The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

re: shelby

 

The decision in Shelby County is actually more nonsensical than even this outlandish hypothetical suggests. What the Roberts Five actually held is that it’s not merely a bad idea, but actually irrational, for Congress (by a combined vote of 488 to 33) to reenact a law that is working so well, because since it is working so well it’s no longer necessary to have such a law.

 

But this decision is yet more outrageous. The Constitution was specifically amended in the most explicit possible terms to allow Congress to pass precisely this sort of law, for this precise purpose. The 15th Amendment was enacted to give Congress the power to stop states from discriminating against racial minorities in regard to the right to vote.

 

So what we have here is a situation in which a war was fought in which 600,000 soldiers died, in large part so that the Constitution could be amended in such a way as to give Congress the power to force the slave states to treat black people like human beings. A century later, Congress gets around to actually using this power, and the law it passes is a remarkable success.

 

But according to the Roberts Five, it’s unconstitutional for Congress to enforce legislation specifically mandated by the Constitution, because it has carried out its legislative responsibilities too well.

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/26/this_supre..._is_a_disgrace/

[StrangeSox]

 

Kevin Drum makes a very important point on the Shelby ruling

 

In 2008, the Supreme Court decided Crawford vs. Marion County Election Board. Previously, the state of Indiana had passed a statute requiring voters to show photo ID at polling places, something that was likely to disproportionately hurt black turnout. Indiana's justification for the law was its interest in preventing voter fraud, something that they were unable to demonstrate even a single case of. Nonetheless, the court upheld the law under this reasoning:

 

If a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators. The state interests identified as justifications for SEA 483 are both neutral and sufficiently strong to require us to reject petitioners’ facial attack on the statute. The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting “the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.”

 

Today, the Supreme Court decided Shelby County vs. Holder, an attack on the "preclearance" requirement of the Voting Rights Act. In 2006, Congress renewed the Act for 25 years, and after considering voluminous evidence decided not to make changes to the formula for deciding which states require preclearance for changes to their voting regulations and which ones don't. Nonetheless, the court overturned the law:

 

Congress did not use the record it compiled to shape a coverage formula grounded in current conditions. It instead reenacted a formula based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relation to the present day. The dissent relies on “second-generation barriers,” which are not impediments to the casting of ballots, but rather electoral arrangements that affect the weight of minority votes. That does not cure the problem. Viewing the preclearance requirements as targeting such efforts simply highlights the irrationality of continued reliance on the §4 coverage formula, which is based on voting tests and access to the ballot, not vote dilution. We cannot pretend that we are reviewing an updated statute, or try our hand at updating the statute ourselves, based on the new record compiled by Congress.

 

Note the difference. In Crawford, where the target is a law that's likely to disenfranchise black voters, the bar for constitutionality is almost absurdly low. Regardless of what the real motives of the lawmakers are, or what the likely effect of the law is, it's valid if the state merely asserts a "neutral justification." That's it.

 

But in Shelby County, where the target is a law designed to protect black voters, the bar for constitutionality is suddenly much higher. Even though the Fifteenth Amendment gives Congress the unconditional right to enact legislation designed to prevent states from abridging the right to vote "on account of race [or] color," the court ruled that, in fact, Congress is quite fettered after all. It cannot decide to simply renew a law that it thinks is working well. Instead, it's required by the court to update its formulas to satisfy the court's notions of what's logical and what isn't.

 

So here's your nickel summary. If a law is passed on a party-line vote, has no justification in the historical record, and is highly likely to harm black voting, that's OK as long as the legislature in question can whomp up some kind of neutral-sounding justification. Judicial restraint is the order of the day. But if a law is passed by unanimous vote, is based on a power given to Congress with no strings attached, and is likely to protect black voting, that's prohibited unless the Supreme Court can be persuaded that Congress's approach is one they approve of. Judicial restraint is out the window. Welcome to the 21st century.

[StrangeSox]

Dems in Texas sucessfully delay to end of session that was to end at 12 AM to stop anti-abortion bill from passing. Many reports coming out, though, that they held the vote after midnight. They are asking legislators to their faces whether they voted or it passed and nobody seems to know.

