Voting

Guess which Supreme Court member is "a symbolic Jew [who] has invited a metaphoric Hitler to commit holocaust and genocide upon his own people"

|

Wow, just wow.

Andrew Kirell of Mediaite snags this clip of Georgetown's Michael Eric Dyson denouncing the Supreme Court decision in the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The decision struck down part of the 1965 law that had been renewed most recently in 2006.

The VRA required nine states or parts of states—mostly but not exclusively in the South—to get "pre-clearance" before changing anything related to voting. That's because when the law was passed, these areas had proven records of discriminatory practices.

"We are now expected to believe that we should trust them [various Southern states and other jurisdictions subjected to the law] to police themselves," said Dyson. That's a fair point that's worth arguing.

As Steve Chapman notes, times have thankfully changed and states such as Mississippi now have higher percentages of blacks than whites registered to vote. As Chapman writes, "As a dissent in the appeals court [whose ruling led to the current case] documented, the Justice Department raised 'only five objections for every ten thousand submissions between 1998 and 2002.'"

So there's been huge and unequivocal progress since the mid-1960s, when segregationists openly ran and won office around the country. I think you can legitimately express serious anxiety that if the VRA is weakened, things might backslide. I don't think that's likely, but I think Dyson has a point on that score.

 But when it comes to his denunciation of Justice Clarence Thomas, who was part of the majority striking down the VRA, Dyson not only loses all credibility, Dyson reveals himself to be far beyond the pale of acceptable discourse.

He called Thomas

"A symbolic Jew has invited a metaphoric Hitler to commit holocaust and genocide upon his own people."

This is from an academic whose self-promotional materials are heavy on praise for him being an "ideal public intellectual," "a serious intellectual," "a major American thinker," and more. It is brilliant, I guess, the way that Dyson manages to be coyly anti-Semitic (those Jews, with their secret Nazi connections!) while engaging in the reductio ad Hitlerum. Hmm, maybe he is the "the most talented rhetorical acrobat in the academy" (as Cornel West attests on Dyson's website).

You've got to be kidding us, MSNBC. And the next time a liberal says it's only the right that is ill-tempered and extreme, point them to this.

I think that the "symbolic Jew" Clarence Thomas would be totally within his rights to suggest that the literal Professor Dyson should figuratively go fuck himself.

NEXT: After Court's Ruling, Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage Still Varies From Place to Place

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Never go full Godwin.

    1. Damn it, Ap, you beat me to it.

  2. Clarence Thomas has made some awful decisions before, but he’s also made some great ones and is more than qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. That he drives the left insane and makes them reveal how racist they are towards anyone who won’t toe the line is an added bonus.

    But on the VRA issue itself, why hasn’t anyone asked the progtards that are apoplectic about this how it is a violation of a person’s voting rights to be gerrymandered? There is certainly no racial bias to gerrymandering since it’s obvious the party in power would cut up districts if it contained 100% white people that vote for the other team.

    1. And isn’t putting all of the minority voters in one district segregation?

      1. But that isn’t the goal of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is about inefficiently allocating your opponent’s voters. So you’d want as many mixed districts as possible provided that your voters are still in a majority.

        1. And this process mostly stopped that and created majority minority districts.

        2. No gerrymandering is about turning four mixed-bag districts into three that always go for you and one that goes for your opponent.

          Republicans work with Democrats to produce a few districts that are majority minority.

          1. Republicans work with Democrats

            and the question remains “why” since the opposite never happens.

            1. Oh it happens. Democrats are more than willing to work with Republicans to pass the Patriot Act, Medicare Part D, the Iraq War, keep the War on Drugs going, etc.

    2. Remember, projection, projection, projection. The reason TEAM BLUE endlessly accuses everyone else of racism is because they are complete fucking racists themselves and just assume everyone else must be too.

      1. [up arrow] This right here.

    3. I can’t think of any decisions he’s made that have been awful.

      There have been some where the outcome was not a good one or where his argument is not in agreement with my own, but none that I can think of where the reasoning for his decision was contrived or fallacious.

      1. Yeah, I’ve got the fewest problems with Thomas than with any other justice. His reasoning and intellectual integrity are admirable on this court.

  3. Ah, Thomas hate. It’s the best kind of hate. If Brown ever gets on the Court, look for even more bitter hate for a black, female libertarian. WORSE THAN HITLER IF HITLER HAD EXTERMINATED THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE.

    1. Activia!

    1. I know about academic freedom but isn’t there a you’re-so-fucking-stupid-it’s-intolerable exception?

  4. And lets not forget, an actual Jew who collaborated with the Nazis as a teenager to turn in other Jews and send them to the death camps is a hero to the Left. Being Soros means never having to say you are sorry.

    1. I don’t think Soros turned in other Jews.

      IIRC he helped pick through their property after they had been deported.

      1. I’m not sure that’s better.

      2. According to his own biography, he hand delivered deportation notices and went through their property after they were deported.

        1. WOW!!!!!!

          And he described that time as the happiest period of his life?!?

          That’s fucked up, yo.

          1. It is very fucked up. He is a sociopath. He knew what was going on and didn’t care.

            1. Yes, but why is he involved in so many political causes that don’t gain him anything?

              I thought sociopaths were only out for themselves?

              1. how do you know they don’t gain him anything? And obscenely rich sociopaths crave power even more than more money.

              2. Looks to me like it gained him a lot of fame and adulation. Those are pretty good things if you are a narcissist, which most sociopaths are.

              3. “So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.”

