Ron Paul 2012 Support.

Tools    





will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
There is no point in even discussing this because your idea of freedom is not mine or most Americans. You are saying it should be legal to discriminate. Your idea of freedom is trouncing on the freedom of others and it is the kind of freedom that prevents people from improving themselves, from getting a better job or moving into neighborhood they can afford, but the neighbors want to keep them out because of their skin color. You are going beyond the standard conservative argument against affirmative action and actually condoning racism.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



Well, it won't, for one, because not everyone is a bigot. So right off the bat, that's a problem with what you're saying. See point 1) in my post above for an elaboration.

For another, you still haven't explained why it should be legal to tell someone what criteria they can use to hire. If it's okay to tell someone who to hire because they might act based on bigotry, why isn't it okay to tell someone what they can or cannot say because they might say something bigoted? Also, how on earth is it "condoning racism"? Do you really not get the difference between supporting something and defending someone's right to do it? Does defending free speech mean you "condone" anything anyone says? Because that's the corner you just argued yourself into.

Also, trying to couch this discussion in terms of defending freedom is completely backwards. Your definition of "freedom" is the one that advocates dictating to people how they're allowed to make choices. The argument you're attacking is the one that affords people more freedom--even if they sometimes use that freedom to be a**holes. But as I said, that's how freedom works.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Uh, what? No, that's not what we want...

Also - What about my question? How do you enforce a right for one citizen if it involves forcing another citizen (in this case a business owner) to give you a job?
How isn't it what you want? That is the implication and it is consistent with Ron Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The standard Libertarian argument, in case you don't know it, is it should be illegal for government to discriminate (pass Jim Crow laws), but okay for private businesses to do it, the part of the law that prevents businesses from serving Blacks is wrong or make them eat at separate counters from whites.

You cannot prevent Joe Blow from hiring a white guy to mow his lawn instead of a Mexican. But if Joe Blow has a lawn mowing business and hires only whites and has a history of refusing to hire qualified non whites he could be sued or face legal problems for his hiring practices.



A system of cells interlinked
Try to read about something Libertarians don't emphasize, their opposition to all public roads and see if they make any sense at all.
I wonder what the Libertarian stance is on a current President murdering some of his own citizens without a trial...

Say, do you have some flimsy defense of your idol, the murdering president?
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Well, it won't, for one, because not everyone is a bigot. So right off the bat, that's a problem with what you're saying. See point 1) in my post above for an elaboration.

For another, you still haven't explained why it should be legal to tell someone what criteria they can use to hire. If it's okay to tell someone who to hire because they might act based on bigotry, why isn't it okay to tell someone what they can or cannot say because they might say something bigoted? Also, how on earth is it "condoning racism"? Do you really not get the difference between supporting something and defending someone's right to do it? Does defending free speech mean you "condone" anything anyone says? Because that's the corner you just argued yourself into.
Of course it is condoning racism because if you support someone's right to discriminate you are condoning it. It is not the same thing as standing up for a Nazi's right to publicly say hateful things. That is free speech protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. But I am sure as hell not going to justify or defend a Nazi's right to put a sign in front of his business that says "No Jews." Words are protected free speech. But even free speech has some limitations, when it directly infronges on the rights of others, such as provoking a riot. Discrimination is not a protected right in the Constitution and violates someone else's civil liberites. No, you are the one with a skewed idea about what freedom involves. There are two freedoms involved here, one is the freedom of employers to discriminate, and the other is the freedom to live or move where you want and to allow racist employers to refuse to hire you based on the color of your skin.

Also, trying to couch this discussion in terms of defending freedom is completely backwards. Your definition of "freedom" is the one that advocates dictating to people how they're allowed to make choices. The argument you're attacking is the one that affords people more freedom--even if they sometimes use that freedom to be a**holes. But as I said, that's how freedom works.
They are not just being a-holes for crying out loud. They are preventing other people from being free.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
I wonder what the Libertarian stance is on a current President murdering some of his own citizens without a trial...

