And There You Go

[Tunnelcat]

Actually, mine's pinkish in the winter, brownish in the summer.

[woodchip]

Well it seems they have caught a black man attacking white people playing the knockout game. I see the NYPD are charging him with hate crimes. Will the justice dept do likewise or does the justice dept. only charge white people?

http://nypost.com/2014/01/04/cops-make- ... out-spree/

[callmeslick]

Well it seems they have caught a black man attacking white people playing the knockout game. I see the NYPD are charging him with hate crimes. Will the justice dept do likewise or does the justice dept. only charge white people?

http://nypost.com/2014/01/04/cops-make- ... out-spree/

thanks, I only pointed this out 4 days ago......

[woodchip]

And has the justice dept brought charges?

[callmeslick]

don't know yet, as I also pointed out 4 days ago.....

[woodchip]

don't know yet, as I also pointed out 4 days ago.....

Is that back when you said it wasn't a hate crime to attack non minorities?

gee, after the NYPD arrested black males the other day, this is funny. You realize that the 'hate crime' legislation doesn't allow for crimes targetting non-minorities, right? No, likely you don't. Go on calling the administration names, all the while demonstrating cluelessness.

Speak about clueless

[callmeslick]

the Federal rules are different than local rules in State codes, Woody. Of course, you knew that and were just playing stupid, right? Also, even if it fit Justice's criteria, they likely wouldn't prosecute a hate crime than was already charged in the state as such. Never seem to do so, that I've ever seen.

[woodchip]

Curious how with the black assailant the state filed the charges and in the white assailants case the feds did. What do you suppose the difference was.

[callmeslick]

Curious how with the black assailant the state filed the charges and in the white assailants case the feds did. What do you suppose the difference was.

the jurisdictions. Texas has a wretched track record of prosecuting hate crimes. New York does not. It's really that simple, why do you wish to find it not?

[woodchip]

Curious how with the black assailant the state filed the charges and in the white assailants case the feds did. What do you suppose the difference was.

the jurisdictions. Texas has a wretched track record of prosecuting hate crimes. New York does not. It's really that simple, why do you wish to find it not?

Why do you assume I wish it? I was just curious. Is this a concept alien to you?

[callmeslick]

you seem to wish to make a very normal, straightforward process obscure. It works like this(and always has): the local jurisdiction prosecutes for hate crimes when warrented, within their legal framework. If, and ONLY if, the Feds deem that someone was not prosecuted and a hate crime occurred, do the Feds first INVESTIGATE and then CHARGE. So, and this was how the law at the Federal level was designed, states that tend to allow minorities to be targetted tend to see the most Federal charges. Likewise with all aspects of Federal Civil Rights law. Not complex, nor unfair.

[woodchip]

It may seem normal slick, but what I see is a justice dept. quick to jump on white on black racism but ignore black on white racism.

[callmeslick]

It may seem normal slick, but what I see is a justice dept. quick to jump on white on black racism but ignore black on white racism.

and, if you were paying attention, this is exactly how it has happened for decades. It is how the Civil Rights legislation was written, and was the intent: to overcome a tendency of certain jurisdictions to ignore grossly obvious white on black crime. In most jurisdictions(I can vouch for both where I live) there is utterly no lack of prosecution of black people for attacking white people, or, for that matter, anyone.

[CobGobbler]

Considering that African American men make up roughly 10% of the population and yet fill 80% of the prison rolls, I say the justice system in America does a very good job of prosecuting black on white crime woodchip.

[Will Robinson]

Cob that is irrelevant to the fundamental problem created by implementing an additional "hate crime" punishment in an unequal way based on race.

The message that is sent by telling black people that, due to past injustices their ancestors suffered, white people don't deserve the equal protection under the law. It makes the concept of administering 'justice' into one of taking out revenge. It fans the flames of the very fire it was designed of to extinguish!

An equal application of the law would serve to send the correct message, that racial bigotry is absolutely wrong....not sometimes acceptable but only when used against white people because white people are mostly deserving to suffer revenge for the wrongs of their ancestors!
( a premise totally flawed in itself by the way since a large portion of white people fought AGAINST slavery and subsequent racial bias of all sorts)

Justice must be administered equally in a society whose laws are based on the founding principle of 'all men are created equal'! If not it isn't justice at all.