      3. As tempting as it is, I’m not going to bash Soros for anything he may have done as a teenager under duress during the Nazi era.

        1. I will. Anne Frank didn’t do it. And she was a girl!

          1. ^^FTW^^

        2. But he wasn’t under duress. And he also describes it as “the most exciting time of my life”. Soros fucking loved living under the Nazis. He has never once expressed any regret about what he did. No one forced him to do that stuff. He was a Jew but his parents had abandoned the religion and somehow the Nazis never figured out he was a Jew. So he lived high the whole time.

    2. Also, let’s not forget – let’s *not* forget, Dude – that keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for uh, domestic, you know, within the city – that ain’t legal either.

      1. What are you, a fucking Park Ranger now?

  5. Dyson needs to chill the heck out. In the interests of ecumenism, he should get some weed from the pot rabbi.

  6. MSNBC, even with all the other problems associated with it, can make a pretty large dent building a dignified schedule of programs by canceling/firing Martin Bashir. He’s probably the worst. (Yes, even worse than Ed Shultz.)

    1. He is worse than Special Ed? Didn’t Special Ed get so bad they moved him to the weekends?

      1. Bashir causes MSNBC embarrassment for his week-ass early afternoon program. Can you imagine the spectacle he would create if he were moved to primetime?

        1. isn’t Bashir the guy who saw the n-word in IRS?

    2. Him and Piers Morgan should be sent back to limeytown for having contagious stupidity.

  7. You know who else enabled followers to use dogs and fire hoses against a certain group of people?

    No, wait, that’s too narrow…

    You know who else was Hitler?

    1. Oh, I thought you were referring to Dr. Zaius.

    2. That guy on the Twilight Zone who looked in the mirror and realized he was Hitler?

      1. Was that when he finally had all the time he wanted to read books, but then he couldn’t read them because it turned out he was Hitler?

        1. Hitler didn’t wear glasses, moron. Do steroids make you stupid?

          1. Is that the one where the guy had Hitler eat his way through his brain, only to learn that Hitler laid eggs in his brain?

            1. Sure, everyone is always in favor of saving Hitler’s brain, but once you put it in the body of a Supreme Court justice, ohhh, suddenly you’ve gone too far.

  8. Dyson is basically the left’s dog whistle.

    Need some ridiculous over the top hyperbole? Dyson’s your man.

    Dude is a GIANT douchenozzle.

  9. Dyson calls “states’ rights” a “symbolic representation of racist desires.” I’m sure he’s not a Constitutional scholar or anything, but does Dyson also know that the legalization of gay marriage and marijuana at the state level is also a manifestation of the federalist tradition he so flippantly characterizes as “racist”?

    1. Racist

    2. but does Dyson also know that the legalization of gay marriage and marijuana at the state level is also a manifestation of the federalist tradition he so flippantly characterizes as “racist”?

      If he did know, how would those things inform him about the federalist tradition being used for racism?

      1. The legal traditions, such as federalism, that were installed to guide the United States are messy and are not always used for the best reasons. Nevertheless, there are plenty of reasons for the federal government to acknowledge the sovereignty and power given to the states. I would hope that marriage equality and pot legalization at the state level should strike a chord with liberals, allowing them to have a greater appreciation for the federalism.

        1. Supposed “racism” of federalism, much like the supposed love of democracy among the left, is mere concealment of progressives’ centralizing tendency. The same quality of arguments are used in Europe as much as in the US to support its centralizing projects; it’s simply that referring to it as such would be highly unpopular (and for good reason).

    3. that’s okay. We have a POTUS who is an alleged constitutional scholar and I doubt his thinking differentiates much.

      This is who these people are – ad hominem over substance and a double dose at those who dare stray from expected dogma.

  10. MSDNC is so pathetic they actually gave the guy who became famous for a sycophantic Michael Jackson interview 5 hours a week.

  11. Before the civil rights movement it was a belief in the south that black americans should know their place and behave as they were expected to. Now in present day we find the same thing still going on but in a strange irony it’s liberals and progressives that spew vitriol for any black person who dares go outside their defintion of acceptable black behavior.

    1. They’re the same people, it’s not a strange irony. They’ve always wanted black folks to know their place.

  12. I think that the “symbolic Jew” Clarence Thomas would be totally within his rights to suggest that the literal Professor Dyson should figuratively go fuck himself.

    Here’s where I disagree with Nick. I think Dyson should literally go fuck himself.

    1. Ew…

  13. “We are now expected to believe that we should trust them [various Southern states and other jurisdictions subjected to the law] to police themselves,” said Dyson. That’s a fair point that’s worth arguing.

    Not really. No empirical evidence has been presented to show that Southern states have voting discrepancies outside the norm of other states; in fact (as was shown by Mr. Roberts) there is substantial evidence that the greatest disparities in ethnic voting percentages exist outside of the South. Just look at the thread from earlier in the day — Bo Cara was left with arguing, in effect, that the South can’t have been expected to have atoned for its original sin quite yet even though the evidence appears to be otherwise.

    Unsubstantiated aspersions are all that I have heard from opponents of this decision — and as there is no way to argue against such an unfactual case, I refuse to give it credit for being a “fair point”.

  14. I’m glad someone’s monitoring cable news so that I don’t have to.

  15. This just in:

    SCOTUS re-institutes slavery.

  16. “A symbolic Jew has invited a metaphoric Hitler to commit holocaust and genocide upon his own people.”

    A Jew in Oreo’s clothing?

  17. I’d be worried about this if anyone actually watched MSNBC. There are infomercials with higher ratings.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.