 

Dustin Parkes ‏@dustinparkes 12m

Sorry Miami Heat. After the buzzer sounded, San Antonio made ten straight buckets and are now NBA champs. #TexasRules

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/21/man-...ffice-in-texas/

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I will be curious to see whether this decision gets cited as precedent in future. The implications, potentially, seem so enormous I wonder whether they will simply be overlooked. (I realize this often happens when philosophers read legal decisions: we see all manner of absurdity that is papered over in practice by a lot of stuff we don’t understand – some of it other nonsense, put in place so the nonsense we see doesn’t cause trouble; some of it good sense we, who didn’t go to law school, don’t happen to be in the know about.) It seems to be the case that the Supremes have over-ruled Congress exclusively on the grounds that the South has changed more than Congress gives it credit for. “Section 4’s formula is unconstitutional in light of current conditions” (3) [emphasis mine]. “Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to pre-clearance” (3)” [emphasis mine]. That second one is more ambiguous. That might be taken to mean: after today. But, in light of the rest of the decision, this statement seems intended as a descriptive account of a development in the recent past, post-1965 but pre-decision. Section 4 wasn’t born un-Constitutional, but grew into something un-Constitutional as society changed around it. Congress finds itself standing in a place it could only get to by overstepping, without having overstepped, due to political-societal-cultural ground itself having shifted. That’s not an incomprehensible or paradoxical claim. But it’s hard to imagine a more fertile basis for a ‘living Constitution’ approach than the blanket proposition that any time the Supremes think “things have changed dramatically” (p. 3), they get to tell Congress what new thing to do – or not do – that is ‘fair’, by the judges’ lights.

 

http://crookedtimber.org/2013/06/26/it-was...hem/#more-29674

 

Roberts' opinion in Shelby makes an incredibly strong case for the idea of a "living Constitution"

Edited June 27, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Conservative legal scholar and judge Posner did not have kind things to say about the brand-new Constitutional principles found in Shelby.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_pol...law_is_all.html

 

Shelby County v. Holder, decided Tuesday, struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act … as violating the “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” of the states. This is a principle of constitutional law of which I had never heard—for the excellent reason that … there is no such principle.

 

Maybe not Dredd Scott bad, but an overall completely terrible legal opinion with even worse real-world consequences.

[Jenksismyhero]

This is precisely why all politicians are awful, awful human beings. Can't even stand on their principles. Sell their souls at every turn and pretend like the past never happened. Disgusting.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/demo...tion-93480.html

Edited June 27, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Seriously, your example of politicians being awful, awful human beings is that some people who voted for DOMA in 1996 are now glad that it is dead in 2013?

 

Lincoln opposed negro equality and supported colonization plans for freed slaves well into his Presidency. Then, after truly coming to terms with the horrors of slavery, he came much closer to the Radicals' ideals of racial equality legally and socially. What an awful, disgusting person, refusing to stand on principles!

Edited June 27, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Jake]

I would say a great deal of attitudes in Congress, in this forum, in the USA have changed on the subject of gay rights since 1996.

[Jenksismyhero]

Seriously, your example of politicians being awful, awful human beings is that some people who voted for DOMA in 1996 are now glad that it is dead in 2013?

 

Lincoln opposed negro equality and supported colonization plans for freed slaves well into his Presidency. Then, after truly coming to terms with the horrors of slavery, he came much closer to the Radicals' ideals of racial equality legally and socially. What an awful, disgusting person, refusing to stand on principles!

 

Yeah, it's pretty f***ed up that people would vote for something and then years later pretend like the biggest injustice in the world being overturned is amazing. GMAFB. You voted for it, own up to it. Stop pretending like you didn't.

 

Sorry, I don't buy this bulls*** change of heart crap that you readily accept from your party reps, including the President. If you wanted to protect "marriage" 17 years ago, you should want to protect it now. But you and I both know that personal opinions/principles were set aside at both ends of this issue by these politicians. Either they were against it in the beginning and still voted for it to get votes, or they were truly for it and now are pretending like it was terrible to keep their voters happy.

 

And i'm not sure Lincoln ever opposed black equality. Where did you get that from? Privately he always felt slavery was an injustice and yes he once said he'd rather save the union over ending slavery for a brief period of time. He didn't do a complete flip flop on the issue though like these idiots today.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

I mean come on guys, look at the quotes these guys are putting out there.

