votes” is an interpretation of motive rather than a confirmed legal finding. Courts focus on whether district lines violate constitutional or statutory standards, not on assigning political intent beyond what the evidence shows.
Also, comparing modern election litigation or redistricting disputes to the end of Reconstruction can be historically misleading. Reconstruction ended with the withdrawal of federal enforcement and the rapid rollback of protections in the South. Today’s disputes occur within a system of federal oversight, judicial review, and enforceable constitutional standards, which did not exist in the same way during that era.
If you’re concerned about the Louisiana case specifically, the most accurate approach is to look at the actual Supreme Court ruling and legal reasoning rather than infer intent from historical analogy.As I see it, the historical analogy is spot on. After the Civil War, Congress went to great lengths to integrate Blacks into American society after freeing them from the white slave farms.
They passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. They passed a series of Civil Rights laws to try to protect Blacks from the Souths highly discriminatory practices. Conservatives fought back to reimplement that discrimination and, with the help of a conservative SCOTUS, they succeeded. The ONLY thing that didn't reappear were plantations full of actual slaves. (Instead, they built look-a-likes.)
People like Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett totally neutered the Civil Rights Acts and the 13th,14th, and 15th Amendments and put Blacks back into their proper place in American racial hierarchy and established that farce of neutrality - Jim Crow.
NOW, those same people are doing it again to the replacements for those neutered laws - the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - laws intended to provide justice to Black people.
With the Callais decision, Roberts and the other conservatives completely neutered the VRA. Just like the 13th Amendment after Jim Crow, the VRA is now unenforceable. That is why this analogy IS spot on and Jim Crow, to some extent, back among the living.
Since the conservatives have once again set America back to the days of Jim Crow, a new crop of Martin Luther Kings will need to emerge to gain back for Blacks the rights they just lost.I note that this is your opinion, and I understand the historical framework you’re drawing on. But, in my view, I think a few of the claims you’re making go beyond what the legal record actually supports, and they also blend interpretation with conclusions that courts themselves have not made.
The idea that the Supreme Court “neutered” the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 is not accurate in a legal sense. None of those laws or amendments have been invalidated or stripped of force. They remain binding constitutional and statutory law. What has happened in a series of cases is that the Court has narrowed certain enforcement mechanisms or struck down specific provisions it found exceeded constitutional limits (for example, parts of the Voting Rights Act formula in Shelby County v. Holder (2013)). That is very different from rendering the laws “unenforceable” or eliminating their protections altogether.
On the Reconstruction analogy itself, I think it’s important to separate rhetorical similarity from legal equivalence. Reconstruction and Jim Crow involved the collapse of federal enforcement of rights and widespread state-imposed racial exclusion with little effective judicial remedy for decades. Today, regardless of disagreement about specific rulings, we still have continuous federal judicial review, active civil rights litigation, and statutory enforcement mechanisms that did not exist in anything like the same way during Jim Crow. That difference matters when making historical comparisons.
Third, regarding Louisiana v. Callais, even if one believes the outcome has policy implications, the Court’s reasoning is grounded in Equal Protection doctrine and Voting Rights Act compliance standards—not a finding of discriminatory intent in the broad historical sense being suggested. Courts distinguish between unconstitutional racial predominance in districting and a generalized conclusion that a political system has been returned to a prior racial hierarchy. Those are not the same legal findings.
Finally, I think it’s fair to debate whether particular rulings strengthen or weaken protections under the Voting Rights Act. But describing the current Court as having “put Black people back into their proper place in a racial hierarchy” goes beyond legal critique and asserts intent and systemic outcomes that are not established in the case law itself. That kind of framing turns a judicial disagreement into a sweeping historical indictment, which is a much stronger claim than what the rulings actually say.
So I understand the concern you’re expressing, but I don’t think, keep in mind only my view, the analogy to Jim Crow, as applied here, holds up under the legal differences between then and now.I don't use the "legal record", and for good reason. Why? Because Jim Crow is part of that legal record and so is Dred Scott. Instead, I use what the consequences of that legal record to inform my analysis.
I have several hundred hours in researching this subject so what I conclude goes far beyond mere opinion. The analogies I make are grounded in fact.
"The idea that the Supreme Court “neutered” the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 is not accurate in a legal sense." - To that I have to say - who cares about the "legal sense". What matters to most people is the practical outcome. And that outcome put Blacks back to before the Civil War, but without formal slave masters. That is just historical fact.I actually appreciate your opinion, as it is grounded in research, and I respect that you’re focusing on real-world outcomes. That’s a much more meaningful way for me to have this conversation.
Where I think I diverge is in dismissing the “legal record” altogether. I am sharing a view here: yes, things like Jim Crow laws and the Dred Scott v. Sandford were part of that record, but they were also overturned through that same legal framework. The 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment, and 15th Amendment, along with later rulings and legislation, didn’t come from outside the system; they came through it.
So I pose the question, is it accurate to say the legal framework doesn’t matter? It’s been both the source of injustice and the mechanism for correcting it.
On the outcome point, I also have to question the idea that conditions were effectively “back to before the Civil War.” That’s a very sweeping statement, and I am not sure it holds up when I look at things like constitutional protections, voting rights (even with setbacks), representation, and legal recourse that simply did not exist prior to emancipation.
That doesn’t mean outcomes have been equal or just—far from it. But saying it reverted to pre–Civil War conditions flattens a very complex history into something I don’t feel is accurate.
For me, the better question is where the law has fallen short in producing fair outcomes, and why. That keeps the focus on real-world effects without discarding the structure that actually shapes those results.I never got back to this.
Once the decision is made, as in this case, the legal framework is of no import - it is what it is. Now one has to turn their attention to how it will impact society - given that it now exists.