The problems of unequal prosecutions, etc. must be dealt with directly, case by case...prosecutors office by prosecutors office, bad judge by bad judge, etc. the same way you administer real justice in all other cases.
The only difference in singling white people out for less-than equal justice and singling out another group to suffer the same injustice is in the political/politically correct arena it is empowering to give black people a sense of revenge. It garners lots of support from them. At the expense of exacerbating the racial divide in America.
At best it is a stupid, selfish, opportunistic bastardization of a 'solution' that is more at home in the teachings of a fundamentalist whacko religion or a dictators banana republic than it is in the laws of United States of America.

[woodchip]

Considering that African American men make up roughly 10% of the population and yet fill 80% of the prison rolls, I say the justice system in America does a very good job of prosecuting black on white crime woodchip.

Aww, isn't it cute that Cob doesn't understand the difference between the justice system and Justice Dept. Still doing drugs I see.

[CobGobbler]

The fact that you guys somehow feel like white people are getting the short end of the stick on this is hilarious.

When the system is not skewed in our favor, then you can start bitching and moaning about supposed injustice. The same judge that let the 16 year old white kid off after killing four people while drunk gave a 14 year old black kid a ten year sentence for punching someone that fell, hit their head, and unfortunately died. What message does that send?

Take the case of Kuntrell Jackson. Another 14 year old black kid that was part of a robbery that ended with the clerk being killed. Jackson didn't shoot the guy, yet he got life in prison without parole just for being there. The two white kids that shot their classmates in Jonesboro? Yeah they were both released when they turned 21. What message does that send?

Crimes should be prosecuted. But this is a dumb argument, the law favors being white so maybe you all just let this go. When the system even remotely resembles something that is fair and impartial, then perhaps a discussion can be had on hate crime laws. But right now this is just a waste of time. Granted, it makes for good fodder for racist people like woodchip and Cuda.

Beats me dude, I'm just an automotive engineer living in the deep south.

[Will Robinson]

The law doesn't favor being white. There is the core of your mistake. Feel free to quote and link any existing US law that proves me wrong if you like.


It would be very bad for the law to favor one race over another.
Hence my comments.

For every example you give of disparity in outcomes I can show you a hundred thousand where the outcome was just and equal so your anecdotal offering doesn't support your point like you thought it did. What you provided were examples of people failing to apply the law equally. The solution isn't more inequality....not if justice is your goal.

The problems the hate crimes legislation were allegedly designed to solve can be solved without applying them with racial bias. Simply apply the hate crime law equally.

So tell me why, instead, should racial bias be used to apply the law if not for revenge? What purpose does that serve?!?
Answer that if you can please.

[callmeslick]

The law doesn't favor being white.

maybe, but the way the law is exercised sure does. And the whining from you and Woody is, as described, hilarious. Or, it would be if it didn't reek of the usual whitey-whine that you two have perfected. That makes it more pathetic than humorous.

[woodchip]

The law doesn't favor being white.

maybe, but the way the law is exercised sure does. And the whining from you and Woody is, as described, hilarious. Or, it would be if it didn't reek of the usual whitey-whine that you two have perfected. That makes it more pathetic than humorous.

slick once again shows that when he cannot win a argument, he falls back to ridicule. Now that is truly pathetic.

[Will Robinson]

The law doesn't favor being white.

maybe, but the way the law is exercised sure does. And the whining from you and Woody is, as described, hilarious. Or, it would be if it didn't reek of the usual whitey-whine that you two have perfected. That makes it more pathetic than humorous.

Instead of being a jerk and calling people names like a bully in the kindergarten lunchroom perhaps you could actually address the substance of the points I raised...
Try by answering the last question I asked Cob.
Since the purposes of the legislation are still served by applying the law equally....and since that keeps things completely in line with the founding principles of our whole system of government and law....why not apply it equally. What exactly do you think is served by applying it with a bias against white people?

Or just continue acting like a jerk. Your call.

[callmeslick]

I've already, and repeatedly, tried to patiently explain both the purpose and historical execution of the law. Since you cannot accept that explanation, I can't help you further, Will. Keep on whining, like that will change anything, or seem less pathetic, in light of the reality of black prosecutions in our nation versus whites for the same crimes.

[woodchip]

Disparity of how the law is applied does not make it right to balance that disparity by singling out one race over another...especially at the federal level. I hope you don't mind when the next AG is a white redneck and balances out what Holder has done.

