The “race card” is a baseless accusation of racism. It should not be used because it’s nothing more than a specific flavour of slander used to falsely discredit your opponent.
That’s a bad thing, by the way.
Unfortunately, accusations that one is playing the baseless “race card” also sometimes are baseless, making it a meaningless term on its own. Sometimes there actually is racism.
You’d think that conservatives and Republicans in general, given their appalling record during that appalling time, would be reluctant even to discuss such an inflammatory subject. But no! Turns out they are eager to do so, eager to thrust their record of obstruction at worst, foot dragging compliance at best, eager to revisit that in the public square.
Damndest thing.
Yes, totally insane! That’s why I have never once said or implied that Mumia isn’t guilty, I’ve said that it seems like a reasonable thing for a court to take a look at. And the evidence presented seems to have been that of the 13 strikes the prosecution had in voir dire, 12 of them were used on African Americans. That seems curious to me, but like the court, I personally wouldn’t find it compelling enough to order a new trial. But neither would I hold it against an attorney who brought it to a court’s attention and made a claim that a new trial was in order.
Thank god I’m not insane!
You’re confused. I am not an officer of the court. I’m not asking for a judge to assume anything. I’m not charged with weighing the evidence for a legal proceeding. I’m saying that in my official position as a Charter Member of the SDMB, I think it is reasonable to assume that racism was worse in 1982 than it is today, and that it is not reasonable at all to believe that racial bias was a problem that our justice system had figured out three decades ago.
What I said was that starting with the assumption that racial bias had no part in any such case argued 30 years ago is just not credible. I didn’t say the courts had to assume there was racial bias, they should do their job and discover the truth and apply the law.
I am saying that I believe that allegations of racial bias are not incredible in dealing with the specifics of this case, especially in light of the judge allegedly referring to the defendant as a “n-----.” I still believe Mumia is guilty, but I think for the credibility of our judicial system, any defendant, no matter how terrible a person, is entitled to a fair trial (and in this case, almost certainly a fair conviction).
Cool. I agree.
Cool. I agree.
[QUOTE=lance armstrong]
It’s awful when the people want their representatives to do awful things.
[/QUOTE]
Then it doesn’t apply in this situation.
Well, there we differ.
No, actually Mumia needs to show that his accusations of racism are more than the desperate lies of a convicted murderer.
Take for instance the allegation made earlier in the thread, that the judge vowed to help “fry that nigger”. This allegation was made 19 years after the fact, the person making the allegation refused to repeat the statement under oath, and none of the other people in the room when it was allegedly made remember anything of the sort.
So I would say that most reasonable people would agree that the case for this allegation has not been made, and therefore not evidence that this was a racist verdict.
Mumia didn’t want a lawyer - he was compelled to use one.
Much of Mumia’s repeated effort to disrupt his trial was to demand that he be represented by a non-lawyer named John Africa.
Regards,
Shodan
And that’s all it means, that this one particular allegation cannot be substantiated. Beyond that it means nothing at all. So, why did you bring it up, if not to imply and insinuate something beyond its significance?
Of course it applies. Senators do things with the voters in mind.
I’m speculating (which is what you’re asking me to do), but I’d suppose it was because of the enormous support and sympathy Mumia developed in a large subset of the black community and among the “beautiful people.” I suspect it was good for business. Mumia in that crowd was such a sympathetic, intelligent figure, he was a perfect symbol (to a certain crowd receptive to such a message) for the cause of eradicating racial injustice. Well, perfect if one could only ignore his obvious guilt and the apparent absence of any racial bias in the proceedings.
So a huge swath of idiots did exactly that, and Adegbile and his associates pandered to that idiocy. It’s the mindset that believes Sabo said he would “fry that nigger” because a “Free Mumia” nut said she heard it, and only brought up this unsubstantiated allegation 19 years later coincidental with an important hearing. No charge of bias was unbelievable to this crowd, in fact it was self-evident. And the NAACP reacted to this. Maybe it raised donations. Maybe it made them feel good to attack the system they believed corrupt for any reason whatsoever. Who can really know?
Again, that’s just a guess. But out of the thousands of convicted black felons in the Philadelphia system, they thought an obviously guilty cop killer was a worthy poster child and diverted limited resources in defending him, and I believe it was to take advantage of the tremendous publicity this case automatically afforded them. In the end, it’s a pretty shitty choice regardless of their motives.
No, it doesn’t apply. You claimed it was awful when the voters pressed their representatives to do awful things. Rejecting this clown for the head of Civil Rights isn’t awful. Therefore, your claim does not apply.
Regards,
Shodan
Occam’s Razor would imply that “They thought he hadn’t gotten a fair trial” would be a more likely motivation, wouldn’t it?
Yes, my claim applies. Your opinion of whether the action itself is awful is irrelevant to that, and is debatable anyway. The point is that Senators often do things because some voters would want it, rather than leading and trying to change the voters’ minds.
Which, as has been pointed out several times, isn’t awful. It’s representative democracy.
You are upset that the Senators are not trying to change voters’ minds on a case you admittedly know nothing about. Based, apparently, on allegations of racism that are either unsubstantiated, or outright lies. And this Adegbile person agrees with you, either because he doesn’t know the facts, or prefers not to know them.
Perhaps you want someone as head of the Civil Rights division who assumes racism exists where none does, but fortunately the “advise and consent” function of the Senate is working.
Regards,
Shodan
Sometimes representative democracy is awful.
No. I take no position on whether the racism allegations are real. I’m saying a few senators don’t know or care if they are real either.
You can’t seem to understand the difference between the facts of the case and the way senators choose how to vote.
He was a victim of soycumstance!
Not the use of a stunt double at 1:56. Nkuk nyuk nyuk.
I am not. They are showing, albeit reluctantly, some sense, and actually representing their constituencies!
So, wow, you mean we disagree about something?
But my point wasn’t really about the case, it was about how Senators too often follow rather than lead.
Is it possible that the poor man simply fell prey to liberal propaganda, that old lie about how its difficult for a black man to get a fair trial? Is it possible that he was ignorant of our long standing tradition of affording radical black activists every conceivable legal advantage? Surely the NAACP, in its disbandment proceedings, advised him that perfect racial justice had arrived?
I would be quite happy with the Civil Rights Division being run by someone with a broader view of racism than yours. It is worse to deny racism where it probably exists than to suspect it where it may not.
I’m not so sure about that. To err on the side of assuming racism exists can sometimes affect real, specific people, branding them as racists.