The way I see it, one uses history as a guide to the future and, through analogy, what a similar decision today will probably look like. When Plessey was made into the law of the land, it was foreseeable, but not certain what would happen.
We now know what happened - Jim Crow - the South moved heaven and earth to disenfranchise Blacks and put them where they belong (in their view) - under their thumb.
It should not be any surprise to anyone then that the South is once again in the process reinstituting the disenfranchisement of Blacks. Hell, Louisiana didn't even wait for the ink to dry before they moved to invalidate the Black vote. It is Jim Crow all over again.
A conservative RACIST gets his day in court.- finally; but he had to shoot a Black man to do it.
"Livestreamer known for posting racist content to appear in court on attempted murder charge"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/15/us/chud- … appearanceOne positive thing that stands out to me in this story is that the overwhelming reaction from the public, media, and authorities was not acceptance of racism, it was rejection of it. The man at the center of the case had built an online identity around provoking people with racial slurs and inflammatory behavior, yet the broader response from society was condemnation rather than celebration.
That says something important about the United States. Racism still exists here, sometimes loudly and publicly, but this incident also shows that most Americans no longer view openly racist conduct as normal civic behavior. In earlier eras of American history, a person publicly antagonizing minorities with racial slurs might have found broader social acceptance in parts of the country. Today, even controversial online “shock” personalities often survive mainly because outrage and conflict generate clicks, not because most people support the message.
Another positive aspect is that this case shows the strength of American institutions under stress. Even with emotions running high, the response moved into the legal system rather than mob justice. Authorities investigated the shooting, filed charges, and treated it as a criminal matter rather than a racial spectacle. That reflects an imperfect but important principle in America: people are supposed to answer to laws, not to racial revenge or political vengeance.
The situation also reveals something deeper about modern American society: many citizens are exhausted by division and racial provocation. Much of the attention around this case was not admiration for the behavior, but concern over how internet culture rewards outrage, humiliation, and conflict for views and money. In that sense, the story is not only about racism, it is also about the dangers of social media incentives that encourage people to become more extreme for attention.
At the same time, the fact that people from many backgrounds reacted negatively to the conduct suggests that Americans still share some common moral lines. The country argues fiercely about politics, race, and free speech, but there remains a broad understanding that deliberately demeaning others based on race and provoking confrontation is corrosive to society.
So while the incident itself is ugly, one positive takeaway is that it highlights how far the country has moved from openly tolerating racism as mainstream behavior. The public debate surrounding the case reflects a society still struggling with racial tensions, but also one where most people, regardless of politics, understand that constant racial hostility damages the social fabric rather than strengthens it.Welcome back
“That says something important about the United States. Racism still exists here, sometimes loudly and publicly, but this incident also shows that most Americans no longer view openly racist conduct as normal civic behavior. In earlier eras of American history, a person publicly antagonizing minorities with racial slurs might have found broader social acceptance in parts of the country. Today, even controversial online “shock” personalities often survive mainly because outrage and conflict generate clicks, not because most people support the message.”
Some of us find the “subtle” continued racist messages just as offensive as the more blatant ones. Racial division and provocation is a definition of America, fundamentally.
I really don’t think that we moved along as far as you believe….I actually think we agree more than we disagree. I’m not saying racism is gone or that America has fully solved these issues. Clearly, it still exists, sometimes openly and sometimes in more subtle forms that many people rightly find offensive. We still have a long way to go as a society.
What I was trying to point out is that I do believe we have made real progress compared to earlier eras in American history, and I think that matters. Open racial hostility is no longer broadly accepted as normal public behavior by most Americans, regardless of politics. That doesn’t erase ongoing problems, but it does show movement in the right direction.
At the same time, I worry when racism becomes heavily politicized or constantly used as a tool to divide people, because that can actually damage the progress we’ve made by keeping Americans locked into anger and suspicion of one another. We should continue confronting racism honestly, but also recognize the areas where society has improved. Hence, people feel encouraged to keep moving forward instead of believing nothing has changed at all.
I understand what you are trying to say. I agree that open, old-fashioned racism is less socially acceptable than it once was. That is progress. But I don’t think that means racism has disappeared or even that it has stopped shaping politics and policy. My impression is it has gone from largely overt to largely covert.
What changed is the language.
In the past, racism was often direct and unapologetic. Today, it is more often hidden behind phrases that sound neutral: “race-neutral,” “colorblind,” “law and order,” “anti-DEI,” “merit,” “states’ rights,” or “we treat everyone the same.” Sometimes those phrases are sincere. But often they are used to oppose policies designed to address racial inequality while pretending race has nothing to do with it. "Jim Crow" sums up what many of those phrases actually mean.
That is why I am not especially reassured by the fact that most people condemn someone who screams racial slurs on camera. That is the easy case. Almost everyone knows that kind of racism is ugly.
The harder question is what happens when racial hostility is translated into respectable language.
When people oppose teaching accurate racial history, like here in Florida, attack voting-rights protections (like SCOTUS has done, throwing out 32,000 already cast votes in the process), dismiss racial disparities as irrelevant, or call every effort to address discrimination “woke,” they can maintain the effects of racism while avoiding the label.
The most obvious example is back to that in-your-face racism of gerrymandering the Black vote out of existence. True, they aren't allowed to institute poll taxes yet, which denies the vote overtly. They have simply switch to aggressively diluting the Black vote such that it is next to impossible for Blacks who are grouped together geographically and constitute a majority to elect a leader of their choosing.
So yes, America has moved beyond the era when overt racist abuse was broadly acceptable in public life. But modern racism often survives by sounding reasonable, procedural, and race-neutral. That makes it less obvious, not less real.I think you may be reading more into my comment than what I actually said. I never argued that racism disappeared, nor did I claim that every policy disagreement involving race is automatically free from racial motivation. In fact, I explicitly said the country is still struggling with racial tensions and still has a long way to go.