[callmeslick]

FFS, do you know how many white rednecks have already held that job? Does the name John Ashcroft ring a bell? Holder is,and has been, doing a very good job.....both in terms of fairness, and notably in terms of effective prosecution. Ask around, if you have any lawyer friends that practice in the Federal court system.

[Will Robinson]

I've already, and repeatedly, tried to patiently explain both the purpose and historical execution of the law. Since you cannot accept that explanation, I can't help you further, Will. Keep on whining, like that will change anything, or seem less pathetic, in light of the reality of black prosecutions in our nation versus whites for the same crimes.

You explained the reason they they came up with the law.

You have NOT explained why it needs to be applied in a completely unjust, unequal method.

You apparently have found the question I asked too difficult to dance around. You are no doubt uncomfortable being forced to consider how your knee-jerk-lefty position on this issue puts you at odds with logic and the standard of equal justice under the law! And so instead you call us names like a little brat. slick chooses the ad hominem escape route.

It's OK, like I said, it was your call to make. We get it. It is just who you are.

[callmeslick]

You have NOT explained why it needs to be applied in a completely unjust, unequal method.

you haven't, in any way, shape or form, demonstrated that(beyond isolated single examples, which don't show any real picture) it is being so applied.
Therein lies the whining. There is NO systematic persecution of white people under the Federal law. None. Zero. Zilch. Simply because you find one case with a white perp and cannot find another quickly enough with a black perp proves nothing. You are arguing over something that simply isn't happening, and then whining about how 'unfair' Eric Holder is, which is, to put it bluntly, a crock of ★■◆●.

[Will Robinson]

slick you are so full of crap I can smell it through the internet!

You and I have had a discussion on this topic before.
Eric Holder's Justice Department has stated that black people cant be guilty of racially biased crimes against white people. It is his position on the subject that I base my complaint. The recent example isn't even settled enough to know if it supports my position. so stop with the attempt at mis-direction there.

This goes back long before the recent example of the selective application of the law against the one white knockout-game punk.

Holders stance on unequal application of the law resulted in the resignation of at least two of the Departments trial attorneys. One was granted whistle blower status so he could testify before a commission investigating the case of voter intimidation and the dropping of charges. Holders 'Justice' Dept. had transferred him in a lame attempt to make him ineligible to testify before the committee and told him and others to not appear before the hearing in spite of having been suppoened.

In his testimony before the Civil Rights Commission, J. Christian Adams stated that his accusations could be corroborated by Christopher Coates,[9] the former head of the voting section of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division who had led the original investigation of the New Black Panther Party.[40] The Department refused to allow Coates to testify.[9] In September 2010, Coates was granted whistleblower protection and testified before the Civil Rights Commission in defiance of his supervisors' instructions.[41]
Coates' testimony included accusations similar to those made by J. Christian Adams, stating, "I had people who told me point-blank that [they] didn't come to the voting rights section to sue African American people."[41] He compared the Black Panther case to an earlier case from 2006, in which Department of Justice attorneys expressed anger at having to investigate Ike Brown, a black democratic politician in Mississippi accused of discriminating against white voters. Coates testified that the Justice Department's administration's decision to drop the Black Panther Case "was intended to send a direct message to people inside and outside the civil rights division. That message is that the filing of voting cases like the Ike Brown and the NBPP cases would not continue in the Obama administration."[42] Coates also stated that one of his superiors appointed by the Obama administration had prohibited him from asking job applicants if they would enforce the voting laws in a race-neutral manner.[43] Attorney General Eric Holder has emphatically denied these claims, stating "The notion that we are enforcing any Civil Rights laws, voting or other, on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender is simply false."[44]
[42] Some officials in the Obama administration have also expressed the view that Voting Rights act was specifically intended to correct historic injustices against minorities.[8] However, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Washington Post have also pointed out that although the Department of Justice has dismissed J. Christian Adams as a partisan hired during the Bush administration, Coates has a pedigree different from many conservatives and cannot be ignored as easily. Coates worked for the American Civil Liberties Union for nearly 20 years, receiving the Thurgood Marshall Decade Award from the Georgia NAACP in 1991,[40] and was hired by the Justice Department during the Clinton administration in 1996.[41]

from here

You are full of crap slick. it isn't a question of how many cases I can prove have been ignored because the victim was white (nice attempt to put the burden on me to prove a negative). It is the fact that Holder and his lackeys take the position that they don't prosecute black people because 'white people were the oppressors for a long time'!!!

