Hillary vs Bernie

[Valmy]

Anyway I was thinking the action would not be 'this law is stinky and it sucks to!' but more that it violated their civil rights.

I'm pretty sure laws that get overturned on constititutional grounds never involve cash prizes.

Even if there are real damages?

[Admiral Yi]

Even if there are real damages?

I certainly can't think of one that did.

[Valmy]

Even if there are real damages?

I certainly can't think of one that did.

Exactly. Hence my hypothetical.

[Barrister]

What if some boomer sued one of the former Jim Crow states in Federal Court? What would happen then?

Passing a law that people in the future will consider a bad law is not actionable.

I think that's why it's styled "reparations", rather than pressing a court action.

Such reparations certainly have historical precedent - Japanese internment survivors received such reparations, even if the internment was deemed to be legal at the time.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, but the Japanese internees could point to a single act during a short period of time, that was relatively localized.  Blacks suffered under a crazy quilt of laws, customs and extralegal action.  The experience of a Black family in 1930's Wisconsin would be very different then a similar family living in Mississippi. It would seem unfair to treat them the same.  It also opens the door to pretty much everyone who was ever snubbed by government, or custom.  Hispanics, East Asians, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, etc. 

[dps]

What if some boomer sued one of the former Jim Crow states in Federal Court? What would happen then?

Passing a law that people in the future will consider a bad law is not actionable.

I think that's why it's styled "reparations", rather than pressing a court action.

Such reparations certainly have historical precedent - Japanese internment survivors received such reparations, even if the internment was deemed to be legal at the time.

The history of "separate but equal" is kind of interesting, and a lot more complicated than most people realize.  The basic narrative that the Supreme Court said that separate but equal was A-OK in Plessy v. Ferguson and then reversed itself in Brown v. Board of Education is a considerable over-simplification.  There were lots of cases in between in which the federal courts ruled that a particular practice or situation was in fact not equal.  The Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board was the culmination of a long process in which the federal courts saw some states (mostly in, but not always, in the South) consistently provided separate facilities for whites and blacks, but put no (or almost no) effort into trying to make the facilities provided to blacks actually equal to those provided to whites.  The Supreme Court finally got fed up with that, and ruled that segregated facilities were inherently unequal.  If the states had actually tried to provide facilities that were equal as well as separate, "separate but equal" would have probably continued to be legal for a few more years.

Of course, the states that had segregation had no interest in providing equal facilities for blacks.  The point of segregation wasn't so much to keep the races physically separated (for the most part, no one in the South minded being in the presence of a black person, so long as it was clear that the black person was in a subservient role, such as a maid or janitor);  the point was to keep blacks down "in their place".

[Razgovory]

Well, that and the real fear that their daughters might knock boots with a black man.

[LaCroix]

I don't see why this has to be the case. Even today we have tribes that seek federal recognition. I don't see why it would be impossible to gather as a group and say 'we are the descendants of xx' a slave who was documented to have worked for xx years without pay. Please certify our group as qualifying for slave reparations.'

Seems like that would be more sensible than qualifying for affirmative action based on a simple tick box.

Now certainly it wouldn't be easy gathering such a group but seems like it'd be a lawyers wet dream.

Otherwise the logic is a bit circular. We can't give money because there is no distinct political group to disperse funds to. Never you mind that we prevented your ancestors from exercising any political power.

it's not about a political group. the indians are sovereign. they're their own nation within a nation. black people/groups have nothing similar, not even close. they're just as american as any white person, except they just kinda got fucked over for awhile. like the scots and irish, but more so

[Jaron]

#ImWithHer

[Eddie Teach]

#ImWithHer

Poor guy. You know she's "in love" with 641 other people.

[garbon]

I don't see why this has to be the case. Even today we have tribes that seek federal recognition. I don't see why it would be impossible to gather as a group and say 'we are the descendants of xx' a slave who was documented to have worked for xx years without pay. Please certify our group as qualifying for slave reparations.'

Seems like that would be more sensible than qualifying for affirmative action based on a simple tick box.

Now certainly it wouldn't be easy gathering such a group but seems like it'd be a lawyers wet dream.

Otherwise the logic is a bit circular. We can't give money because there is no distinct political group to disperse funds to. Never you mind that we prevented your ancestors from exercising any political power.

it's not about a political group. the indians are sovereign. they're their own nation within a nation. black people/groups have nothing similar, not even close. they're just as american as any white person, except they just kinda got fucked over for awhile. like the scots and irish, but more so

And that was down to governmental decisions in the past. I'm not even going to respond to the 'they just kinda got fucked over for awhile.'

[LaCroix]

indian sovereignty is hard-coded in the nation, though, via literally worded into the constitution. it's stuck there for god knows how long.