 

"The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have a negative impact on anyone else, or on our nation as a whole, has always struck me as absurd."

 

"By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union."

 

You guys really think some great awakening happened over the last 17 years to change their minds from "nah, this isn't discrimination to keep gay people from marrying" to "omg! that was discrimination i'm so glad we've progressed!"

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, it's pretty f***ed up that people would vote for something and then years later pretend like the biggest injustice in the world being overturned is amazing. GMAFB. You voted for it, own up to it. Stop pretending like you didn't.

 

Sorry, I don't buy this bulls*** change of heart crap that you readily accept from your party reps, including the President. If you wanted to protect "marriage" 17 years ago, you should want to protect it now. But you and I both know that personal opinions/principles were set aside at both ends of this issue by these politicians. Either they were against it in the beginning and still voted for it to get votes, or they were truly for it and now are pretending like it was terrible to keep their voters happy.

 

I've no doubt that, for some of them, it was a strategic political choice. DOMA was always horrible and bigoted, but that wasn't the hill to die on politically in 1996. Hell, in 2004 anti-gay measures helped give conservatives electoral victories. Others I don't doubt have genuinely shifted their position since 1996. The country as a whole has shifted their opinion pretty dramatically in just the last 10 years.

 

It's not that I'm lovingly embracing Reid or Schumer here. It's that, if you're going to talk about politicians being "awful, awful people" who are disgusting and can't stand on principle, well, maybe you should choose a better framing than people who no longer support explicitly bigoted policy that infringed on equal rights. There's nothing principled about sticking to bad, dumb, harmful and hateful ideas in light of new evidence, experiences and thinking. The disgusting, awful people are the ones who kept defending DOMA and who are going to keep pushing for state-level discrimination. Do you still hold every idea you believed in 17 years ago? What is wrong with genuinely changing your mind on something, as millions of Americans have done on gay marriage and did on gender and racial equality in previous decades? And did on slavery a few generations ago?

 

And i'm not sure Lincoln ever opposed black equality. Where did you get that from? Privately he always felt slavery was an injustice and yes he once said he'd rather save the union over ending slavery for a brief period of time. He didn't do a complete flop flop on the issue though like these idiots today.

 

 

From reading a lengthy book on the subject of Lincoln's views on slavery and racial equality. Historian Eric Forner's The Fiery Trial is excellent.

 

His speech about 'preserving the union without ending slavery' is better read as a primer to the forthcoming emancipation proclamation, an indication that, at that point, it simply wasn't possible to preserve the union without abolishing slavery forever. Regardless, however, his views over the years changed substantially. He was just as much of a 'flip-flopper' and dragged his ass for years before coming to support the 13th and dropping his colonization fantasy (which was rooted in a belief that blacks and whites simply couldn't live together as equals). He never came to embrace the ideas embodied in the 14th and 15th, though I think it's a fair assumption that he would have as Reconstruction went on. He certainly would have been a hell of a lot better than his replacement, though he was still going to go far too soft on the traitors.

Edited June 27, 2013 by StrangeSox

[farmteam]

They should have phrased it along the lines of "I have seen why I was wrong to enact DOMA in the first place" etc etc but I don't think it's as bad as you want it to be. Or rather, there are likely way better examples of dems and the GOP completely reversing course on something.

[StrangeSox]

I mean come on guys, look at the quotes these guys are putting out there.

 

"The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have a negative impact on anyone else, or on our nation as a whole, has always struck me as absurd."

 

"By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union."

 

The first one can be evidence of 1) a biased memory 2) not choosing to fight the marriage equality political battle in 1996 despite not agreeing with DOMA 3) silly pandering. W/e, I don't see anything here worthy of a post declaring these people "awful, awful human beings" while not making mention of Scalia's ridiculous dissent or the ongoing efforts by many conservatives to discriminate against LGBT.

 

The second one is an accurate statement of fact. That could reflect not wanting to die on that political hill in 1996 or a genuine change of opinion.

 

You guys really think some great awakening happened over the last 17 years to change their minds from "nah, this isn't discrimination to keep gay people from marrying" to "omg! that was discrimination i'm so glad we've progressed!"

 

17 years is a long time. A lot of life experiences and interactions can happen. Millions of Americans have made a similar shift in much less time than 17 years. Do you think you'll hold the same beliefs in 2030 that you do today? Will you be an awful, disgusting, unprincipled person for changing your mind on an important issue?