It is that premise that I challenge, and you have expressed it as well! so dont try to hide behind your lame debate tactics and pretend there is no substance to my complaints!
Answer the question: If applying the law equally doesn't impede the purpose of the hate crime law why do you suggest it shouldn't be applied equally?!? What purpose does it serve to exclude white people from its protection?!?

You know the answer is obvious to everyone reading this and you don't have a way to change that no matter how much you squirm and deflect....

It isn't always the Justice Department anymore, it is the Revenge Department now as well, and that is completely and fundamentally wrong on so many levels. Of course you don't care because in this case its your guy in charge so anything goes if it is your team doing the damage.
You are the one dishing up the crock of crap.

[vision]

Wow, first woodchip has a meltdown and now Will. Maybe having a black president really is destroying the nation if white conservative folks continue to completely freak out like this. Or maybe it's just users with names that start with W?

I believe Will is stuck "trying to get an is from an ought." Coincidentally, I 100% agree that any special privilege by race or orientation should be removed from the law. However, until everyone can both follow the law and execute it properly we are going to have problems. And thus, we amend the laws to address those problems until the situation is corrected (if ever). Currently, the problem is white people historically and currently, as a whole, are privileged in all areas compared to minorities. Privileged in the workplace, in the media, and definitely in the legal system. This is verifiability true and is the reason for these exceptional laws. If fairness is what you really want, then these exceptional laws need to be followed until we achieve a level of equality that let's us abandon them for less exceptional, generally written ones.

It has nothing to do with "revenge," and isolated cases don't match up to the reality of our society. If you don't like the way a law is written, call your congressman and make a case to change it.

[CobGobbler]

vision wrote it pretty well.

[woodchip]

FFS, do you know how many white rednecks have already held that job? Does the name John Ashcroft ring a bell? Holder is,and has been, doing a very good job.....both in terms of fairness, and notably in terms of effective prosecution. Ask around, if you have any lawyer friends that practice in the Federal court system.

Oh, you mean like letting the New Black Panthers go scott free from voter intimidation charges.

[woodchip]

Wow, first woodchip has a meltdown and now Will. Maybe having a black president really is destroying the nation if white conservative folks continue to completely freak out like this. Or maybe it's just users with names that start with W?

I believe Will is stuck "trying to get an is from an ought." Coincidentally, I 100% agree that any special privilege by race or orientation should be removed from the law. However, until everyone can both follow the law and execute it properly we are going to have problems. And thus, we amend the laws to address those problems until the situation is corrected (if ever). Currently, the problem is white people historically and currently, as a whole, are privileged in all areas compared to minorities. Privileged in the workplace, in the media, and definitely in the legal system. This is verifiability true and is the reason for these exceptional laws. If fairness is what you really want, then these exceptional laws need to be followed until we achieve a level of equality that let's us abandon them for less exceptional, generally written ones.

It has nothing to do with "revenge," and isolated cases don't match up to the reality of our society. If you don't like the way a law is written, call your congressman and make a case to change it.

I think the only people having meltdowns are those who can't articulate themselves and base their opinions on generalities and emotions like you vision. Privilage in the work place? I suggest you look around a bit as in how promotional testing allows for blacks to take the promotion even though they scored lower on the tests. College entrance exams the same way. Your (and slicks ) outdated antebellum view of America leads to your angst whenever someone says blacks should have no more special privilege than anyone else.

So just stop treating black men and women like children and instead promote African Americans like Dr Ben Carlson who came from poverty and succeeded with no special help from your kind.

[callmeslick]

FFS, do you know how many white rednecks have already held that job? Does the name John Ashcroft ring a bell? Holder is,and has been, doing a very good job.....both in terms of fairness, and notably in terms of effective prosecution. Ask around, if you have any lawyer friends that practice in the Federal court system.

Oh, you mean like letting the New Black Panthers go scott free from voter intimidation charges.

I repeat, for what seems like the 50th time, they got off because NO ONE came forward to claim that their voting was in ANY WAY intimidated by those two loons. NO ONE. Not one soul in that precinct filed a complaint. The entire body of complaints and requests came from outside groups, largely white and conservative. To prosecute, the Feds would have to have at least one voter from that very precinct who could make a claim that his/her vote was supressed, or that he/she felt intimidated. None were. Most were amused.