Say, do you have some flimsy defense of your idol, the murdering president?
I'm all for that and he is not my idol. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary. And, no, I am not a big fan of her either. The American citizen was in a foreign land, a member of an evil organization that has declared war on us and in war you kill the enemy if circumstances make it difficult to take them alive.



A system of cells interlinked
They are not just being a-holes for crying out loud. They are preventing other people from being free.
No they aren't!!

This is what I was talking about when I posted a couple of days ago. There is a distinction between making a choice on an issue, and trying to force others to make that same choice because you think it's the right choice to make.

Also, I totally support someone's right to make the choice to be racist, but I would never make that choice for myself. That is not me condoning racism - I am condoning freedom of choice and my own PERSONAL views on racism are a different story altogether.



A system of cells interlinked
I'm all for that and he is not my idol. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary. And, no, I am not a big fan of her either. The American citizen was in a foreign land, a member of an evil organization that has declared war on us and in war you kill the enemy if circumstances make it difficult to take them alive.
Equivocation nation...

Your alright, Will. A nice thick skin and you stand up for what you believe... Kudos for that.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
No they aren't!!

This is what I was talking about when I posted a couple of days ago. There is a distinction between making a choice on an issue, and trying to force others to make that same choice because you think it's the right choice to make.

Also, I totally support someone's right to make the choice to be racist, but I would never make that choice for myself. That is not me condoning racism - I am condoning freedom of choice and my own PERSONAL views on racism are a different story altogether.
If government with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not prohibit both government and private segregation in the South private business segregation would have continued.



Of course it is condoning racism because if you support someone's right to discriminate you are condoning it.
Good grief, are you hearing yourself? This makes zero sense. Defending the right to do something is not the same as condoning it. You and I both believe many things we personally disapprove of should be legal, yes? Therefore, the statement above is false.

It is not the same thing as standing up for a Nazi's right to publicly say hateful things. That is free speech protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. But I am sure as hell not going to justify or defend a Nazi's right to put a sign in front of his business that says "No Jews." Words are protected free speech.
This is a circular argument. You're saying the two are different because one is protected by law, and one isn't. Well, no duh. We're arguing about why that is and whether or not it should be.

You are not providing a single reason here why the freedom to hire who you want is potentially reprehensible and must be restrained by law, but freedom of speech is necessary and therefore we must tolerate evils in the name of preserving it. You're just saying that you treat them differently (why?), and then reiterating that one is legal (not under dispute). Seriously, please re-read that quote. I defy you to tell me where the argument is.

But even free speech has some limitations, when it directly infronges on the rights of others, such as provoking a riot. Discrimination is not a protected right in the Constitution and violates someone else's civil liberites.
Again, circular. Also, if you're advancing the idea that anything not specifically protected in the Constitution is therefore okay to impede, you're going to find yourself defending a whole lot of ridiculous things really quickly. To pick a completely random example: the right to a specific job is not in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The right to be hired by anyone for any reason isn't, either.

No, you are the one with a skewed idea about what freedom involves. There are two freedoms involved here, one is the freedom of employers to discriminate, and the other is the freedom to live or move where you want and to allow racist employers to refuse to hire you based on the color of your skin.
The "freedom to live or move where you want" is not a thing. Probably because it only sounds good if you describe in that vague way. What that statement actually describes is making someone hire you even if they don't want to, or making someone sell you something they don't want to sell you. When described like that (that is to say, specifically and accurately), it becomes obvious that you absolutely do not have that right, and that it directly conflicts with someone else's right.

They are not just being a-holes for crying out loud. They are preventing other people from being free.
No, it isn't, for one simple, undeniable reason:

Nobody has the right to be hired for any particular job.

That's the whole ballgame. Unless you want to somehow insist that people have the right to a particular job, then there is no way to argue that discrimination violates people's freedoms. You can't stop someone from being free when their freedom does not inherently contain the thing you're denying them. This is why you're not limiting people's freedom when you ignore them (because nobody has the right to be listened to), or when you stare at them in public (because nobody has the right not to be looked at). You have to possess an actual right to something for someone to be violating your freedom when they don't give it to you. You don't have the right to a particular job, or a particular job interview criteria, ergo nobody's "preventing [you] from being free" when they decide not to give it to you. It's that simple.