[StrangeSox]

They should have phrased it along the lines of "I have seen why I was wrong to enact DOMA in the first place" etc etc but I don't think it's as bad as you want it to be. Or rather, there are likely way better examples of dems and the GOP completely reversing course on something.

Yeah, that's really the part that made me

 

If you want to make a point about politicians sometimes voting for strategic political reasons instead of on their own personal principles*, why choose this topic to do it unless you yourself embrace the bigotry behind DOMA? There's plenty of other examples someone could choose.

 

I don't doubt that, if marriage equality was a principle for these guys in 1996, it was a weak one and certainly fell far below many other principles. If voting against DOMA means you lose your seat in the next election and are replaced by someone who is against all of your principles, is that worth standing up for that one? I don't really have a good answer for that one.

 

*is it bad in a democracy if a politician votes the way he anticipates his constituents want him to vote?

[Jenksismyhero]

I've no doubt that, for some of them, it was a strategic political choice. DOMA was always horrible and bigoted, but that wasn't the hill to die on politically in 1996. Hell, in 2004 anti-gay measures helped give conservatives electoral victories. Others I don't doubt have genuinely shifted their position since 1996. The country as a whole has shifted their opinion pretty dramatically in just the last 10 years.

 

It's not that I'm lovingly embracing Reid or Schumer here. It's that, if you're going to talk about politicians being "awful, awful people" who are disgusting and can't stand on principle, well, maybe you should choose a better framing than people who no longer support explicitly bigoted policy that infringed on equal rights. There's nothing principled about sticking to bad, dumb, harmful and hateful ideas in light of new evidence, experiences and thinking. The disgusting, awful people are the ones who kept defending DOMA and who are going to keep pushing for state-level discrimination. Do you still hold every idea you believed in 17 years ago? What is wrong with genuinely changing your mind on something, as millions of Americans have done on gay marriage and did on gender and racial equality in previous decades? And did on slavery a few generations ago?

 

I just find politicians to be awful human beings and this is just another example. Don't mistake my statements as meaning that because they're supportive of gay marriage/equality that they're awful, it's that they changed their mind and made statements as if they never voted against gay marraige/equality in the first place. That is what I find abhorrent. And yes, it's happened with a bazillion other issues.

 

And yes some of my opinions have changed over the years but that has come with age and maturity. Or, in the case of abortion, I educated myself on the topic and actually lived through a pregnancy. These guys didn't change their mind because of their age, their maturity level, or some new found realization about homosexuality. The same arguments made today over gay rights were made in 1996. The same concerns people had about DOMA were present in 1996.

 

 

From reading a lengthy book on the subject of Lincoln's views on slavery and racial equality. Historian Eric Forner's The Fiery Trial is excellent.

 

His speech about 'preserving the union without ending slavery' is better read as a primer to the forthcoming emancipation proclamation, an indication that, at that point, it simply wasn't possible to preserve the union without abolishing slavery forever. Regardless, however, his views over the years changed substantially. He was just as much of a 'flip-flopper' and dragged his ass for years before coming to support the 13th and dropping his colonization fantasy (which was rooted in a belief that blacks and whites simply couldn't live together as equals). He never came to embrace the ideas embodied in the 14th and 15th, though I think it's a fair assumption that he would have as Reconstruction went on. He certainly would have been a hell of a lot better than his replacement, though he was still going to go far too soft on the traitors.

 

But as far as I know he never voted to uphold slavery, so this comparison is irrelevant.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

They should have phrased it along the lines of "I have seen why I was wrong to enact DOMA in the first place" etc etc but I don't think it's as bad as you want it to be. Or rather, there are likely way better examples of dems and the GOP completely reversing course on something.

 

And that explanation would still be bulls*** to me. You guys are smart, I can't believe you buy that crap. This issue isn't about a change in science or a change in understanding. They voted to keep homosexuals from being recognized as married under Federal law with the full knowledge of all of the arguments for and against. And now they're praising the SC decision as if they had no part in it. It's disgusting, and yes, there are a million other similar example of why politicians are awful human beings. This is just the latest example.

[StrangeSox]

Lincoln changed his mind on the issues of slavery and racial equality substantially over the course of his life. Certainly over the last four years, let alone the last 17. It was meant as an obvious example of people genuinely changing their minds.

