Today in Supreme Court History: January 16, 1919

1/16/1919: The 18th Amendment is ratified.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (decided January 16, 1967): police officers being questioned in connection with investigation of traffic ticket fixing enjoyed Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination (they were told that if they didn't answer a question they would be fired; therefore these were coerced confessions)

German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Hale, 219 U.S. 307 (decided January 16, 1911): no denial of Equal Protection by Alabama statute requiring any insurer belonging to a "tariff association" fixing rates of its members to pay to its insured an extra 25% on top of any insured loss; statute applied to any such insurer

National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Gulf Power Co., 534 U.S. 327 (decided January 16, 2002): Pole Attachment Act of 1978 (regulating rents for space on telephone poles) protects providers of cable TV, high-speed internet, and even wireless telecommunication

O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (decided January 16, 1974): striking down on Equal Protection grounds New York statute denying right of inmates awaiting trial or serving misdemeanor sentences (i.e., not felons) to register as absentee voters if jail is not in their county of residence

Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U.S. 217 (decided January 16, 1996): relatives of passengers of plane shot down over Sea of Japan could not recover loss-of-society damages against airline; Court notes that Warsaw Convention refers issue to domestic law, stipulated to be American law, and Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C. §30302, allows only pecuniary damages

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

By this blog's standards of scholarship, those Supreme Court decisions should be filed under "Today In United States Congressional History" (or perhaps "Today In The History Of The Presidency").

But thank you, captcrisis, for your worthy efforts to elevate the educational standards around here.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's worth noting that it's been zero days since Rev. Kirkland has whined and cried about "censorship".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How long since the Volokh Conspiracy whined and cried about "censorship?"

Carry on, clingers.

So far as your betters permit, anyway.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey, what are your betters permitting you to say on this blog?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

My betters have nothing to do with administration of this blog.

[Frank Drackman]

Of course, they're too busy administering the running of your Cell-Block

[Jerry B.]

1/16/1919: The 18th Amendment is ratified.

Almost as dark a day in American history as Jan. 06.

[Frank Drackman]

Almost? how many Veterans got murdered at the Capitol on 1/16/1919??. And down South we never "Cottoned" much to the idea
of the Yankee Occupational Government Taxing our Moonshine even when it was "legal",

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Relevantly, Democrats in Congress are now pushing an amendment to give 16 year olds the vote. (Just for show, of course.) Because 18 year olds aren’t foolish enough, I guess.

How about an amendment saying you get ALL your rights at the same age, whatever it may be?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you should by now understand that a single rep putting out a bill is not actually pushing anything except personal branding.

Get better news sources.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, all I did was mention some related news. And I came right out and said that it was just theatrics; The Democratic party isn't remotely serious (At the national level, anyway.) about giving 16 year olds the vote. That's California level insanity.

Chill out already.

[apedad]

So you mentioned absolute BS just to. . . waste everyones' time?

[Brett Bellmore]

What, on the anniversary of an amendment changing the voting age to 18, more than a dozen members of Congress introducing an amendment to reduce it further to 16 is just a waste of time to mention?

Shove your bed up against a wall, it's a good way to avoid waking up on the wrong side of it.

[StevenF]

Perhaps the back and forth confused you about which amendment is which. Today is the anniversary of the amendment prohibiting alcohol, not the amendment related to voting age.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Perhaps you didn’t know that alcohol is illegal below a certain age established by government, and didn't realize that Brett was discussing combining all those various ages into a single "adulthood" age.

[David Nieporent]

You don't have to automatically argue, you know. Here's what Brett said: "on the anniversary of an amendment changing the voting age to 18." But it's not the anniversary of an amendment changing the voting age to 18; it's the anniversary of an amendment banning alcohol.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, you're right, I had my amendments mixed up.

[Mr. Bumble]

It isn't BS. An amendment was proposed last year in Congress and several local jurisdictions have put the idea forward along with allowing non-citizens to vote.

[apedad]

"It (the amendment) was just theatrics; The Democratic party isn’t remotely serious (At the national level, anyway. [sic]) about giving 16 year olds the vote."

[Brett Bellmore]

They're quite serious in a few localities, such as Berkley or DC.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

In DC they also got street signs all over denigrating Whites.

A constant reminder to the Federals who their real enemies are.

[Michael P]

Yes, it's worthwhile to highlight politicians engaging in bad-faith theatrical bullshit. Apparently you disagree.