[Spidey]

I repeat, for what seems like the 50th time, they got off because NO ONE came forward to claim that their voting was in ANY WAY intimidated by those two loons. NO ONE. Not one soul in that precinct filed a complaint.

Gee, can't imagine why.

[callmeslick]

hell, Spidey, you live in Philly. You know that West Philly precinct, or likely do. First, how much intimidation is going to come from a couple of crazies yelling in the street in that neighborhood, and second, how many voters would have changed their planned vote? You know as well as I that NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON came forward, not one. Don't try to be cute and suggest that they were too scared by a group that never was able to show more than 8 members total.

[Will Robinson]

...
I 100% agree that any special privilege by race or orientation should be removed from the law. However, until everyone can both follow the law and execute it properly we are going to have problems. And thus, we amend the laws to address those problems until the situation is corrected (if ever).

Did you purposely ignore the distinctions I have made? Purposely avoid the facts and misstate the circumstances so your comments could be supported by what isn't really the case?!?

The "law" does NOT say to exclude white people from the protection of hate crimes legislation. It clearly says that all people are protected from certain hate motivated acts.

I previously gave examples of thousands of white victims of hate crimes from cases that were prosecuted. What needs to be removed is the unnecessary and damaging policy that has been implemented by the Obama administration of directing its Justice Department lawyers to not follow through on cases where the offense is a black perpetrator and a white victim! What needs to be changed is the acceptance of the premise that the law is to be implemented to extract punishment on a whole race for the past crimes of some members of that race!!

The message that kind of policy sends is very harmfull to the race relations healing process and it is the antithesis to equall justice under the law.

I have made no suggestion that hate crimes legislation is wrong or not needed! I have only said that it should be color-blind in its application. That is the way it is written and that is the way it will work best.

I don't dispute there have been disparate outcomes from some courts. I don't suggest the Justice Department can't step in and prosecute a hate crime.

I DO suggest they do it with no exception to the race of the perpetrator!

I have asked all of you a simple straight forward question, numerous times now, and not one of you has answered.
What or who is served by excluding whites from the same protection of any civil rights act or hate crime law?
If a white victim fits the criteria as specified in the law, the law which does NOT exclude any race of victim, then their assailant/oppressor is surely just as guilty as a white assailant/oppressor I regardless of his color!

If someone expresses hate for race, creed, color, sexual orientation, etc., etc. as a motive for a crime he is guilty of a 'hate crime'! That is a simple fact as described by law.

None of you citing past disparate outcomes changes the logic, ethics or morality that supports what I have said.
And more importantly, none of your examples trumps the law as it is written!

The only thing that is out of sync with the law and the intent of the law and the best interest of correcting inequality in the administration of the law is the current administrations blatant policy of creating, not just implying, but outright stating, a 'revenge' motive for selectively applying the law.

THAT is the problem I have been attacking. Not the law itself.

Answer the question I asked honestly. Try to come up with an answer that serves any good purpose.

Conversely, extrapolate the effects of the exclusion of a certain race from civil rights law protections. Purposely applying protections In an inequal fashion because the excluded party is of a race of which some members historically committed the same offenses is NOT any kind of solution.

I challenge you to specifically correct me on that point without opening a huge Pandora's box that will justify by precedent all sorts of injustice based on what are not even past crimes!
Slavery, as offensive as it is was legal. The transition to illegal and the period after, as ugly as it was/is, has been full of expected and natural resistance.

So obviously we need to keep working to finish the struggle toward equality.
Federal legislation to ensure lower courts can't ignore equal justice has been passed into law.

Laws were written to correct behavior.
Behavior....that is an important distinction.

They were NOT written in an attempt to erase history. Not written to provide ancestors of victims their 'pound of flesh!

Written to correct future behavior because that is the only thing a law can do. It can not change the past even if it is the events of the past that spur its creation.
These law were not written to be vengeful and create the very problems they were designed to correct!
Not written to have some political players use them unfairly in order to stir up ill will, to feed an anger that is exploited among his constituency!

How any of you can think equal justice can only be achieved by introducing inequality as a component into our system of safeguards to prevent inequality is amazing to me. Well it should be amazing that any of you would even consider such an abomination. But unfortunately for us all many of you have demonstrated a gleeful passion to poison the well you claim you are protecting. All because you've bought into some steaming pile of dogma and are too lazy to think for yourselves.

