Today in Supreme Court History: August 28, 1958

8/28/1958: Cooper v. Aaron is argued.

Comments

[Tempe Jeff]

Integration, "...with all deliberate speed...". Words matter.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Eisenhower wanted to avoid the race issue, but when something had to be done the old soldier stepped up and did it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Racism then versus "racism" now...

[Jimmy the Dane]

All we have these days is "racism"(TM)....

[Krychek_2]

So, is your argument that there is no racism and blacks are just making stuff up?

[Jimmy the Dane]

You mean like Treyvon, "Hands up don't shoot", NYU noose incident, Jussie Smollett, NASCAR,.... should I continue?

[Krychek_2]

The plural of anecdote is not data. Is your claim that racism has ceased to be a problem?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Frankly because of "Racism"(TM) and Diversity, Inc. I have no clue. The waters have been so muddled by fake hate crimes, overblown incidents, general gnashing of teeth, "over-classification" of race based incidents, and general ignorance of race based incidents that don't fit into the white on black narrative there is no way to objectively tell.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I do not understand how Republicans and conservatives intend or expect to avoid severe penalties for their positions on race (and women, and gays, and others who are not white, heterosexual, Christian males), nor do understand why Republicans and conservatives voluntarily address these issues in public . . . but I am neither a Republican nor a conservative, and I welcome the predictable consequences of bigotry for a political party in modern America.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Maybe because some of us look at people beyond those labels you wish to solely judge the content of their character by...

[WJack]

Sixty plus years later, most of those who can send their children to private schools.

[Jimmy the Dane]

And Diversity, Inc was you to think that is "racism"(TM) because you don't want your kid to be part of a social experiment and sit on a bus for 3 hours a day to go to a substandard school because some egghead "thinks", just maybe, and only maybe, that might "fix" a societal problem.

[Krychek_2]

By suppressing the vote. Period, full stop. Both directly, and through things like gerrymandered House seats, an anti-democratic Senate and the electoral college.

Republicans and conservatives know full well they are no longer the majority opinion in this country. So long as they can hold power through anti-democratic methods, they don't care.

[Krychek_2]

The above comment was intended to respond to Arthur Kirkland's comment at 2:04 p.m.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Calling mechanisms of our Constitutional Republic "anti-democratic" shows just how ignorant you are of the basic structure of our society. We are not a direct democracy or even a full representative democracy. We are a Republic. The Senate and College of Electors were designed exactly because the Founding Fathers didn't want direct democracy. And they serve that purpose very well (which is probably why you don't care for them as all you care about is power and power right now...)

[Krychek_2]

No one is questioning that that’s the constitutional structure. The question is whether it’s a just structure. You like it because it keeps your side in power. Would you like it just as much it it kept putting Democrats who lost the popular vote in the White House?

[WJack]

No "democracy" could last for long, to many people think there is such a thing as a "free lunch."

[Krychek_2]

In other words, no self governance for people you disagree with. So why even bother having elections?

[Jimmy the Dane]

You really backed yourself into a corner with the inane comment above. Anything else just seems like what it really is - petty whining.

[Krychek_2]

So complaining about being shut out of the democratic process is just petty whining?

Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent change inevitable. What you are now seeing with all these protests, both non violent and not so non violent, is what happens when people are shut out of the democratic process. The majority wants far more liberal governance than it can get at the polls because our system is anti-democratic. Your solution is to tell them to suck it up and stop whining. Their response is to tell you to go screw yourself. On top of it, we have a president who cannot resist throwing gasoline on any fire he encounters, and who isn't even pretending to care about democratic norms. At this point, I'm not sure a full scale civil war is off the table.

And if that does happen, there is no plausible scenario under which our constitutional republic survives. If your side wins, we have full blown fascism. If the left wins, you end up with a lot more socialism than you would have gotten had you simply agreed to democracy. Whoever wins, we could turn into another Iraq with one act of terrorism after another for decades.

And your argument that the current system is just the way our system works is the same argument made by despots at all times and places. It's China's response to those demanding democracy and free speech there -- that's just not the way things are done in China. It's no better an argument for our system here.