[David Nieporent]

It isn’t BS. An amendment was proposed last year in Congress

The second sentence in no way supports the first. "An amendment was proposed" doesn't mean anything. All it takes is one of 535 people to write something down. Doesn't mean it's even ever going to come to a vote, let alone get majority support, let alone get the 2/3 required. 99.99999999% of such things get referred to committee and are never heard from again unless one is an insomniac who watches C-SPAN.

[Mr. Bumble]

My understanding is it came to a vote and received 125 Democrat votes.

[David Nieporent]

Your understanding is incorrect. That was a vote on a proposed amendment to a (proposed) statute, not a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/08/house-democrats-voting-age-16/

[David Nieporent]

There was also a proposed constitutional amendment, but that (as I alluded to above) got referred to committee and was never heard from again: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-joint-resolution/23?overview=closed

[defaultdotxbe]

You could say that about a lot of laws. All ideas were fringe ideas once, so I see no problem in calling them out when we see them. You may see it at 1 out of 535 but remember those 535 were elected out of 330 million so if an idea has made it all the way Congress it has a lot more support than just 1 person.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, nobody's claiming there are only 125 idiots in the country, and they all just happen to be Democratic members of Congress.

Obviously this proposal is stupid enough on it's face that even Sarcastr0 wants to pretend it has no Democratic support. Sadly, that's not the case.

[David Nieporent]

I wouldn't support it, but there's certainly an argument to be made that if someone is old enough to be tried as an adult, then he or she is old enough to vote as an adult.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and buy a firearm, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, be subject to the death penalty, serve in the armed forces.....

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and they're not proposing to set the age of adulthood at 16, for all rights, which would at least in some theoretical sense be defensible.

They're proposing to give people who are otherwise minors the vote, while in all other respects treating them as minors. Basically creating a class of "voters without rights".

[Nige]

'…and buy a firearm, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, be subject to the death penalty, serve in the armed forces…..'

Hell of a birthday party.

[Sarcastr0]

Agree with DMN.

And Brett, I do you the courtesy of taking you as sincere at least. Please do me the same.

[David Nieporent]

The problem in calling them out is that it's nutpicking. As noted, there are 535 members of Congress; there are more than seven thousand state legislators, not to mention county and city politicians. If, let say, 2% of them are loons, that's hundreds of loons in the U.S. They can each propose as many crazy ideas as they feel like, as often as they feel like. If you call out each of them, you're spending all your time and outrage highlighting things that nobody is seriously considering and that are never going to happen, leaving little time for the things that actually are happening. The only reason to do that is to be able to selectively pick out what the "other side" is doing and portray them as kooks.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...is doing and portray them as kooks." If the shoe fits...

[David Nieporent]

The whole point is that it doesn't, if you're nutpicking.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lmao you sound vaccinated.

[defaultdotxbe]

It always boggles me how many of the same people who say 18 year olds shouldn't own guns because their brains aren't fully developed also think 16 year olds should vote. Especially since many of those same people also hold Donald Trump personally responsible for half a million Covid deaths. If I were them I'd take 18 year olds with AR-15s any day, no way they ever get close to those numbers.

[Brett Bellmore]

One of the goals is to maximize the number of voters who can't own guns, and thus presumably don't care if 2nd amendment rights are violated.

Another goal is to get some votes out of HS students before the indoctrination has a chance to start wearing off from contact with the real world.

[David Nieporent]

One of the goals is to maximize the number of voters who can’t own guns,

No, it isn't, conspiracy loon.

[Sarcastr0]

Being too young to win a gun is not going to have much to do with one’s opinion on gun rights,

Yet again people don’t work like that.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If anything is going to shape young peoples view of gun rights in America it’s going to be the depraved indifference to mass shootings of kids that the American right has totally embraced.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Which race do you believe commits the most mass shootings?

[Nige]

Gun owners.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Maybe it’s to maximize the number of voters who don’t want to be murdered by someone before they graduate high school.

[Mr. Bumble]

TILT!
Play again?

[Nige]

So you oppose it BECAUSE they might be indifferent to or, since they're the generation that have had to endure fucking live fire drills and think seriously about whether they should get bulletproof schoolbags, somewhat hostile to them?

[Nige]

It boggles my mind that people think casting a vote is equivalent to owning a gun. Or drinking. or joining the army. Or having sex. Or receiving the death penalty.