I dunno what else you'd call slavery. an entire war was fought over the issue. hundreds of thousands died, all essentially to end a horrific practice. just as some kept blacks enslaved, many others fought and died to free them. just as they were fucked over, the nation split itself in half over them. then, entire political parties basically swapped ideologies over them. blacks are 10% of the nation, and they are firmly part of this country as any white ethnic group.

also, re: fucked over minorities, we can toss in the chinese, too

[garbon]

indian sovereignty is hard-coded in the nation, though, via literally worded into the constitution. it's stuck there for god knows how long.

Okay? So government designed then?

To note, I really think this whole sovereign thing is a distraction (and I'm certainly not arguing that it would have been better for black people to be put on reservations!). Up thread there have been a few ways of noting who would be worthy of reparations with some change in difficult depending on what you are noting the reparations for. I just wanted to note that again the government decided who was sovereign, who was not. Who had political agency, who did not - so to use that all as as a coverage for why reparations no longer make sense seems like having one's nasty cake and eating it too.

I dunno what else you'd call slavery. an entire war was fought over the issue. hundreds of thousands died, all essentially to end a horrific practice. just as some kept blacks enslaved, many others fought and died to free them. just as they were fucked over, the nation split itself in half over them. then, entire political parties basically swapped ideologies over them.

This sounds like a soundbite history of slavery / discrimination in America so I'm not sure there is much use in unpacking it. I would note though that from your description sounds like slavery and the treatment of African-Americans has a fairly unique position/role in American history.

blacks are 10% of the nation, and they are firmly part of this country as any white ethnic group.

So government harms its own citizens (though I'm not sure were slaves really citizens? They certainly didn't have any rights), no harm, no foul?

also, re: fucked over minorities, we can toss in the chinese, too

So you have a paragraph about how much the history of African-Americans is woven across the American tapestry and then an oh btw dismissal is that the Chinese got screwed over? I don't think it is a compelling argument that the government screwed over lots of minorities in all different ways so therefore what makes black people shouldn't have reparations. After all what makes them  so special? Particularly not when you laid a case for the injustices being done to black people special.

[Berkut]

What if some boomer sued one of the former Jim Crow states in Federal Court? What would happen then?

Passing a law that people in the future will consider a bad law is not actionable.

I think that's why it's styled "reparations", rather than pressing a court action.

Such reparations certainly have historical precedent - Japanese internment survivors received such reparations, even if the internment was deemed to be legal at the time.

The history of "separate but equal" is kind of interesting, and a lot more complicated than most people realize.  The basic narrative that the Supreme Court said that separate but equal was A-OK in Plessy v. Ferguson and then reversed itself in Brown v. Board of Education is a considerable over-simplification.  There were lots of cases in between in which the federal courts ruled that a particular practice or situation was in fact not equal.  The Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board was the culmination of a long process in which the federal courts saw some states (mostly in, but not always, in the South) consistently provided separate facilities for whites and blacks, but put no (or almost no) effort into trying to make the facilities provided to blacks actually equal to those provided to whites.  The Supreme Court finally got fed up with that, and ruled that segregated facilities were inherently unequal.  If the states had actually tried to provide facilities that were equal as well as separate, "separate but equal" would have probably continued to be legal for a few more years.

Of course, the states that had segregation had no interest in providing equal facilities for blacks.  The point of segregation wasn't so much to keep the races physically separated (for the most part, no one in the South minded being in the presence of a black person, so long as it was clear that the black person was in a subservient role, such as a maid or janitor);  the point was to keep blacks down "in their place".

What is funny about this is that "separate but equal" was actually a *progressive* concept at some point.

It is kind of like "Don't ask, don't tell". It was eventually seen as this terrible injustice, yet when it came out it was actually a huge improvement over what came before.

Separate but equal sucks...except compared to separate and not equal. Of course, the reality was that it was never really equal (which is where the comparison to don't ask, don't tell breaks down), but the idea was an attempt to codify into law that you HAD to treat blacks equally, even if you insisted on treating them separately.

"Don't ask, don't tell" was a big step up from "We are kicking you out if we find out you are gay, and we are going to try to find out". It was basically a de facto tolerance of homosexuality in the military, which was a huge improvement over the blanket ban that existed previously. In that sense, it was actually an effective adjustment in that it did do what it purported to do - it let homosexuals serve without interference as long as they did not advertise their sexuality.

I remember Marty once blasting Clinton? Bush? whichever one it was who instituted the Don't ask policy as being homophobic, when in fact it was actually a pretty brilliant progressive political change.

[Valmy]

Allowing Gays to serve in the military was a major plank in the 1992 campaign for Clinton. So once he became President he wanted the military to do that and after lots of hand wringing by the brass 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was the compromise.

The military was not so good at the 'Don't Ask' part is what I gathered.