Basically, what you're suggesting is analagous to saying that the freedom of speech means I have to lend you my megaphone, or that I have to give a certain kind of reason if I don't want to.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Good grief, are you hearing yourself? This makes zero sense. Defending the right to do something is not the same as condoning it. You and I both believe many things we personally disapprove of should be legal, yes? Therefore, the statement above is false.

Reply below:
(In the case of saying it is permissible for private businesses to discriminate based on religion and skin color it is pretty much condoning it because you don't consider the evil it causes great enough for minorities to be protected by the law.)


This is a circular argument. You're saying the two are different because one is protected by law, and one isn't. Well, no duh. We're arguing about why that is and whether or not it should be.

Reply below:

I didn't say that at all. They are both protected by the law, but one is a specific constitutional protection. The specific reason for it is to protect minorities by abuses from the majority. It is not as you are implying the rights of one minority over another. It is an attempt to combat racism that took place predominantly but not exclusively in the South focused primarily on blacks by both government and the private sector. If private businesses were allowed to continue to discriminate even if the practice was outlawed for government, blacks would still have been second rate citizens. What you are advocating is tyranny of the majority, the right to subjugate and suppress the rights of the minority. And, yes, it is very much the responsibility of government to prevent that.

You are not providing a single reason here why the freedom to hire who you want is potentially reprehensible and must be restrained by law, but freedom of speech is necessary and therefore we must tolerate evils in the name of preserving it. You're just saying that you treat them differently (why?), and then reiterating that one is legal (not under dispute). Seriously, please re-read that quote. I defy you to tell me where the argument is.

Reply below:
We are not talking about the freedom to hire who you want. We are not talking about interpreting the civil rights laws with regard to hiring practices with regard to affirmative action. We are talking about a fundamental right that a person seeking employment not be prevented from being hired for the sole reason he has the wrong skin color. And your narrow casting the argument, a popular libertarian approach, ignores the broader implications, that it would allow discrimination on other levels than hiring, like realtors preventing minorities from moving into white neighborhoods.


Again, circular. Also, if you're advancing the idea that anything not specifically protected in the Constitution is therefore okay to impede, you're going to find yourself defending a whole lot of ridiculous things really quickly. To pick a completely random example: the right to a specific job is not in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The right to be hired by anyone for any reason isn't, either.

I didn't say that at all. And it is not something completely alien in the constitution either to prevent certain discriminatory practices. The Civil Rights law is simply an extension of the fourteenth amendment, specifically the equal protection clause.


The "freedom to live or move where you want" is not a thing. Probably because it only sounds good if you describe in that vague way. What that statement actually describes is making someone hire you even if they don't want to, or making someone sell you something they don't want to sell you. When described like that (that is to say, specifically and accurately), it becomes obvious that you absolutely do not have that right, and that it directly conflicts with someone else's right.

Of course freedom of movement is a fundamental right. To prevent someone from moving out of a slum neighborhood, not because he can't afford to live elsewhere, but because neighborhoods and realtors conspire to keep minorities out is a suppression of rights. If someone wants to move because they don't like who is moving in based on their skin color they can move out, that is their right. But they don't have a right to prevent them from moving in.


No, it isn't, for one simple, undeniable reason:

Nobody has the right to be hired for any particular job.

That's the whole ballgame. Unless you want to somehow insist that people have the right to a particular job, then there is no way to argue that discrimination violates people's freedoms. You can't stop someone from being free when their freedom does not inherently contain the thing you're denying them. This is why you're not limiting people's freedom when you ignore them (because nobody has the right to be listened to), or when you stare at them in public (because nobody has the right not to be looked at). You have to possess an actual right to something for someone to be violating your freedom when they don't give it to you. You don't have the right to a particular job, or a particular job interview criteria, ergo nobody's "preventing [you] from being free" when they decide not to give it to you. It's that simple.