My point was that there has been meaningful social progress in America compared to earlier periods where openly racist behavior was far more normalized and publicly tolerated. I think it matters that the overwhelming public reaction to this man’s conduct was condemnation rather than support. That is not a meaningless distinction.
Where I think we differ is that you seem to interpret many modern political disagreements through a racial lens automatically, while I think some of those issues are more complicated than simply being covert racism in disguise. Terms like “merit,” “colorblind,” or even criticism of DEI policies are not inherently racist phrases simply because some people may misuse them. Sometimes people genuinely disagree on policy, fairness, government power, or how best to solve inequality without racial hostility being the driving force.
I also think there is a danger in framing America itself as fundamentally and permanently defined by racism, because that can overshadow the very real progress that previous generations fought hard to achieve. Recognizing progress does not mean ignoring remaining problems. It means acknowledging that society can improve and, in many ways, already has.
That was the core of my original comment: not denial of racism, but concern that constant racial division, outrage politics, and assuming the worst motives in every disagreement can end up damaging social trust and undermining the progress we have actually made.
MAGA jr, it starts with the babes? Conservatives have been deliberately quiet about this. America, MAGA and Trump are all one and the same. I continue to like to believe otherwise, but this society appears to be fundamentally incorrigible as long as people like Trump are at the helm.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/article/s … 06141.htmlI don’t think it’s accurate or fair to equate a political movement, a president, and an entire country as if they are all the same thing. America is a large and diverse society with millions of people across very different political views, and even within MAGA there isn’t a single uniform set of beliefs or motivations.
I understand there are strong feelings behind this, but framing it as “America, MAGA, and Trump are all one and the same” turns a political disagreement into a blanket judgment about an entire country and its people. It also tends to shut down any real discussion rather than clarify what specifically is being criticized.
It’s completely reasonable to disagree strongly with Trump or his policies, but it’s still important to separate individuals, political movements, and the country as a whole if we want the conversation to stay grounded and meaningful. A divide can only get deeper if we don't start listening to one another as individuals.Funny, Sharlee, when we were talking about Kirk assassination last September, you were more than happy to put a blanket on the “left” for being ultimately responsible. While the evidence of this shooting is clearly right wing and is far more conclusive than the accusations of leftwing violence against Kirk assassin. Your “context” and imminent “reasonableness” is applicable to one side only, your side.
—————-
Sharlee01 wrote:
Mike, Yes, it is getting far worse. I can only share my perspective, but I believe this stems from their desperation and pure anger over so many issues. They lost the election, their left-leaning media outlets are failing, and it’s clear the Democratic Party is in serious decline. They are frustrated by the growing support for conservative policies, the rise of patriotic movements, and the resilience of Trump’s base. They see their narratives being challenged, their influence waning, and their vision for the country slipping away. Meanwhile, they watch Trump succeed, speaking directly to the American people, and inspiring a new generation of leaders. At this point, hate, division, and violence are the only outlets left for them. I have some faith that Trump will add more troops to crime cities and set a precedent.Here is the link to where I responded to Mike's post regarding Kirk's death.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4382316
Mike then diverred into another subject, and I replied.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4382324
You are stripping my comment from the actual context of the conversation it was written in and then reframing it as though I was issuing some universal declaration about every person on the left being responsible for political violence. That is not what I said.
Mike specifically brought up what he viewed as increasing violence coming from the left, and I responded within that discussion by explaining why I believed political anger and hostility were escalating at that time. It was clearly a commentary on the political climate and rhetoric surrounding that moment, not a literal statement that every Democrat or every person on the left was personally responsible for violent acts.
What is ironic is that you are now doing the exact thing you accuse me of doing. You are taking one emotionally charged political comment made during a heated discussion and using it to broadly characterize me while insisting I must apply “context” and “reasonableness” only to my side.
I also notice you are comparing two entirely different situations while claiming one is “far more conclusive.” In both cases, people rushed to political narratives before all facts were fully known. My point then, and now, is that political hatred and extremism are growing in this country generally, and people on all sides too often weaponize tragedies to score political points.
You may disagree with my interpretation, but pretending my comment was some blanket endorsement of collective blame while simultaneously assigning collective blame yourself is not exactly a consistent standard.
Credence, here is another section from my book. Whether they know it or not when our comments regarding the move to reconstitute Jim Crow is criticized or say we are overreacting, this is the side they are promoting.
"White Supremacy Repackaged
Though Reconstruction had formally ended decades earlier, its racial caste system remained intact and deeply embedded—especially in the South but increasingly in the North as well. Racial hierarchy became the defining lens of social and political life. Segregation was codified in every aspect of public existence: schools, transportation, neighborhoods, even cemeteries.
The Wilson administration, led by a Southern Democrat, gave federal sanction to white supremacy. The federal workforce was resegregated. Anti-lynching legislation was blocked. [29] And in a stunning moment of cultural legitimation, President Wilson hosted a White House screening of The Birth of a Nation, a film that glorified the Ku Klux Klan and depicted Black Americans as inherently unfit for freedom. [30]
Conservative lawmakers embedded this vision into state and local governance. Racial zoning ordinances, though often phrased in neutral language, were clearly intended to exclude. Redlining maps, restrictive covenants, and discriminatory lending practices denied Black families access to homeownership, education, and capital. This architecture of exclusion persisted for generations—indeed, until 1964—cutting off Black families from the wealth-building mechanisms of the 20th century.²
In the North, where overt segregation was less common, racial exclusion operated through other means. School boards drew district lines to isolate communities. Unions excluded Black workers from apprenticeships and leadership roles. Real estate boards enforced unwritten but widely understood racial codes. The result was the same: systemic inequality maintained under the guise of local custom or economic merit.