[Frank Drackman]

same Institution that extorted the states to raise drinking ages to 21?? I'd rather they lower the drinking age to 16 and raise the voting age to 21 (for property owning gainfully employed umm "Citizens" of course)

Frank

[Nige]

I’ve heard that Republicans want to punish the young people who voted against them by RAISING the voting age.

[Mr. Bumble]

Can an amendment modify a previous amendment or must the conflicting amendment be repealed?

[Brett Bellmore]

Amendments do whatever they want, with very few exceptions. (Equal representation of states in the Senate, for instance.)

[David Nieporent]

It's no different than with statutes: implied repeal is disfavored, so if a later amendment/statute conflicts with an earlier one, the courts will try to harmonize them — but if they directly contradict, then the earlier one is deemed repealed.

[Mr. Bumble]

Was was the 21st Amendment necessary to repeal the 18th?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah. You can't repeal an amendment with anything less.

[defaultdotxbe]

If an amendment conflicts with an earlier amendment (or something in the original body of the constitution) the later amendment takes precedence over anything earlier.

For example if we passed an amendment saying Congress has the power to regulate hate speech (or campaign speech, or semiautomatic firearms, or what have you) that would supersede any earlier amendments considered to have denied that power to Congress, without a need for explicit or total repeal.

[Mr. Bumble]

Doesn't sound right to me and seems such an action would only lead to confusion. In the case of prohibition, the 21 Amendment specifically repealed the 18th Amendment; the only time to date taht that has been done.
Also interesting is that the 21st was the only amendment approved by state convention rather than the legislatures (guess they wanted to speed things up) an thus required 3/4 of the states to approve.

[Brett Bellmore]

It requires 3/4 of the states either way.

And it's perfectly normal statutory interpretation here, nothing special. As David says, implied repeal is disfavored, so changes get interpreted so as to be consistent with earlier language *if that is possible.*

It does get kind of dicey occasionally. Like Section 2 of the 14th amendment reduced representation of states if they deny the federal franchise to male citizens 21 years or older on any basis other than rebellion or crime.

Later the 19th and 26th amendments extended the franchise to women, and then 18 year olds.

But... the 14th amendment does actually permit denying the franchise. It just punishes it with reduced representation. While the 19th and 26th amendment prohibit denying the franchise on the basis of sex or being 18.

So, if a state were to, for instance, deny the franchise to people who weren't property owners, that would not run afoul of the 19th or 26th amendments, just the 14th, and so the state COULD do it. It would just result in reduced representation. And then you'd get a really interesting argument about whether to calculate it based on just the males who were at least 21, or males and females older than 18.

It could be fun, legally speaking.

[StevenF]

The is the very nature of amending ANY document. The entire purpose is to change the document.
Note: Your history is deficient.
The 12th amendment overrode Article 2, Section 1 regarding how Electoral vote for President and Vice President are cast, without explicitly repealing the relevant portion of Article 2, Section 1.
The 16th amendment overrode Article 1, Section 3 with regard to how Senators are chosen, without explicitly repealing the relevant portion of Article 1, Section 3.

This is ONLY confusing to those with no understanding of the nature of amending a legal document.
Your comment about how the 21st amendment was ratified supports the belief you don't understand how amendments work,

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

He was discussing amendments which amended previous amendments, not which amended the Constitution (they all did, not just your examples).

[defaultdotxbe]

That's a distinction without a difference. Nothing about an amendment makes the concept of amending it any more confusing.

But, to your point, the 22nd could have the effect of amending the 12th, as "The person having the greatest number of votes for President" still might not be president, if they had already served 2 terms as such.

[SMP0328]

If an amendment conflicts with an earlier amendment (or something in the original body of the constitution) the later amendment takes precedence over anything earlier.

An amendment overrides anything in the Constitution that's to the contrary.

For example, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment supersedes the provision of the 12th Amendment that provided for what would happen if the House of Representatives failed to choose a President during a contingency election before March 4. The 12th said the Vice President became President, the 20th says the officeholder highest in the line of succession becomes Acting President until the House finally chooses someone to be President.

[StevenF]

Ratification of an amendment IS NOT an event in Supreme Court history. The Supreme Court has no role in proposing or ratifying amendments. Even if they have claimed the role of certifying that enough states have ratified the amendment for it to take effect, that is NOT in the Constitution.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's Blackman. Captcrisis does a much better job and for free.