Basically, what you're suggesting is analogous to saying that the freedom of speech means I have to lend you my megaphone, or that I have to give a certain kind of reason if I don't want to.
You keep creating analogies not based on anything I wrote. What you are saying with regard to rights is completely contradictory to the law even as it is interpeted by conservatives. Again, I never said anyone had a right to a job. I said they had a right not to be discriminated based on their skin color or religion. You avoid that language because you know what you are saying goes against even what mainstram conservatives advocate. Would any of the Supreme Court judges, even Republican nominees, agree with your interpatation of whose rights are being violated when when one group disciminates over another? Answer: No, they wouldn't, none of them.



You ready? You look ready.
__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza



In the case of saying it is permissible for private businesses to discriminate based on religion and skin color it is pretty much condoning it because you don't consider the evil it causes great enough for minorities to be protected by the law.
No, it is not "pretty much condoning it." Defending something's legality is not defending it morally, ethically, or in any other way. Defending the right to be a bigot is not defending bigotry, just as defending someone's right to say crazy, stupid crap isn't the same as defending its content.

I didn't say that at all. They are both protected by the law, but one is a specific constitutional protection. The specific reason for it is to protect minorities by abuses from the majority. It is not as you are implying the rights of one minority over another. It is an attempt to combat racism that took place predominantly but not exclusively in the South focused primarily on blacks by both government and the private sector. If private businesses were allowed to continue to discriminate even if the practice was outlawed for government, blacks would still have been second rate citizens. What you are advocating is tyranny of the majority, the right to subjugate and suppress the rights of the minority. And, yes, it is very much the responsibility of government to prevent that.
You're expending all these words and none of them are responding to the arguments being presented to you.

There are two components to this:

1) Is there a sound legal basis for outlawing discrimination?
2) What would happen (or have happened) if we hadn't outlawed it?

Personally, I think you're probably wrong about both, but the problem is that you're basically arguing about the 2nd point, even though I've been asking you about the 1st. So I ask you about legality, and you go on some spree about what you think would hve happened without civil rights legislation. It doesn't answer the argument, it's pretty much entirely speculation, and what's worse, it completely ignores everything that's been said about market-based punishment. You can find some of it right here. I believe it went unanswered.

We are not talking about the freedom to hire who you want.
Of course we are. Laws telling you what criteria you're allowed to use to hire someone (or not hire someone) are restricting people's freedom to hire who they want. How is this arguable?

We are not talking about interpreting the civil rights laws with regard to hiring practices with regard to affirmative action. We are talking about a fundamental right that a person seeking employment not be prevented from being hired for the sole reason he has the wrong skin color.
Do you think calling it a "fundamental right" makes it so? Whether or not it's a right--and/or conflicts with the employer's rights--is the entire point of the argument. Yet you keep assuming the thing being disputed, and then you present that assumption as if it were an argument.

And your narrow casting the argument, a popular libertarian approach, ignores the broader implications, that it would allow discrimination on other levels than hiring, like realtors preventing minorities from moving into white neighborhoods.
I haven't ignored this in the slightest. The arguments I'm making apply to all of these scenarios, as far as I can see. Legally it's the same idea, though I also disagree with your speculation about what it would lead to.

I didn't say that at all. And it is not something completely alien in the constitution either to prevent certain discriminatory practices. The Civil Rights law is simply an extension of the fourteenth amendment, specifically the equal protection clause.
The Equal Protection Clause simply affords equal protection under the law. The dispute here is about what should BE law. Again, you assume the thing being disputed.

Of course freedom of movement is a fundamental right. To prevent someone from moving out of a slum neighborhood, not because he can't afford to live elsewhere, but because neighborhoods and realtors conspire to keep minorities out is a suppression of rights.
Whoa, hold up. I didn't say anything about preventing someone from moving out, I said prevent someone from moving in. Legally, they're completely different. You sure can't stop someone from leaving your house, but you can absolutely tell them they can't come in.

