3 ms·

I understand why you would categorize the person you replied to as being ignorant of caselaw and constitutional law. But he hasn't said anything racist, and I t

I understand why you would categorize the person you replied to as being ignorant of caselaw and constitutional law. But he hasn't said anything racist, and I think that accusation is an especially charged one that can unnecessarily turn up the heat on a discussion without shedding any light.

freejazz 4y ago
No, I disagree. I don't take his misreadings of these cases as incidental at all. They are all purposeful and with the point of minimizing what racial discrimination is. He's not misreading wickard because of his beliefs about commerce. He's back reading heart of atlanta into it because he doesn't like anti discrimination laws. Thats perfectly apparent from his posts. Feel free to disagree if you must insist. But he's just couching his terms. One not need to explicitly state what they make clear they believe. Frankly, your post is almost as obtuse as the other as to throw into question your own judgment.