Didn’t segregation exist almost everywhere as a matter of policy, even if it wasn’t formally codified into law? Even in the northern states, I’m sure cities had “white” neighborhoods and “colored” neighborhoods and even if there wasn’t any specific law against a black family moving into a white neighborhood, in practice they’d find it almost impossible to find someone willing to sell to them.
But then what happens to the other core principle that sovereign power rests in the hands of the people and is expressed by the people’s elected representatives?
If you substitute your own brain as the permissible agent to change these laws, what happens to the rest of the people whose brains may not agree?
I gather wolfpup is not talking about his own brain specifically, but the brains of various supreme court members. It’s proven a better method than letting the legislatures and executives run unchecked.
Given your condemnation of all society since the 60’s due to the evil mechination of those filthy Liberals, all I have to say is pot meet kettle.
I have explicitly not condemned all of society (or its members) since the sixties, nor have I condemned the things I have condemned in a hateful way. Contemptuous, yes, critical, yes, but not hateful. Nor do I ascribe intent to do harm to the left, as is typical of my liberal brethren when it comes to the right. What I’ve done is point out the harm their policies and beliefs have led to, and the hypocrisy involved in their claiming to care about people’s health, welfare and feelings while simultaneously ignoring or hand waving away the much greater harm they themselves have caused and are causing. And I don’t believe I’ve ever used the term “Filthy liberals” in all my time here, unless perhaps to mock it when pinned on me.
So, uh, total fail there, BG. Sorry.
Oh, no need to apologize, he’ll get over it.
It never existed; power existed and largely still exists in the hands of white rich Christian men, not “the people”. All the victims of segregation and sexism and homophobia and so on were people too, but they certainly had no power.
Big problem, sure – but I don’t think the governor would have tried to muster force to prevent it like Wallace did.
But maybe that’s not the perfect time frame – my main point to Bricker is that he seems to be agreeing, from my reading of some of his recent posts, that there were times in history in which a liberal SCOTUS would have made better decisions with a better long-term outcome then the SCOTUS in our actual history did.
No.
I’m pointing out that reaching that conclusion is possible if you focus narrowly. Thus my comment about the death penalty for parking. It’s beyond cavil that the death penalty for parking violations will have better long-term results for the populations’ observing parking laws.
But that also creates a world we don’t want, where the tradeoff for well-managed streets is death for a trivial infraction.
You really don’t think the country would have been better off in the long run of we, say, in the late 40s, had a liberal SCOTUS that overturned Jim Crow laws and segregation and anti miscegenation laws? You literally don’t think there was any better time in history for these things to happen them when they did?
I suppose it might have been feasible for the first time circa 1954, i.e. after the Korean War. There were a few hundred thousand American veterans who’d served in newly-desegregated units and it might have been possible to play with the idea of “for the man who stood beside you in combat, stand beside him at home.”
Just spitballing.
The country would have been better off with respect to racial justice.
But not better off with respect to self-governance.
I’m sorry to say, I have to hold the view that the people weren’t ready for it that early, and that it just wouldn’t have worked. There is a tide in the affairs of men – and not even the Supreme Court can swim against that tide.
It’s a little like demanding that the Framers had dealt with slavery in the writing of the Constitution. Maybe it would have been better…but it wouldn’t have worked. The nascent U.S. would have split into two (at least) parts. (A war of unification would likely have happened eventually…)
Supreme Court rulings are part of our self-governance. They aren’t “outsiders” but integral to our democracy.
So it’s okay if people are persecuted and oppressed as long as there’s some form of self-governance, even if it doesn’t include many of the people that will be governed? Is that your position here?
Also, as Trinopus pointed out, the SCOTUS is a part of our self-governance, aren’t they?
Maybe people find it hard to believe you’re NOT being hateful when you imply (at least give the impression) that you believe almost every problem in society is because of liberal “policies and beliefs”. And then turn around and say, “but of course, I don’t think liberals are bad PEOPLE. They just have bad IDEAS”. When you paint people in the worst light, but claim it’s only their BELIEFS you find offensive, it comes a wee bit disingenuous, to say the least. Don’t be surprised if people find it hard to take your claims seriously. You may not have said “filthy liberals”, indeed, you may not have intended it. But that is how your words come off.
TL,DR: Don’t insult people, and then act astonished and say, “Well, I don’t hate YOU, just what you BELIEVE!” C’mon, I believe you’re smarter than that.
And constantly accusing liberals of “hating conservatives” does you no favors. I certainly do not hate conservatives, as one big monolithic group.
Schlafly’s Eagle Forum is already breaking apart without her.
We should invite them here, set them up between MPSIMS and IMHO.
Why wouldn’t the ERA imply unisex bathrooms? How do you justify separate bathrooms based on sex but not race? Isn’t that “separate but equal” logic? How is claiming to protect women from men and citing criminal statistics different than claiming white people need protecting from minorities and citing criminal statistics?
The ERA might have led to equal restroom capacity. Men take a whiz a lot faster than women do, so having four toilets in each restroom can lead to long lines in front of the women’s room, but no lines in front of the men’s.
(Sometimes, when that happens, women invade the men’s room, out of sheer necessity.)
The ERA itself, obviously, says nothing about the issue. It would come down to court decisions. However, Schlafly tried to stir up fear on the subject, by exaggeration and lies, and caused harm to the country and over half of its citizens. The opponents could have taken the high ground and argued against it on its actual merits (or detriments) but Schlafly took the cowardly route, of disseminating outright lies.
Because the genders are actually different, and actually want separate bathrooms. And because separate bathrooms for each gender are an attempt to give people what they want, not to oppress one gender or the other; the reason “separate but equal” got the reputation it did was because it wasn’t equal, and was against the will of the victims.