Trying to equate the two, apart from just being flat-out-wrong in a legal sense, would also require you to assume some completely implausible things, like that everyone selling decent housing would engage in unthinkably widespread collusion to sut out minorities. Which requires you to believe that they'd all be able to agree on this, that absolutely no one would be enterprising enough to spot the tremendous money to be made in breaking ranks (or for starting a new business, if they're already outside the industry), that no one would be willing to sublet property or housing, and/or that minorities would somehow not be allowed to start their own housing businesses.

So, not only does none of this address the freedom/legal angle, but it requires some completely implausible world where bigotry completely overwhelms self-interest with nary an exception or anyone taking advantage of their collective, bigoted stupidity. It's a ridiculous notion.

If someone wants to move because they don't like who is moving in based on their skin color they can move out, that is their right. But they don't have a right to prevent them from moving in.
They do if they own the land or the house.

Seriously, please stop replying with things like "they have a fundmeantal right" or "they don't have a right to prevent them from moving in." That's not arguing or debating or discussing, that's just insisting.

You keep creating analogies not based on anything I wrote.
Not at all: it's based on your opinion. In my analogy, you're telling me I can't decide who uses my property unless I can demonstrate that my criteria for deciding that is not racially motivated. It's perfectly analagous to the examples of employment or housing.

What you are saying with regard to rights is completely contradictory to the law even as it is interpeted by conservatives. Again, I never said anyone had a right to a job. I said they had a right not to be discriminated based on their skin color or religion. You avoid that language because you know what you are saying goes against even what mainstram conservatives advocate. Would any of the Supreme Court judges, even Republican nominees, agree with your interpatation of whose rights are being violated when when one group disciminates over another? Answer: No, they wouldn't, none of them.
I do not care what you or anyone else regards as mainstream, extreme, or what percentage of any group of people would say about this. I keep saying this, and yet you keep trotting out references to something's political viability or popularity as if it were an argument.

We're not in a campaign here. You can't "win" by trying to make someone or something look extreme. You can't just ignore an argument because you don't think it has any political momentum. If you want to dispute something, you have to actually explain why it's wrong, not why a majority of this group or that group thinks so.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
I want to understand something here before I reply to this: Are you opposed to all aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 including ending Jim Crow laws or only that which prevents discrimination by private employers because the previous post does not make that clear?

And I have news for you. What I describe with regard to realtors, the massive conspiracy you find so implausible, was very common prior to the mid sixties. It isn't a fictional scenario at all.



I want to understand something here before I reply to this: Are you opposed to all aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 including ending Jim Crow laws or only that which prevents discrimination by private employers because the previous post does not make that clear?
I'm surprised you feel this was left unclear, but I'll gladly clarify: I am only talking about the provisions concerned with private employers. The rest was inarguably necessary; racial prejudice has absolutely no place in government. My comments are entirely about whether or not it's our place (let alone really plausible) to try to outlaw it in private.

This is Ron Paul's position, as well: he said he would have voted against the bill, but "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws."

And I have news for you. What I describe with regard to realtors, the massive conspiracy you find so implausible, was very common prior to the mid sixties. It isn't a fictional scenario at all.
Except that your argument about equating moving out with moving in hinges on it being all-encompassing. And even if it were, that still wouldn't address the market-based punishment. It leaves them wide open to anyone who values self-interest more than bigotry, or even to any enterprising minority individual of means.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
I gotta go, but here is a link showing what you seem to think should be legal.

http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants_report.htm

I am aware of Ron Paul's distinction, but your previous post was ambiguous when you mentioned the Civil Rights Act.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
I found this which does a better job of explaining why it is government's responsibility.