The conservative defense of tradition became, in practice, a defense of racial order. “Law and order” came to mean racial discipline. “Community standards” came to mean white control. At every turn, efforts to rectify these inequalities were met with resistance—not necessarily from the mob, but from the bureaucrat, the judge, and the zoning commission.
"Food for thought, ESO
When i think of “racial caste” it helped me define the difference between racial strife in America verses racism found in Europe, the Caribbean, Canada and other spots that I have visited. The only good equivalent to it would be South Africa prior to Mandela taking over. My forebears used to say “down north and up south”. Maintaining a racial caste system by either law or custom ultimately had the same effect, nationwide. I could at least understand the situation in South Africa, the whites being overwhelmingly outnumbered and were compelled to stay in control. This was not true in America, so WHY?
When Theodore Roosevelt invited Booker T. Washington to dinner as President in 1901, the outcry from the public, specifically the southern press from what they considered to be a slight was so great that Roosevelt never invited him again and another AA was not invited to the White House for almost 30 years afterwards. I know the story of Woodrow Wilson, a scholarly bigot. Such people at the nation’s highest office, and here we are over a century later facing the same kinds of people in lofty places within our present government.
I am familiar with the discriminatory housing policies that put black people behind the “eight ball”, denying them the opportunity to acquire wealth through real estate ownership. I was alive in 1964, so the distant past is not so distant. The conservatives trot out people like Dr. Thomas Sowell, apologist. He was there to convince us all as to how to make a dismal situation palatable. He was to convince us all that these restrictive covenants, redlining maps and discriminatory lending and the people that promoted them had nothing to do with our problems. That’s right, pull your self up by your bootstraps, even though they took your boots….
I couldn’t believe the comments from William F. Buckley, and icon for conservatism during the 1950s. How is such a most learned and eloquent man capable of such bigotry? If he, being so highly educated and esteemed, believed and said such things as I provide below, should I be surprised if the man on the street would harbor such thoughts about African Americans?
—-
the 1950s, William F. Buckley Jr. opposed the Civil Rights movement and federal equal rights interventions. He argued that discrimination was a necessary part of a free society and famously wrote that human beings are "equal only in the eyes of God," asserting that the white race was politically and culturally "advanced".
Buckley’s most notable public positions and statements regarding equal rights during this decade include:Defense of White Southern Rule: In 1957, shortly after the founding of his magazine National Review, he wrote a prominent editorial defending white supremacy in the South.
He argued that the white community was entitled to take necessary measures to prevail politically and culturally because, "for the time being, it is the advanced race.
"Opposition to Federal Desegregation: Buckley opposed the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education. He resisted federal efforts to desegregate schools, framing them as federal overreach into local customs and states' rights.
Disenfranchisement Based on Education: To counter the push for universal Black voting rights in the South, Buckley proposed what he presented as a color-blind alternative: all states should simply disenfranchise the uneducated of all races.
Private Institutional Exclusion: When challenged on a university's right to exclude minorities, Buckley wrote an editorial in 1950 defending a private institution's freedom of association, stating that "discrimination of sorts [is] indispensable to the free society."
——-
To be fair, i no longer have to be concerned about being strange hanging fruit from some tree, but i wonder how much of this is adapting rather than a fundamental change in attitudes. If America is to remain a cohesive and peaceful society, progress in this area need to be continual and not be just a veneer or intermittant.
I continue to wonder how much of “this stuff” is still burning hot, while it has been cleverly concealed over the last few decades.
Conservatives always talk about “tradition” as long at it continues to give them an unfair advantage. If it didn’t, problem situations would have been far more promptly addressed. An attitude of “white supremacy” is why Trump, when you look at his qualifications and everything else, is the only reason he sits in the Oval Office. But, again, that is a well kept secret……
Oh, yes, ESO, you can print that!
"This year could produce the largest loss of Black political representation [b]ever. Here’s why'[/b]
And MAGA applauds.
That "ever" means even after the conservative backlash to Reconstruction.
"The redistricting frenzy across Republican-controlled Southern states threatens to resurrect some of the gravest racial injustices in American political history.
Red states across the region are rushing to replace districts now held by Black Democrats with seats likely to be won by White Republicans even as minority voters account for all, or nearly all, of those states’ population growth. That divergence carries uncomfortable echoes of the structural inequities that allowed the South, for most of American history, to boost its congressional representation and electoral votes with its large populations of slaves and later free Black citizens — while denying them the right to vote.
The stampede to erase Black-majority districts marks a striking reversal from the widespread GOP claims after 2024 that President Donald Trump was leading the party to historic breakthroughs among minority voters.
These actions, as opposed to those words, suggests that many in the party still view the continuing diversification of the electorate as a political threat. “From the very beginning the largest threat to their movement is in fact Black and brown political and economic power,” said Cornell Belcher, a Democratic pollster.
Like many [Black] GOP strategists, CNN commentator Shermichael Singleton says the party’s motivation in these gerrymanders is partisan, not racial. “The average Republican in office, they are not looking at this (through the lens) of race,” he said. “They are looking at, ‘How can we maximize our political power?’”
But critics see the redistricting offensive as just one element of a broader Trump agenda to constrain the political power of the nation’s growing minority population. That agenda includes the attempt to end birthright citizenship and ongoing discussion of penalizing states with large immigrant populations in the 2030 congressional reapportionment. In a recent social media post, Stephen Miller, Trump’s hardline immigration adviser, explicitly linked changes in the Census with attacks on majority-minority Congressional districts, and argued that together they could strip away as many as 40 House seats Democrats now hold ."