[Krayt]

Approval by states should be obvious to all. If it is not, weasels are trying to work around something.

ERA, as an example, whatever its merits, is long past that point. Its status is not obvious to all (or anyone). Therefore it violates that principle needed for The People to be sure they aren't being fooled or railroaded by one faction or another.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Except in Alabama, Mississippi, at Federalist Society events, and at the Volokh Conspiracy. In those contexts, and a few other conservative jurisdictions, it is Lee-King Day, providing top billing to a traitor, a bigot, and a loser.

Carry on, clingers. Better Americans will establish how far and how long for you, as has become customary.

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks to Ronaldus Maximus for making it a Holiday, you know, Reverend Sandusky, one of your (and our) "Betters"

[Frank Drackman]

Bobby ( I know it's "Robert E.") Lee had more character in his little finger than the (Very Wrong) Rev.olting Sandusky L. Kirtland has in his shriveled 21st finger (Only know that from reading his Victim's statements) easy thang would have been for Lee to keep his Slaves, like Grant, and the citizens in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and take command of the Union army, and end the wah in a few weeks.
And like the Rev.olting Rev.Jerry S ever gave a shit about MLK Jr when he was alive (nobody did, even his own Peoples, listen to his "Last Sermon" you can friggin hear crickets)

Frank "Tell Bono MLK was shot at dusk, not "Early Morning"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Robert E. Lee has many fans in Mississippi, in Alabama, and at the Volokh Conspiracy.

One more reason the Conspirators’ deans will celebrate their departure from the relevant faculties.

[Frank Drackman]

same Institution that extorted the states to raise drinking ages to 21?? I'd rather they lower the drinking age to 16 and raise the voting age to 21 (for property owning gainfully employed umm "Citizens" of course)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Another example of an alphabet agency exercising authority not granted to it by Congress?

[Dan Schiavetta]

In the 1980s I was involved twice with women who did that for a living (no, that’s not how I met them). They were making way more than I was as a transmissions mechanic (and paid in cash, too). They both extolled the benefits of pole dancing. “Great exercise, if anyone tries to grab you they’re out on their ass, and the money’s great. The only problem is getting used to spreading your legs for idiots.” As a lawyer I’ve gotten to know something about the last part.

[Brett Bellmore]

Both parties engage in theatrical legislation, you can identify it by the fact that they only pursue it when it has no chance of passage. The problem for this one is that most voters can remember being 16, and mostly you remember being very foolish.

But I'm serious: Whatever age you go from being a minor to an adult at, ALL rights should arrive on that date.

[Mr. Bumble]

When the new $600.00 reporting requirement goes into effect will customers be providing them with 1099s?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Is it too much to ask to knock it off with the Pole-ish jokes?

[Dan Schiavetta]

It would be the girl giving the 1099 to the customer.

Once in a while some guy would spend really big bucks (though I don’t think $600, not in those days, anyway), but he’d end up expecting something “extra”. That was strictly a no-no. Pat told me that she refused to work at one club (way up north, far from where a lot of the girls lived) because the owner would lock the girls into their rooms (so that they wouldn’t hook).

I could say more about those days, but it’s already TMI and I apologize folks!

[John F. Carr]

The $600 threshold applies to payments "for services in the course of your trade or business". A typical strip club patron is not officially there in the course of business and might be able to claim the money is a gift rather than a payment. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/reporting-payments-to-independent-contractors

There is a separate rule, delayed due to popular outrage, lowering the limit for electronic payments services to narc on you. This one is more difficult because many payments sent using mobile payment platforms are not taxable. With the old five figure limit the bycatch is small. One man went crying to the press when his solicitation of charitable donations for people in need crossed the threshold. He told reporters that the 1099 from gofundme was a tax bill from the IRS. It was not. It was simply a statement, "I know what you did last summer." With the $600 limit a lot of people doing ordinary people stuff will get those notices. Some payments are not taxable, like reimbursements and splitting the bill. Some are taxable but we expect not to be taxed on, like the babysitter you paid for without registering as an employer, withholding taxes and social security, and buying worker's comp insurance for.

[bernard11]

I think the payer issues the 1099 to the payee, no?