 

Jenks, what you're saying simply isn't supported by reality. Tens of millions of Americans have changed their mind on gay rights since the 90's. Why do you find it impossible to believe that one of the politicians also did so?

[StrangeSox]

And that explanation would still be bulls*** to me. You guys are smart, I can't believe you buy that crap. This issue isn't about a change in science or a change in understanding. They voted to keep homosexuals from being recognized as married under Federal law with the full knowledge of all of the arguments for and against. And now they're praising the SC decision as if they had no part in it. It's disgusting, and yes, there are a million other similar example of why politicians are awful human beings. This is just the latest example.

Rob Portman used to be against gay marriage. Then he had a life experience that fundamentally changed his mind. Not everyone requires a close family member to come out to have their minds changed. I don't know why you think this is such an impossible task.

 

And, again, that their statements on DOMA going down is what caused you to get outraged without saying a word about how outrageous DOMA and the continued conservative efforts against equality actually are says a lot.

[Jenksismyhero]

Lincoln changed his mind on the issues of slavery and racial equality substantially over the course of his life. Certainly over the last four years, let alone the last 17. It was meant as an obvious example of people genuinely changing their minds.

 

Jenks, what you're saying simply isn't supported by reality. Tens of millions of Americans have changed their mind on gay rights since the 90's. Why do you find it impossible to believe that one of the politicians also did so?

 

But he didn't genuinely change his mind that slavery was awful and blacks were not subhuman. He changed his opinion on how strongly he should advocate for the abolishment of slavery. That's entirely different than this issue where guys voted yes for something and now claim it was so awful to do so.

 

Millions of Americans didn't vote for DOMA. Voting on a bill requires an extra step of affirming what you believe is good policy for the country. With a vote you've told your constituents and the country that you feel it's important enough to protect marriage and define it in a particular way. The context of the entire issue has not changed at all in 17 years. If it was discriminatory now, it was discriminatory then and it's ridiculous for these guys to try and use the decision for their own political gain.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Rob Portman used to be against gay marriage. Then he had a life experience that fundamentally changed his mind. Not everyone requires a close family member to come out to have their minds changed. I don't know why you think this is such an impossible task.

 

And, again, that their statements on DOMA going down is what caused you to get outraged without saying a word about how outrageous DOMA and the continued conservative efforts against equality actually are says a lot.

 

I'm not really outraged, I just hate politicians who act like saints when we all know they're not.

[farmteam]

And that explanation would still be bulls*** to me. You guys are smart, I can't believe you buy that crap. This issue isn't about a change in science or a change in understanding. They voted to keep homosexuals from being recognized as married under Federal law with the full knowledge of all of the arguments for and against. And now they're praising the SC decision as if they had no part in it. It's disgusting, and yes, there are a million other similar example of why politicians are awful human beings. This is just the latest example.

Most of these guys actually quoted probably didn't change their views from 1996 to now. But plenty of Americans did*. Numbers alone suggest some of those people who changed their minds are also politicians. Whether or not they're the same politicians who voted for DOMA is irrelevant, considering the broad brush you're painting all politicians with -- which is precisely why choosing this political issue is puzzling.

 

*No, I don't have any data to support this. But there's enough anecdotal evidence that I'm comfortable saying it.

[StrangeSox]

But he didn't genuinely change his mind that slavery was awful and blacks were not subhuman. He changed his opinion on how strongly he should advocate for the abolishment of slavery. That's entirely different that this issue where guys voted yes for something and now claim it was so awful to do so.

 

He genuinely changed his mind on the idea that blacks were not equal to whites and could never live as free equals among them. He changed his mind on whether slavery should be confined to the south or abolished. He changed his mind on whether the federal government had any power to do anything about it in the first place. And he was hypocritical, overstating his devotion to abolition in previous years in later speeches.

 

Seriously, go read that book, I think you'd really enjoy it.

 

Millions of Americans didn't vote for DOMA. Voting on a bill requires an extra step of affirming what you believe is good policy for the country. With a vote you've told your constituents and the country that you feel it's important enough to protect marriage and define it in a particular way. The context of the entire issue has not changed at all in 17 years. If it was discriminatory now, it was discriminatory then and it's ridiculous for these guys to try and use the decision for their own political gain.

