GOP attacks Kagan by defending slavery. Seriously.

[kpete]

GOP attacks Kagan by defending slavery. Seriously.
by John Aravosis (DC) on 5/10/2010 10:58:00 AM
Is it racism or rank stupidity that motivates Republicans nowadays? But attacking Thurgood Marshall? Why, because he's black? Oh, I know, everyone officially will say "no, it's not that." But really? And the specific Marshall quote that the GOP is so upset about - that the Constitution was defective as originally drafted. Thurgood Marshall was talking about, among things, slavery. So, the Republicans don't think approving slavery was a defect of the Constitution? That's really their argument, defending three-fifths a man and slavery?

I get the desire to win over the Beauregard Sessions vote, but seriously, they're going to build a national majority on racism?

http://www.americablog.com/2010/05/gop-attacks-kagan-by-defending-slavery.html
..................


GOP uses Thurgood Marshall to attack Kagan
By Russell Berman - 05/10/10 10:09 AM ET

Republicans are questioning Elena Kagan’s ties to a liberal icon and the nation’s first African American Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall.

In its first memo to reporters since Kagan’s nomination to the high court became public, the Republican National Committee highlighted Kagan’s tribute to Marshall in a 1993 law review article published shortly after his death.

Kagan quoted from a speech Marshall gave in 1987 in which he said the Constitution as originally conceived and drafted was “defective.” She quoted him as saying the Supreme Court’s mission was to “show a special solicitude for the despised and the disadvantaged.”

“Does Kagan Still View Constitution ‘As Originally Drafted And Conceived’ As ‘Defective’?” the RNC asked in its research document. “And Does Kagan Still Believe That The Supreme Court's Primary Mission Is To ‘Show A Special Solicitude For The Despised And Disadvantaged’?”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/96909-gop-uses-thurgood-marshall-to-attack-kagan

http://www.thurgoodmarshall.com/speeches/constitutional_speech.htm

[gratuitous]

1. If the Constitution wasn't defective, it wouldn't have needed Amendments

That should be the end of the discussion.

[MidwestTransplant]

8. Good point

[Arkana]

2. The Constitution WAS defective.

That's why there are 27 Amendments to it since it was written.

[Captain Hilts]

3. The GOP has a death wish. They're the gift that keeps on giving. nt

[activa8tr]

14. I have to agree, and it becomes more and more obvious every time one of

those idiots opens their mouth.

They let out stuff like this as "proof" Kagan is "too radical" for the Supreme Court.

Geeze, this will go RIGHT OVER THE HEADS of people who can support Palin for VP.

[Brickbat]

4. This stuff doesn't even provoke outrage anymore. It's moved into the realm of sublime comedy.

I find this hilarious, quite frankly.

[depakid]

5. The Constitution is STILL defective

Exhibit #1 The corrupted and undemocratic US Senate.

[NJmaverick]

6. Not much worse than the attacks from Greenwald or Firedog Lake

and just as dishonest

[EFerrari]

7. It sure does look like they're tryng to build a national maority

based on racism. I guess they figure it was good enough for Ronald Reagan.

[WeDidIt]

9. The Founders KNEW that the constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, WAS DEFECTIVE

they made allowances for that fact by including Article V.

[one_voice]

10. Of course it was defective...

that's why we have so many amendments, and so many more needed.

Jeezus, stupidity should be painful.

[jberryhill]

11. I think you all have it wrong - they DO support slavery

No, it wasn't defective as far as the GOP is concerned. I think we should simply take them at their word that slavery, denying the vote to women, the 3/5 Compromise, etc. were all hunky-dory with them.

[unblock]

12. i'll never defend slavery, but i'll certainly defend the 3/5th clause

remember your history! the slaveowning south wanted to count slaves fully and the north didn't want them counted at all. counting them as anything less than a full person certainly SOUNDS like an insult to slaves, but remember that they had no vote and no rights. counting them equally as citizens WAS ONLY FOR PURPOSES OF APPORTIONMENT and would have only meant more representatives and more political power for the slaveowning south.

so bizarre was the institution of slavery that at the time, it was in the slaves' best interests to be undercounted. counting them as full people would have been a disaster. the only improvement on the 3/5th compromise would have been to count them even less. that would have given the north more power and might have ended slavey much earlier.

once slavery was abolished, of course, it became imperative to count all people equally.

[proud patriot]

13. To quote Charlie Brown ,, Good Grief