[callmeslick]

The only thing that is out of sync with the law and the intent of the law and the best interest of correcting inequality in the administration of the law is the current administrations blatant policy of creating, not just implying, but outright stating, a 'revenge' motive for selectively applying the law.

except you haven't, once, shown that this is actually the case. Not once. Instead you keep moaning about something you cannot prove, and that reality indicates is not happening.

[Will Robinson]

The only thing that is out of sync with the law and the intent of the law and the best interest of correcting inequality in the administration of the law is the current administrations blatant policy of creating, not just implying, but outright stating, a 'revenge' motive for selectively applying the law.

except you haven't, once, shown that this is actually the case. Not once. Instead you keep moaning about something you cannot prove, and that reality indicates is not happening.

Yes I have.
I have given you links to testimony from a Justice Department witness, for example, that support my assertions.

You, on the other hand, are tapping the toes of your ruby colored slippers together three times and chanting denial, denial, denial!

[callmeslick]

you think that link proves anything? Seriously? I laid out for you the actual reason the New Black Panther thing wasn't prosecuted, and your link is nothing short of one person trying to present anecdotal testimony that doesn't even pertain to the specific case. Like vision suggested, this seems to be the sort of mental meltdown that has been brought on by a black President, and his appointment of a black Attorney General. Now, put yourself in the place of a few generations of black people living under white Presidents and white Attorneys General, and maybe, just maybe, you'll realize how silly your paltry examples seem. Likely not, however.

[Will Robinson]

you think that link proves anything? Seriously? I laid out for you the actual reason the New Black Panther thing wasn't prosecuted, and your link is nothing short of one person trying to present anecdotal testimony that doesn't even pertain to the specific case. Like vision suggested, this seems to be the sort of mental meltdown that has been brought on by a black President, and his appointment of a black Attorney General. Now, put yourself in the place of a few generations of black people living under white Presidents and white Attorneys General, and maybe, just maybe, you'll realize how silly your paltry examples seem. Likely not, however.

Lol!!

Do you think people read what you just wrote and don't go look for themselves and see the link I posted leads you to a wiki page with tons of data on the case?!?!

The wiki page is loaded with background info on the people on both sides of the issue, testimony from many, with probably 20 or 30 other links to deeper details if you like to know more?!?

You are the most pathetic and blatant liar I've ever experienced!

By the way, the witness you complained about isn't "trying to present anecdotal testimony"! He was testifying to his own first person experiences, to comments that were made directly to him by other justice department employees.

And beyond all of that, the premise I'm attacking, the one touted by the Obama administration by way of it's Justice Department, that blacks have suffered under white discrimination therefore we need a unequal application of 'justice' to counter it....is one that YOU have openly supported.
So for you to still complain that there is no substance to my comments is absolutely ludicrous!!

You are floundering in a pool of denial.

[callmeslick]

Lol!!

lets have a laugh, shall we?

Do you think people read what you just wrote and don't go look for themselves and see the link I posted leads you to a wiki page with tons of data on the case?!?!

The wiki page is loaded with background info on the people on both sides of the issue, testimony from many, with probably 20 or 30 other links to deeper details if you like to know more?!?

guffaw!! Wiki page, for crying out loud? Seriously, go back and read the report from the AG....it's out there someplace. Or, the reportage from the Philadelphia Inquirer on the matter.

You are the most pathetic and blatant liar I've ever experienced!

kind of funny, considering a host of the 'sources' you rely on.

By the way, the witness you complained about isn't "trying to present anecdotal testimony"! He was testifying to his own first person experiences, to comments that were made directly to him by other justice department employees.

he was, essentially, claiming comments from others. That is, by definition, ANECTDOTAL. And, he had a ax to grind, as do more than one or two of those esteemed 'Wiki' contributors.

And beyond all of that, the premise I'm attacking, the one touted by the Obama administration by way of it's Justice Department, that blacks have suffered under white discrimination therefore we need a unequal application of 'justice' to counter it....is one that YOU have openly supported.
So for you to still complain that there is no substance to my comments is absolutely ludicrous!!

that aspect of the standing law I don't and haven't argued.......that was the intent. That you find it to be applied, somehow, unfairly by THIS administration is the goofy part of your claim. I could far more easily argue that certain administrations FAILED to apply the law as intended, to the detriment of blacks, hispanics and others.

You are floundering in a pool of denial.

you are working up your daily white-boy whine........have some cheese with that whine, they go together well.