Throw mud, because I inject humor via satire into my posts?
>>Like thinking that Republicans want to enslave blacks?<<
That's putting words into my mouth; I didn't even insinuate such a thing.
My real points with my comparative was that Rehnquist is overly conservative, that - as with the Dred Scott case - the Supreme Court can be legal yet wrong, and if anyone on the conservative wing can get it wrong, it's Rehnquist.
Btw, I'm well aware of US history and who did what. Saying Dems opposed the Civil Rights Act is a bit of an exaggeration. A sufficient minority of southern Senate Dems provided enough ammo that a minority could filibuster away most civil rights attempts.
In getting through the House, Republicans voted 'aye' by a vote of 138 to 34; Democrats by 152 to 96. Democrats from northern states voted for it, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states went against, 92 to 11. Before the final vote, many attachments were tried by Republicans and Southern Dems to make the bill so strong that its defeat would be assured.
Senate leaders had to make an unusual end run around the conservative-dominated Judiciary Committee to bring the bill directly to the Senate floor where all members could participate. This was done because they feared Judiciary would block the bill from reaching the floor.
Eighteen Southern Dems plus Republican John Tower of Texas formed the bloc of greatest resistance. Their hope was to delay passage while George Wallace campaigned in the presdential primaries; if his strength grew, they felt they could make a convincing case that the nation did not support it.
Most insiders credit the Senate passage to three men: Senate majority whip Humphrey leading the pro forces, Senate Majority Leader Mansfield working behind the scenes, to maintain support from Dirksen, and Senate Minority Leader Dirksen's skilled efforts to build support among the Republicans. Humphrey and Dirksen were especially critical, yet neither could have accomplished it without the other.
The final vote was 73-27, with 21 Dems & 6 Republicans opposed.
Adding greater teeth to Civil Rights legislation took the Voting Rights Act, which President Johnson pushed through by calling in his chits and pulling out all stops to gain passage. Some say he accomplished this because he knew of too many of the skeletons in many closets.
As for ending slavery, one Republican freed the slaves, not 'Republicans'. And he did so as a strategic measure, to increase the odds of a Union victory, not out of any high minded humanitarian impulse.
When it came to the Thirteenth Amendment that codified the end to slavery, though it's true the Republicans were its chief supporters, when the House first considered it in 1864- with Southern Dems not present due to the war - it failed to get the 2/3rds majority vote necessary for passage, missing by 13 votes. It took Lincoln's active involvement again, pushing Dems to support it, that got it though in 1865. Legally, that ended slavery, but the practical impact of his Emancipation Proclamation was the freeing of thousands who followed Union armies, secure in the knowledge they'd never be returned to their former owners.
My understanding of this didn't arise from a Google search either; I've spent independent time at both the Eisenhower and Johnson presidential libraries, the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian Museum of American History, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Tougalou College, the Vicksburg National Cemetery, and Ruleville MS (hometown of Fannie Lou Hamer) studying this stuff.
But as to whether Republicans or Democrats did this or that, I couldn't care less, personally. Both sides have plenty of unpleasant anti-black history to live down. And the impact of civil rights legislation is still felt by the Southern political realignment and its impact on presidential electoral college voting since.
But as an independent, I continually look for folks in both parties with the capacity to do a good job, (and as a pleasant side effect, my election year junk mail flyers are a tenth of what party stalwarts have to toss!)
All of which strays far from the original point about Supreme Court review of a citizens rights during a national security emergency. You indicated the Supreme Court might uphold the Executive's usurpation of the Judiciary's role. And I concurred that it could happen with Rehnquist. Because I took a shot at Rehnquist in my assent, you took a shot at me.
Why? Is Rehnquist a relative? If not, why treat my replies as if they offended you personally, when that was never my intent? |