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/24/politics … p-analysisHere is another section from my book I reworked that is applicable to today
Then, in barely a dozen years, that order was put under siege. Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 declared that “separate” schooling could not be equal. With it came a new legal premise: the Constitution could be used not merely to forbid slavery, but to dismantle the caste system. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 followed, targeting the daily machinery of exclusion—hotels, restaurants, workplaces, and public accommodations that had treated discrimination as a private choice rather than a public injury. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 came next, aimed at the oldest trick in the Jim Crow playbook: letting the law promise citizenship while local officials quietly made voting ineffective or, for that matter, impossible. These measures did not create racial equality overnight, but they detonated the legal foundations of Jim Crow. For a moment, it looked as if the federal government—courts, Congress, and the presidency—had finally chosen the side of equal citizenship.
For conservatives whose power and identity rested on racial hierarchy, this was an earthquake. Open defense of white supremacy no longer worked in national politics, at least not in plain language. With it came a forced adaptation. The underlying commitments did not disappear: white political control, minimal federal interference in the South, and a narrow definition of “order” that treated disruption of hierarchy as social collapse. What changed was the vocabulary. The defense of segregation became the defense of “local control.” The defense of disenfranchisement became the defense of “election integrity” and “states’ rights.” The defense of racial boundaries became the defense of “neighborhood schools,” “taxpayers,” and “law and order.” The argument learned to say less about race while doing the same work that race had always done.
Out of that pivot came what we now call the Southern Strategy. It was not simply a campaign tactic and it was not merely a shift in party labels. It was a conservative method of translation: how to fight civil-rights gains without using the old words that had become politically radioactive. With it came a new kind of politics—one that could appeal to resentment and fear while presenting itself as neutral administration. “Crime” could carry racial meaning without naming race. “Welfare” could imply moral hierarchy without admitting it. “States’ rights” could function as a shield for local discrimination while sounding like constitutional principle. The Southern Strategy did not invent American conservatism, but it permanently reshaped what the movement sounded like—and, in practice, who its victories protected.
Remember, those paragraphs are talking about the late 1800s through the mid-1900s. The Conservative Robert's court has eviscerated the VRA and returned us back to those bad old days.The Voting Rights Act of 1965 came next, aimed at the oldest trick in the Jim Crow playbook: letting the law promise citizenship while local officials quietly made voting ineffective or, for that matter, impossible.
Conservatives meanwhile say that the redistricting is not racist but partisan, but it ultimately is designed to serve the same purposes it did 100 years ago, disenfranchise… They continue to believe that they are deceiving people as to what this all truly means. It went to states rights, now, electoral integrity, but they are just synonyms for the same word, disenfranchisement.
In your book, you could remind us why conservatism has been the foundation of racism and misogyny in this country? Why the urgency to go to so much trouble to terrorize others?
“Color blind society” is great as a conservative ideal and platitude, but it never is reality in practice. The corrections were needed and based on the fact that America at is foundation was never a “color blind” society.In the conservative South, there is very little difference between partisan and racial. People need to understand that.
Credence, here is a line from my book that summarizes how I see the conservative worldview about racism; in this case Barry Goldwater.
"Racism was bad, he said; federal power to police discrimination was worse."
Step back a century and Goldwater might have said "Slavery was bad, he said; federal power to police slavery was worse."Goldwater.
"Racism was bad, he said; federal power to police discrimination was worse."
Conservatives always speak of rights only when they acquire the advantage by denying them to others. Perhaps Goldwater, William Buckley needed to refresh on the 14th Amendment speaking of equal rights under the law. It supersedes any state rights to nullify.
Conservatives parrot to the same bromides, but never really offer palatable solutions or alternatives. It reminds me a great deal of the “gun” controversy.I am up to 205 pages so far, will probably top out at 250 plus references and bibliography.
I don't believe Goldwater war racist, it is just that his positions empower racists to do their thing.
Buckley, on the other hand, was clearly a racist.
The Robert's Court cements its place as one of the most racist Courts in American history.
"Supreme Court allows Alabama to use GOP-friendly map for midterms, cutting seat held by Black Democrat"
What makes this especially striking is that this was not some liberal activist panel. The lower-court panel included two Trump-appointed judges and one Clinton-appointed judge, yet it still found Alabama’s map racially discriminatory.
Roberts confirmed that racially drawn maps is fine in white America!
The ONLY solution now is for a Democratic Congress to invoke its Article 1 powers and tell racist states like Alabama how to draw their maps fairly.
This is what I would suggest.
If a state's map doesn't reasonably reflect the ethnic or political make-up of its population, then Congress will impose a map that is statistically neutral developed by some AI system that will ensure the value of each voter's vote is maximized.
(Yes, I am aware a few Blue states will probably violate that rule as well)
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/02/politics … june-trumpYour proposal seems to assume that the purpose of district maps is to ensure that elected officials reflect the racial and political demographics of the population. That's a very different principle than equal representation under the law.
If Alabama is 27% Black, does that mean exactly 27% of its congressional seats should be expected to elect Black-preferred candidates? If Republicans are 60% of the electorate, should they automatically receive about 60% of the seats? Once you start using demographics as the benchmark, you're no longer treating citizens as individual voters—you are treating them as members of racial and political groups whose representation must be mathematically engineered.
The standout irony in your comment is that you accuse the Court of racism while proposing a system where race becomes a central factor in drawing every map in America.
The goal of redistricting should be equal voting rights and compliance with the law, not guaranteeing that election results mirror racial or political percentages. Those are two very different things.You say I said "If Alabama is 27% Black, does that mean exactly 27% of its congressional seats should be expected to elect Black-preferred candidates?" - I ask, Where did I say that or imply that.