 

See I just can't really give a s*** about that when the first words out of conservative politicians' mouths were "now we're going to take it to the states!" and we had the shelby county atrocity the day before.

 

People can and do change their minds. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. 17 years is a very long time for someone to change their mind. People did it in the 60's with civil rights and they're doing it now with LGBT equality. Millions of Americans can and did vote for ballot initiatives and state constitutional amendments to oppress the LGBT community at one point but now wouldn't.

Edited June 27, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Most of these guys actually quoted probably didn't change their views from 1996 to now. But plenty of Americans did*. Numbers alone suggest some of those people who changed their minds are also politicians. Whether or not they're the same politicians who voted for DOMA is irrelevant, considering the broad brush you're painting all politicians with -- which is precisely why choosing this political issue is puzzling.

 

*No, I don't have any data to support this. But there's enough anecdotal evidence that I'm comfortable saying it.

Millions of Americans have changed their mind since 2003. For comparison, it took until the mid-90's before interracial marriages gained majority acceptance.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

He genuinely changed his mind on the idea that blacks were not equal to whites and could never live as free equals among them. He changed his mind on whether slavery should be confined to the south or abolished. He changed his mind on whether the federal government had any power to do anything about it in the first place. And he was hypocritical, overstating his devotion to abolition in previous years in later speeches.

 

Seriously, go read that book, I think you'd really enjoy it.

 

In the books i've read on Lincoln, i've never read that he believed that blacks were not equal with whites. He had a very realistic opinion that slaves were not going to be accepted into society and it was going to be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for them to fully integrate. And yes, he changed his mind on if slavery should be allowed in the south in order to preserve the union but that was because he knew that it would eventually die out. It was much more a "should we intervene in this issue or let it die out naturally" argument, not whether it was acceptable or not. As a teenager and young lawyer he wrote about how he believed slavery was awful.

 

I'll check the book out and see what it says.

 

See I just can't really give a s*** about that when the first words out of conservative politicians' mouths were "now we're going to take it to the states!" and we had the shelby county atrocity the day before.

 

People can and do change their minds. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. 17 years is a very long time for someone to change their mind. People did it in the 60's with civil rights and they're doing it now with LGBT equality. Millions of Americans can and did vote for ballot initiatives and state constitutional amendments to oppress the LGBT community at one point but now wouldn't.

 

I don't doubt people can change their minds. But again, i'm talking about politicians who debated over a bill and then signed it knowing full well what they were doing was denying federal recognition of marriage for homosexuals, and now they're claiming that it's great that the awful bill they signed is no more. I think it's just further proof that politicians are awful, corrupt people who sell their souls to stay in office. They have no principles, one way or the other.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

In the books i've read on Lincoln, i've never read that he believed that blacks were not equal with whites. He had a very realistic opinion that slaves were not going to be accepted into society and it was going to be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for them to fully integrate. And yes, he changed his mind on if slavery should be allowed in the south in order to preserve the union but that was because he knew that it would eventually die out. It was much more a "should we intervene in this issue or let it die out naturally" argument, not whether it was acceptable or not. As a teenager and young lawyer he wrote about how he believed slavery was awful.

 

I'll check the book out and see what it says.

 

He adamantly denounced the claims that he was a "n***** lover" or someone who pushed for legal and social negro equality. Whether it was his true feelings or political expediency, he's no different.

 

I don't doubt people can change their minds. But again, i'm talking about politicians who debated over a bill and then signed it knowing full well what they were doing was denying federal recognition of marriage for homosexuals, and now they're claiming that it's great that the awful bill they signed is no more. I think it's just further proof that politicians are awful, corrupt people who sell their souls to stay in office. They have no principles, one way or the other.

 

People can debate bills and very strongly believe in something and, over the course of 17 years, change their mind.

 

How do we know that it wasn't a political calculation to stay in office and keep upholding principles they valued even more than gay rights? That's hardly a stretch for the 90's (and even early-mid 2000's) political climate. That doesn't justify their votes or their willingness to trample over gay rights. This will always be a negative part of their and Clinton's legacies. But I'm still about ten-thousand times more outraged by the gutting of the VRA and by the conservative politicians who are standing by the principles of discriminating against LGBT people.