[Dan Schiavetta]

That's right. Sorry, it was such a bizarre idea that I got discombobulated. Maybe he would stuff it into her G-string at the end of the dance.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"All that boy knows is Pole into Hole."

-- from a very fine work of erotica I just read

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks! Yes, going to a strip club is not a “business trip”.

However the owner is there in the course of his business (though in my experience it was often a woman), and the girls typically have to give him a percentage (usually 50%) of their “take”. So each girl would have to provide a 1099 to the owner?

[David Nieporent]

It was something like keeping a person in prison for a number of years and suddenly discovering that that person is not guilty of the crime for which he was convicted. And you just go up to him and say, “Now you are free,” but you don’t give him any bus fare to get to town. You don’t give him any money to get some clothes to put on his back or to get on his feet again in life.

Every court of jurisprudence would rise up against this,

He was an optimist!

[StevenF]

Actually, ALL races have been slaves on what is now US soil. Additionally, ALL races have been slave owners on what is now US soil.
The FIRST person to be legally recognized as owner of a slave for life, by a court on what is now US soil, was black.

[defaultdotxbe]

Dr. King said that in 1963. Do you contend there has been no progress in the past 6 decades? That the black man's color is still a stigma? Have there been any programs or grants denied to black Americans in the last half century? Do any such programs exist today?

In short, is the black man is still bootless?

I think Dr. King would agree he is not, and has not been for quite a while.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose I'd say he had something of an argument in regards to blacks who had personally been slaves.

And a fragment of an argument in regards to their children. Just a fragment.

But 158 years later? That ghost of an argument is so attenuated as to be meaningless.

People have arrived in the US with nothing but the clothes on their backs and lifted themselves to parity in less time.

In the end, if you expect somebody to lift you up, you stay down.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I wonder what definition of "race" you are using.

* Human race? Yes, you are correct.

* The current traditional color races? Well, whites are not a race, per current wokism, they are just racists, so you are including a non-race in your list of slaves.

* The old-fashioned idea of the English, Welsh, Scots, Irish, French, Germans, Scandinavians, Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Finns, Poles, Italians, Sicilians, Genoese, Neopolitans ..... all being separate races? You are probably wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

And would that give me any claim against your children? Give my children any claim against theirs? Would my grandchildren be well advised to expect a hand up from your great grandchildren?

158 years since slavery. I repeat: People have landed here with nothing but the clothes on their backs and seen their children prosper several times over in 158 years!

If you're still down generations later maybe you should stop expecting a hand up, and stand up on your own?

[Life of Brian]

Whatever age you go from being a minor to an adult at, ALL rights should arrive on that date.

Off the top of my head, that would include at least:
- voting
- buying/consuming tobacco
- buying/consuming alcohol
- having a full-time job
- buying/owning guns
- having sex
- driving

I can't see folks easily coming to agreement on what the all-in age of majority would be given that diverse of a basket.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are a disaffected, antisocial, autistic, delusional, obsolete bigot, Mr. Bellmore.

And, thank goodness, nothing more than just another culture war casualty, destined to see your stale, ugly conservative preferences disregarded by modern, improving, liberal-libertarian America.

Your replacement won't be a national holiday, but it will be another step toward a better America. And the end to your wondering how the liberals are still keeping former Pres. Obama's Kenyan-Muslim-Communist birth certificate concealed from real Americans.

[Sarcastr0]

So MLKs whole promessary note thing was a grift?

It’s a moral argument, not one in tort law. The analogy to the justice system was a floor, not a ceiling.

And even if you dint care about the moral dimension, we have populations we are not working to interface with or take advantage of. It’s bad for our nation as a whole.

[Frank Drackman]

You speak the truth. Expect to be "Terminated"

[Sarcastr0]

It’s not a step function of suddenly you are equal because we acknowledge you once were not.

And if you wonder about the stigma look at those around here talking about crime rates and racial IQ. Just because no one stalls about uppity negroes anymore doesn’t mean racism is over.

And that doesn’t even go into the remaining institutional issues.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Have there been any programs or grants denied to black Americans in the last half century? Do any such programs exist today?

Conservative, Republican, race-targeting vote suppressors are insulted by your untruthful insinuation that they have accomplished nothing during the most recent half-century.

[Brett Bellmore]

"So MLKs whole promissory note thing was a grift?"

Yup. That's what it was. He had a Dream. He gave up on it. Moses saw that he wouldn't live to see the promised land, and said, "Hell, no, let's find us some shortcuts!"