A simple reading of what I said was if whites are drawing maps to disenfranchise Black and other minority voters, then Congress needs to step in and make a neutral/fair map.
Are you saying Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc are, how did you put it, " treating citizens as individual voter"
If you carefully read what I proposed, race is not a factor at all. The only factor is that one person's vote counts the same as the next. (Didn't I say something just like that?)
A CNN (one of the most trusted news outlets) analysis puts it nice than I did (I use the Trump-method that the opposition loves so much).
"The Supreme Court gave Republicans another congressional win. But its ruling means much more."
"Alabama has repeatedly come to the US Supreme Court to defend a racially discriminatory congressional map, asserting dubious claims and employing questionable tactics.
In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against Alabama. Late Tuesday night, the emboldened conservative majority did the opposite, endorsing a state plan that eliminates a seat held by a Black Democrat that a special US district court has declared intentionally discriminatory.
The high court’s action demonstrated the truth that the nation’s protections for voting rights have not merely been “updated,” as Justice Samuel Alito insisted in late April.
They have been jettisoned.
The message in the Supreme Court’s unsigned opinion, posted after 9 pm ET, is that states now have vast latitude to draw maps that dilute the voting power of Blacks, Latinos and other racial minorities. Even if all indications are otherwise, judges must assume legislators acted in good faith when they devised their voting maps.
Tuesday’s decision, hastily made without full briefing or oral arguments, culminates decades of retrenchment on voting rights by the contemporary court.
The majority reversed the three-judge lower court’s detailed, 78-page opinion from May 26 that reinforced earlier trial findings of Alabama’s racial discrimination in redistricting. The state has continued to defend a map with only one district among the state’s seven in which Blacks would have a fair chance to elect a candidate of choice.
The state is about 27% Black. The special federal court had ordered a second Black district drawn. Over years of litigation, including in 2023 when the lower court panel’s determination was affirmed by the Supreme Court, the Alabama legislature went to lengths to dodge the mandate for a second Black district.
Yet, on Tuesday night, the Supreme Court majority faulted the US district court panel for failing to presume the state was acting with “legislative good faith.” The conservatives forgot to add ... for white folk.
All Blue states need to quickly redraw their maps to potentially wipe out all Republican districts in order to balance the scales. That way we can have a nation as Conservatives intended - totally divided between Red (which it already is now) and Blue
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/03/politics … istricting"All Blue states need to quickly redraw their maps to potentially wipe out all Republican districts in order to balance the scales. That way we can have a nation as Conservatives intended - totally divided between Red (which it already is now) and Blue" ESO
The idea sounds simpler than it is because congressional districts are constrained by geography, population distribution, and legal requirements.
One major issue is that voters are not evenly distributed. In many blue states, Republicans are spread throughout suburban and rural areas rather than concentrated in one place. Even with aggressive gerrymandering, it is often impossible to draw maps that eliminate every Republican-leaning district while still meeting legal requirements for equal population and contiguous districts.
For example, in California, New York, and Illinois, Democrats have at times drawn maps favorable to their party, yet Republicans still win seats because there are regions where Republican voters are numerous enough that they cannot realistically be divided among enough districts to prevent Republican victories.
Another limitation is that courts can strike down maps. State constitutions, federal voting-rights laws, and court rulings can restrict how far legislatures can go when drawing districts. Some states also use independent redistricting commissions, meaning politicians cannot simply redraw maps however they wish. Inconvenient as some may find it, we are governed by laws... Yes, some in our present society feel they can pick and choose laws, but others respect following our laws.
The comment also says the nation is already "totally divided between Red and Blue," but the reality is more complicated. Most states contain millions of people from both parties. Even states commonly labeled "red" or "blue" have substantial minority political populations. For instance, millions of Democrats live in Texas and millions of Republicans live in California.
The strongest argument against the comment is mathematical rather than political: if a state has enough Republican voters concentrated in certain regions, there may simply be no legal way to draw districts that completely eliminate Republican representation. Gerrymandering can influence how many seats each party wins, but it cannot always erase a party's presence entirely.
The idea also runs into another obstacle: recent Supreme Court rulings have generally signaled greater deference to state legislatures when drawing districts and have made some redistricting challenges more difficult to win. That doesn't mean states can draw any map they want, but it does mean courts may be less willing than in the past to intervene simply because a map produces a strong partisan advantage. Even so, geography still matters. If Republicans are heavily concentrated in certain areas, there may be no realistic way to eliminate every Republican district while complying with population requirements and other legal constraints.Actually, since SCOTUS campaign to invalidate the VRA this is not true anymore - "The idea sounds simpler than it is because congressional districts are constrained by geography, population distribution, and legal requirements."
The only constraint left is that the districts have somewhere around 761,000 people (not citizens) in it. Everything else is now up to the legislature who, regardless of the evidence to the contrary, are assumed to be acting with 'good' intent.
That means district boundaries can now take on any shape to meet the legislature's partisan or racial goals.
Yes, state courts can strike down maps, but only for state elections. SCOTUS has taken that option away from federal courts.
Recent, or old, SCOTUS decisions seem to carry no weight anymore with this Court. Example, with yesterday's ruling, they reversed a 2023 precedent they set for exactly the same case.
"That doesn't mean states can draw any map they want, " - Actually, it seems it does with two exceptions: 1) the population requirement and 2) state elections. With yesterday's ruling even blatant racial discrimination is just fine and dandy.
As a counter to "If Republicans are heavily concentrated in certain areas," consider what TN just did to Memphis (and a few years ago to Nashville).I think you're overstating what the Court has done.
