This is an interesting parallel. Looks to me like democrats are correct on both. Unless you’re saying businesses shouldn’t have to serve colored folks? That civil rights wasn’t a just use of “government force” or that it was a mistake? Apart from this, your history is off. Democrats weren’t “always this way”. There were many former democrats in the south that may have hung a “no colored’s” sign out on front of their business. After 1964, those who clung to that evil switched parties and gravitated towards Republicans, hiding behind “states rights” to empower their ugly discrimination (just as the southerners did for slavery). I view this sexual orientation issue no differently from the race discrimination battles of the 60’s. Freedom means freedom across the board. Not for a few, some, most. It means ALL. Anyone wanting the govt to sanction their discrimination can eff off.
Personally, the interesting thing about Kavanaugh is I find him no higher than the fourth most irritating justice. If I was going to protest, he would not be my target. I think he gets more the attention because obviously he's more high-profile as confirmation but also because he still trying to have a role in public life. I would hate to drive him out of that. I say that because I think it keeps them slightly out of the bubble. You can tell when you read the stuff from Alito and Thomas that they sit there all day consuming far right media which constitutes their mental record. They have kind of lost touch with reality in the way that exclusive consumers are far right wing media do. I don't know about Gorsuch's media diet but he's just kind of a jerkish ideologue without reflective bandwidth But Thomas obviously used for factually much like his wife does, and Alito's just a crank divorced from reality. We would be worse off if Kavanaugh ended up going down the same path. Mind you I never thought Kavanaugh should be on the court, not because the allegations against him but because I thought you should never have someone on a court who had been that much of a pure political warrior for most of his life. Plus he has pretensions of intellectualism which are not necessarily reflected in his writing, where he tries to make indefensible rulings sound slightly less provocative with banal reframings. But he does at least seem still somewhat grounded in reality. He cant deviate in his votes because he sold his voting soul long ago, but he at least tries to sound like he acknowledges the humanity and the right to exist of those that disagree with him, which the other three do not.
Democrats were correct to threaten shutting businesses down if they served Black people? Like Jim Crow laws? I'm sure you misread, but I'll give you the opportunity to clarify.
You are perpetually confused. The democrats ended Jim Crow by passing federal law. This pissed off a block of southern democrats, who almost all became republicans shortly after 1964. This remains the politician alignment today, and is largely the alignment of the issues around sexual orientation discrimination as well.
Yeah last I heard LBJ was a Democrat. There was a big split in the party after that and most southern Dems became Repubs over the next generation. Racist Strom Thurmond switched parties immediately after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Other racists, like Jessie Helms, switched a few years later. Eventually most white southern Dems became white southern Repubs.
Correct but I would include that Strom "left the party" when he ran against Truman as a "Dixiecrat" in 1948 in response to the armed forces being integrated, and that the South had been solidly Democratic due to the politics of 1860 and the Civil War and Reconstruction
Even if you don’t agree with the USSC’s rationale in Roe that it’s a violation of the 14th Amendment’s right to privacy, how do you interpret the 9th Amendment. James Madison wrote the following: It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against. And shortly after to address this concern the following was included in the Bill of Rights: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Did not have time to read all posts. The protests would do no more tHan harden views if any effect. The Supreme Court is no longer above the Frey. It is now acting as a legislative body with the rules changing by the voters on the Court or in the legislative bodies, or now common executive orders changing with each executive officer Are the Warren Court precedents next. Florida will follow the Roe Wade decision. Our Supreme Court is less independent. DOONSBERRY (spelling) was good today.
The lack of self awareness is astounding but expected. Republicans rushed the capitol on Jan 6 to unseat the elected Biden, actively solicited insurrection in Georgia, spews false stories coast to coast, broke long standing norms appointing SC judges, lied to congress on intent, and just told women they are second class citizens. Your party is old and dying. It’s only time which is why they are acting so anti-democratic.
Lame insult showing a lack of cleverness. Explains the 2D thought pattern. You’re on the correct side for you.
The drink was for anyone who wanted to join me. You turned a sincere offer into a negative. Sorry you couldn’t just say “thanks” or “no thanks”.
Democrats were the party of Jim Crow. In passing the Civil Rights Act, 69% of Democrats in the Senate supported it, 82% of Republicans in the Senate supported it. 61% of Democrats in the House supported it, 80% of Republicans in the House supported it. Post Civil Rights Act, only one Democratic Senator became a Republican, Strom Thurmond. Democrats were the party of force through Jim Crow, and they remain the party of force today. Acting like there's no middle ground between government-mandated segregation and government-mandated service is just ridiculous. Pretending like Democrats have been the party of "businesses should be able to do business with whomever they want for whatever reason" is even more ridiculous.
Outside of a restaurant on a public sidewalk on a public street is a quintessential public forum. You can keep repeating what a time, place, or manner restriction is. It's not going to make you less wrong when you claim that the government can use stalking laws to arrest protestors nonviolently protesting government officials on public sidewalks. You can drop the empty threats. I've already told you exactly where I stand on Republicans protesting Sotomayor or another liberal judge.
If they disagree with me, that only further proves why they have no business serving on the Supreme Court.
If your position is that you can follow a Supreme Court Justice at any time or frequency in any nonviolent manner (as long as it is on a public sidewalk), and not get arrested due to First Amendment protections; that is incorrect. You are interpreting First Amendment protections too broadly here.
