Saturday, March 13, 2010

Hey: Jews Can Engage in Anti-Semitism Too

Obviously, it is really important for any community to have room for a vigorous internal debate on the issues of the day. So if some Jews want to dissent from the consensus of the majority regarding guns, that's their right. But to do so in this way, by calling your opponents "bagel brain Jews" and placing them inside Nazi uniforms, is simply a case of Jews utilizing anti-Semitic tropes. The fact that your organization includes a (non-Jewish) Holocaust denier doesn't help things.

The group also is targeting Black politicians who support gun control, arguing that it is inconsistent with a civil rights paradigm. It has to be said that there is some history of gun control laws being used by racist Southern governments as a tool of control against the Black population, and it is also true that the availability of guns was seen as critical by many civil rights leaders to defend their homes against KKK vigilantes (see, for example, Radio Free Dixie). That being said, the Black community today is perfectly within its rights to conclude that the risks to its community's safety from widespread gun proliferation into the hands of criminals outweighs the benefits of freer gun sales to be used as self-defense. Folks can argue that's the wrong decision, but it ultimately ought to be theirs to make.


Superdestroyer said...

It is odd that a second year law student is going to argue that a single racial/ethnic group should be able to support unconstitutional laws because it benefits that particular ethnic group.

Blacks overhwelmingly support race based reparations. That does not mean that race based reparations are any less unconstitutional.

Do they really teach law students to apply different standards based upon race or ethnicity? What happened to separate and unequal is unconstitutional.

Rebecca said...

What unconstitutional laws are you talking about?

And in any case, people can support whatever they want - whether it can be put into practice is another question.

And how do you know that "Blacks overwhelmingly support race based reparations"? Can you cite any recent studies or opinion polls on this subject?

PG said...

(1) a single racial/ethnic group should be able to support unconstitutional laws because it benefits that particular ethnic group.

I didn't think SD would openly state that he thinks people should be prevented from supporting particular policies if SD believes those policies to be unconstitutional. I guess you give someone enough commenter rope, he'll eventually hang himself as a fascist.

(2) Do they really teach law students to apply different standards based upon race or ethnicity?

Have you read any of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the use of affirmative action in college and graduate school admissions? Because your comment only makes sense if you are utterly ignorant of the fact that race and ethnicity can constitutionally be taken into account.

If your response to this is that the Supreme Court is only the arbiter of what is constitutional when a majority agrees with you (as with the 2nd Amendment) but not when a majority disagrees (as with the 14th), then it's a good thing you're not teaching law.

N. Friedman said...


Law schools of which I am familiar are mostly silent - although individual professors may be expected to state, from time to time, their bias, to one degree or another, in class - on the "true" meaning of the Constitution. Rather, the primary aim of most law schools is to produce good lawyers, people who can argue viewpoints in a manner that would be perceived to be persuasive to judges. Which is to say, if you go to a lawyer for help, do you want to be told the "true" meaning of the Constitution or do you want guidance on how to advance your cause and assistance in doing so? Somehow, I bet it is the latter.

I recall that my first year property professor - who was, thirty years ago, the leading authority on property law in my home state - stated in class several times that Supreme Court precedent outlawing certain forms of discrimination that were not uncommon in property deeds was contrary to the idea of the rule of law. He seemed to be of the view that such precedent was not only terrible but also an affront to the Constitution. With that in mind, do you really want professors of law pontificating to classes the "true" meaning of the Constitution or is it not better that teachers spend most of their time - and surely, all professors will, from time to time, express their own views, which is why I say "most of their time" - teaching lawyers how to think like lawyers?

PG said...

I think it's pretty standard for property law professors to acknowledge that Shelley v. Kramer was kind of a one-off. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any later cases that relied upon Shelley's concept of state action, in which the enforcement of a private contract through the normal mechanisms of the law constitutes state involvement in the terms of the contract.

N. Friedman said...


I am not a property attorney. My point was not so much about Shelley v. Kramer or any other given precedent. My point was about Superdestroyer's views about teaching and dictating truths in the Constitution.