Even if we assume federal courts are less willing to intervene in partisan gerrymandering cases than they were in the past, that does not mean "the only constraint left is population." States are still bound by their own constitutions, equal-population requirements, the remaining provisions of the Voting Rights Act, contiguity requirements, and numerous state-level redistricting rules. Some states also use independent commissions that legislatures cannot simply ignore.
More importantly, you're moving away from the original claim. The comment I responded to wasn't that legislatures can draw highly partisan maps. It was that blue states could simply redraw maps and wipe out all Republican districts. Those are two different arguments.
Tennessee's treatment of Memphis and Nashville demonstrates that district lines can be manipulated to reduce a party's representation. It does not demonstrate that a legislature can always eliminate that party's representation entirely. Geography still matters. If enough voters are concentrated in a region, there may be no practical way to disperse them into multiple districts without creating maps that violate other requirements or become politically unsustainable.
As for the Supreme Court, I agree that many people believe the Court has become more deferential to legislatures in redistricting disputes. But "courts are less likely to intervene" is not the same thing as "states can draw any map they want." If that were true, we wouldn't continue to see redistricting litigation succeed in state courts across the country.
My original point remains the same: gerrymandering can influence outcomes, sometimes dramatically, but it does not give legislatures unlimited power to erase political opponents wherever they happen to live.
Here’s a factual, current snapshot of CNN’s ratings (cable news viewership) based on the most recent Nielsen-based reporting:
As of early 2026, CNN is typically drawing roughly:
~550,000 to 800,000 viewers in primetime
~500,000 to 700,000 in total day (average across the day)
~90,000–150,000 in the key 25–54 advertising demo
For comparison context:
Fox News is leading by a wide margin at about 2.5–3.0 million primetime viewers
MSNBC (MS NOW) is usually in the ~1.0–1.2 million range
CNN is consistently third among the major cable news networks
Not sure who is still tuning in, but I could guess.Once again you are trying to mislead us with your statistics, so I will repeat the truth of the matter. You are comparing apples to oranges and it is not working.
The real statistics are main stream media has about 20 - 25 million viewers daily while conservative media has about 5 million. THOSE are the factual numbers that matter.
As I have pointed out several times before you can’t just look at CNN and MSNBC in isolation and then declare they “don’t matter anymore.” That’s only one slice of the news ecosystem — and it’s the most fragmented one at that.
If you actually step back and look at where people get traditional news, broadcast news is still enormous. ABC, NBC, and CBS evening news alone are pulling in something like 20-plus million viewers a night. That’s not a niche audience like Fox and CNN are — that’s still the closest thing we have to a shared national news baseline.
So when someone compares Fox to CNN/MSNBC and says “look, conservative media dominates,” they’re really only comparing cable channels — and cable news is already a smaller, more specialized slice of the system. It’s basically like zooming in on one neighborhood and pretending it represents the whole city.
And the other issue is that broadcast news isn’t really “left” or “right” in the way cable opinion programming is. It’s structurally more institutional — more constrained, more consensus-driven, and aimed at a broad audience. That matters, because it functions as a different kind of influence than cable commentary shows.
So the problem with the argument isn’t that Fox doesn’t have a big audience — it does. It’s that shrinking the comparison to cable news alone leaves out the part of the system where the largest traditional news audience still sits.
Further, CNN is in the same category of traditional news as the broadcast channels are while Fox and its cohorts are more into opinion making.My stats just offer a preference for what cable news stations are being watched The stats are from ChatGPT.
Here are the latest stats
Cable news channels (Fox News, CNN, MS NOW/MSNBC) and which one is most watched right now, here’s the clear comparison:
Most-watched cable news network (latest trend)
Fox News — #1 by a wide margin
Consistently the most-watched cable news channel in the U.S.
Around 2–3+ million primetime viewers in recent months
Often holds 60%+ of total cable news audience share
Dominates both primetime shows and total-day viewing
In short: Fox News is #1 by far
MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) — #2
Typically around 900K–1.2M primetime viewers
Strong with a politically progressive audience
Usually second place overall in total viewers
CNN — #3
Usually around 500K -- 600Kprimetime viewers
Broader/general news audience, but smaller ratings than Fox or MS NOW
Simple ranking (most watched → least watched)
Fox News (highest by far)
MS NOW (MSNBC)
CNN
Bottom line
If your question is “what cable news is most watched?” → Fox News, consistently The other two compete for second place, but Fox dominates overall ratings.
If you want, I can also break it down by:
specific shows (like Hannity vs Maddow vs Anderson Cooper)
or “who wins mornings vs evenings vs weekends” Source ChatGPT
It is very clear CNN hold rhe minoity of viewers."It is very clear CNN hold rhe minoity of viewers." Nothing more, nothing less.
OK, but so what, why do you keep bringing it up and why do you limit to such a small audience that is cable news?
“When Vance or Trump talk about “working class” or “hard-working Americans,” they are making thinly coded appeals to aggrieved white men and women who feel they have “lost their country” to Black and brown people, immigrants and others who have “cut ahead in line.” To that point, research has repeatedly shown that it is not economic anxiety but racism, nativism and white racial resentment that drives support for Trumpism, MAGA and today’s Republican Party.”
———————
Truer words have never been spoken……. Alabama, Mississippi for example
Paragraph from Chauncey DeVega’s article: “The white working-class myth that made JD Vance”
https://www.salon.com/2026/06/25/the-wh … -jd-vance/I think it is only White men, remember how misogynistic they are.
Yet, there is a preponderance of white women who voted for Trump, they are only slightly less taken by Trump than the men, and are not much better. While our black women would not give him 5 percent of their vote. So, this “sisterhood” stuff is so much baloney. We should not allow ourselves to be deceived by deceptive alliances.
Uneducated White women who are more prone to being brainwashed than educated ones at that.