Following his tea-party insurgent Senate primary victory over the establishment Republican candidate in Kentucky, Rand Paul created waves when Rachel Maddow forced him, uncomfortably, to admit his opposition to parts of the Civil Rights Act. To many in the civil rights community, and to the political center, this comes as a shock.
It shouldn’t be.
For years, libertarians opposed government interference with private business, whether that means opposition to environmental regulation, labor laws, or anti-discrimination laws. The son of libertarian presidential candidate, Ron Paul, it’s not surprising that Rand Paul also believes those things. Rand Paul has made it clear that he’s not in favor of a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that he supports the vast majority of it. What’s the problem then? He specifically opposes the provisions that prohibit discrimination in what are known as ‘public accommodations,’ which are really private businesses such as hotels, movie theaters, or lunch counters.
His view is that, while private racial discrimination is anathema and despicable, it’s not something that the government should regulate. His argument, a libertarian argument, is that regulating private discrimination goes beyond the sphere of government authority. In addition, he argues, private discrimination is better regulated by market forces. In his view, and in the view of many libertarians, the private market would regulate and weed out businesses that discriminate, since business with what economists call a ‘taste for discrimination’ would lose patrons.
They are wrong.
They are wrong, first and foremost, because they miss the point. Discrimination isn’t about economic efficiency; it’s about morality, fairness, and a basic conception of equality; it’s about justice.
There is a broad literature in economics about the efficiency of slavery, and whether, in time, the institution of slavery would have withered and died, as it did in many northern states. This literature, while fascinating, is beside the point. The abolition of slavery was a moral imperative, not an economic one. The abolitionist movement emphasized the contradiction between the values of the young nation and the institution of slavery, a contradiction which the founding fathers struggled with.
Similarly, the prohibition of private discrimination in ‘public accommodations’ is a moral issue, as are a host of regulations we impose on business. For example, we prohibit businesses from exploiting child labor based on a moral judgment which says that it is wrong. At the turn of the 20th Century, growing opposition to child labor in the North caused many factories to move to the South, until national child labor laws were passed.
Rand Paul’s viewpoint, that private discrimination on the basis of race should not be illegal, would seem to suggest that he opposes the 1968 Civil Rights Act (aka the Fair Housing Act) in its entirety, since, unlike the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act targeted private individuals, not states. And, his position would also seem to permit discrimination not just on the basis of race, but on the basis of sex, religion, familial status, and disability. Someone should ask him if he would repeal the Fair Housing Act, since that is the logical consequence of his position. Then, he wouldn’t be able to hide behind state-targeted provisions.
But there are also other reasons which make it wrong. Rand Paul claims that “intent of the legislation… was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.” He’s wrong. The Civil Rights Act was not simply targeted at state sponsored behavior. After all, the Jim Crow laws and the public segregation and discrimination embodied in them were a manifestation of the values of the society, and the individuals within it.
In the South, segregation and Jim Crow were an expression of the values of the society, of the extant social norms and mores. Those values were also present in the north, except that segregation was more a matter of practice and custom than legislation. The Civil Rights Act targeted those laws, without question, but it also targeted the practices, values, norms, and prejudices from which those institutional forms of discrimination were an expression. It targeted the North, not simply the South. Rand Paul and other libertarians are attempting to rewrite history by suggesting that the Civil Rights Acts were merely targeting the institutionalized expression of these values. The Fair Housing Act (aka Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act), which targeted private housing discrimination, belies this point.
But even more deeply, the private/public distinction at the heart of the libertarian argument is flawed. As Justice Kennedy put it in his concurrence in Parents Involved: “The distinction between government and private action, furthermore, can be amorphous both as a historical matter and as a matter of present-day finding of fact. Laws arise from a culture and vice versa. Neither can assign to the other all responsibility for persisting injustices” (emphasis added).
He’s absolutely right.
In fact, the relationship between individual racist attitudes and law is at the heart of Chief Justice Taney infamous Dred Scot opinion. Chief Justice Taney held that persons of African descent were not – and could never be – citizens of the United States because white folks, not simply white governments, regarded them as inferior. It was the way in which white people in their private pursuits regarded black folk, not simply how states and white governments regarded them that was decisive:
“[Persons of African descent] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.”



I don't see any of the above coming into affect even if he's president for 8 years, so it doesn't matter. Hell it doesn't matter if it did because people are getting better at not being prejudice against race or sex.