"It’s bad for our nation as a whole."

That it is, and it's going to continue being bad for our nation as a whole until they get over the idea that somebody owes them something. It's seductive notion that does nobody any good. Nobody ever got anywhere expecting somebody to take them there.

[Brett Bellmore]

And every court of jurisprudence would laugh you out of their chambers if you said, "My great granddad was kept in prison unjustly for years, then when they found out he was innocent, they kicked him out the door without a penny to his name. Where's my check?"

Again, we're not talking about things that happened to anybody around today. We're talking about stuff that happened generations ago. My Irish ancestors got starved out of their homes by the British during the Potato Famine more recently! To them it was an outrage. To me it's historical trivial

[Currentsitguy]

I have always said if you are old enough to die for your country in uniform you are obviously old enough for every other right, privilege, and responsibility of an adult.

[Frank Drackman]

but eating at one is 100% tax deductible, at least for 2021/2022 "Because Covid"

[John F. Carr]

The girls are a kind of tenant of the club. Do tenants generally have to report rent payments on a 1099?

[Sarcastr0]

Wow, Brett. MLK was a grifter and blacks are hurting our country by being so entitled.

Consider how you are coming across with takes like this, and consider why. Happy MLK Day.

[Frank Drackman]

Dream?? I thought it was "I have a Scheme!!"

[Brett Bellmore]

Is it possible people are talking about crime rates because... there are crime rates?

[Brett Bellmore]

You've got this weird idea that you can dismiss something by just repeating it.

Like, you think something sounds absurd, so if you repeat it, everybody will think it sounds absurd, like your own perceptions are universal.

Get over that idea, they're not.

MLK was a real man, not a plaster saint. He had good points, he had bad points. He had an inspiring dream, and not long after gave up on it. And embraced an approach to race relations that delayed his dream coming true, because he wanted quick results.

So, yeah, he somewhat morphed from an inspiring leader to a grifter, because quick results IS a grifter thing. Every group in America that went from downtrodden to parity did it by a long hard slog, not a hand up. Blacks will be no different.

[Nige]

Reperations are only for people who were MAKING MONEY off the exploited, not the exploited themselves, trditionally.

The Irish do not regard the Famine as trivial, so speak for yourself.

[Nige]

'per current wokism'

ref: DeSantis, R.

Oh, he probably means the Irish indentured servants = slaves canard.

[Nige]

'And a fragment of an argument in regards to their children'

Their children experienced Jim Crow, and were effectively rounded up en masse and put in prison to provide free labour, and their children had their city neighbourhoods destroyed and impoverished by racist city authorities, and their children had their neighbourhoods flooded with drugs and guns. Some people who think they oppose tyranny with their big manly gun hobby don't mind the boot on other people's necks.

[Nige]

So, he gave up on the dream and became a grifter because he wanted justice, equality and civil rights TOO SOON? They were supposed to wait until white people were comfortable with the idea?

[Sarcastr0]

I repeated it because it’s fucking awful to say.

You have no evidence and call MLK a grifter other than you don’t like his stand on civil rights and think you know better what blacks should want.

He wasn’t a saint but that doesn’t mean he was lying or defrauding anyone.

Great people can disagree with you. It doesn’t make you a brave truth teller to just crap all over MLK and black people today generally. Some tales are just bad.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, they were supposed to put in the hard work and do it themselves, instead of counting on help from somebody else.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Brett Bellmore is the precise target audience of this white, male, right-wing blog.

And, with others like him, an important reason conservatives are destined to continued failure at the modern American marketplace of ideas.

[Brett Bellmore]

There is no "black experience" any more than there is a "white experience". That's actually part of the problem here, treating people as though they'd all gone through all sorts of things that long dead people endured.

[Sarcastr0]

Reductive to the point of inaccuracy, Brett.

If you talked to black people about this idea, you might find that they disagree with your take. I’m sure there are outliers, but in my office for instance there are blacks scientists that include first generation Nigerians and centuries-old Virginia natives. They share more commonalities of experience than the white scientists in the office to be sure.

In general, a smaller minority cohort will have more in common just as a minority counterculture than a larger minority who takes their culture for granted.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

As Detective Belker pointed out on 'Homicide,' Ireland is an island. A million Irishmen died because they didn't like seafood.