ChatGPT ---- Just the stats
Black women voting for Republican presidential candidates (recent history)
Here’s the pattern based on exit polls and post-election analysis:
2008 (McCain): ~4%
2012 (Romney): ~6%
2016 (Trump): ~4%
2020 (Trump): ~7–8%
2024 (Trump): ~7–8% (estimates vary slightly)I stand corrected, black women supporting Trump was closer to 7 percent in 2024. I say the only reason they could even consider Trump is the inflationary pressures on the costs of living during Biden’s term. I certainly would not consider this a trend, not in a long shot. My demographic, Blacks over 55, gave Trump a dismal 3 percent. Why, because we been down the road based on experience and appreciate what is at risk with a backsliding party and country. I wonder what it would be for black women over 55? Younger blacks are too often naive and are ignorant of the “struggle” and its costs as it affects their lives today. I am not amongst those. When they get a true taste of what Trumpian conservatism really means for them and their families, they will come running back in droves.
https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post … n-results/I think it is safe to say, due to stats, black people, men, as well as women, do not support republican candidates. Although Trump did grab a better percentage of the black vote than his Republican predecessors. I honestly can't understand why. I mean, Blacks as a rule vote for Democrats no matter what. As you have shared, they are more apt to support the needs of black citizens.
I don't think statistics is why Black people prefer to vote for modern Democrats. I think it has more to do with how liberals across time have treated them as compared to what conservatives have done to them since 1619.
Correct, needs and aspirations…..the philosophy behind Republicanism is contrary to the direction that we should be moving in. That foundation is a reason to stay away whether the election is for the President or the County Clerk.
Here is a paragraph from my book that seems to encapsulate that thought -
The Declaration did not fully escape that world, and the men who wrote it certainly did not apply its promise equally, even in their own lives. But the idea itself was explosive. Once a society says that people are born with unalienable rights of their own, rather than merely duties to those above them, every inherited hierarchy becomes open to challenge. That is why the promise had to be narrowed almost as soon as it was announced. And conservatives in America have spent much of the last 250 years trying to put that genie back in the bottle."Your excerpt fits with one that i have read from another Atlantic Article; makes the celebration of the bi-centennial look like the
“Good ole days”.
————-
It didn’t matter to our celebration of the bicentennial, mostly because we were 11. But it also wouldn’t have mattered even if we were adults, because everyone knew that the bicentennial was for all of us. The tall ships, the fireworks, the Freedom Train that carried a moon rock around the country—all of these were symbols we shared, no matter which part of America we came from. President Gerald Ford didn’t try to make the events of that year about himself or his base, or his tribe, or his bank account.
This year is different, because the White House is inhabited by people who don’t believe in the “abstractions” that we usually celebrate on the Fourth of July. And this affects the rest of us, whether we want it to or not. Congress’s celebration, planned for a decade, has been usurped by the president’s celebration, funded by private donors and featuring a political speech by himself. Other institutions in and around Washington postponed or reduced their 250th celebrations, so as not to get in the way of the president. Many people who might have participated will not attend, pay attention, or care.
I don’t know whether the United States of America will ever reach its tricentennial, but if it does, it will be because the narrow tribe that Trump and Vance represent has been defeated and removed, and because the country is once again governed by people who believe in an American union. This is not a partisan statement: Democrats and Republicans will together have to wrest the state away from people who believe they rule by right of inheritance, and give it back to a nation that still believes that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and that the purpose of government is to serve the nation—not to enrich an oligarchic clan.
———-
Why are conservatives obsessed with the maintenance of structural inequity in society? They fight tooth and nail to avoid a truly level playing field from which to competeThe question of the century. Who knows, but they have gotten really good at it.
I had to argue with ChatGPT just to find a couple of examples of the positive good they have put forward in the 250 years.
I ask the conservatives here what their ideology has done to match things like the 13th - 15th, and 19th amendments, the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1964 things that advanced human rights in America.
Related Discussions
- 86
Did SCOTUS Finally Kill the Voting Rights Act?
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
In 2013, the Supreme Court killed the major enforcement section of the VRA, Section 5 telling Congress they need to rewrite it to reflect the situation as it stands today.In 2021, some are saying that the Conservative majority killed the other major enforcement section, Section 2.Justice Alito...
- 52
What will the 2019 Trump Court do to American Civil Liberties?
by Scott Belford 7 years ago
With the addition of Justice Kavanaugh, the make-up of the Court is similar in temperament as the one that existed between 1840 and 1929. That Court destroyed American Civil Liberties then, and this Court will do the same. So let's see how the previous conservative Court ruled:* Prigg...
- 43
Are Liberals Now Embracing the Racism They Accuse Conservatives Of?
by Dan Harmon 4 years ago
As Supreme Court Stephen Bryer prepares for retirement, President Biden is doubling down and repeating his campaign promise to put a black woman on the Supreme Court and his growing list of candidates reflects that.No males will be considered. No Caucasians, no Hispanics, no Asians, no...
- 8
What are your feelings on the Supreme Court's change to the Voting RIghts Act of
by Pamela Hutson 13 years ago
What are your feelings on the Supreme Court's change to the Voting RIghts Act of 1965?What are your feelings on the Supreme Court's change to the Voting RIghts Act of 1965? Do you understand the change? I get the impression a lot of people either 1) aren't interested, or 2) don't understand what...
- 28
We Must Rise Up To Force Accountability Using A Diversity Of Tactics
by Sharlee 4 years ago
Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.The activists are organizing under the moniker "Ruth Sent Us" and have published the supposed home addresses of...
- 54
So, how did conservatives get this radical?
by Credence2 12 years ago
Excellent op-ed page that discusses conservatism taking two distinct tracts. Have a read and share your opinion, please. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … /?src=recg