http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008318
The Shelby Steele article ...
Thanks!
Thanks for the link, will read the artical when I get home tonight.
A walk down memory lane from 2003:
A Victory for White Guilt
WSJ Editorial Page ^ | June 26, 2003 | SHELBY STEELE
Posted on 06/27/2003 9:21:47 AM EDT by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/936594/posts
[snip]
Comments:
This decision says, "We agree that blacks are inherently and permanently inferior to whites." Wow.
4 posted on 06/27/2003 9:45:16 AM EDT by pabianice
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/936594/posts?page=4#4
*
I started a thread last night entitled: Why Do We Need States Anymore? By Rush Limbaugh. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com
Rush said this yesterday on his program [excerpted]:
.... "I got an e-mail from some wizard who thought he skewered me on one of my points and it's actually a great illustration of just how people don't understand how this stuff works.
He calls me a hypocrite and asks, "Why didn't you argue states' rights when the Supreme Court took away Florida's right to count its votes in November 2000?"
He thinks that I'm a hypocrite on this, but I'm being utterly consistent.
The Supreme Court of Florida had no right to rewrite Florida election law because no Supreme Court can create law.
There's no court that makes law, or is supposed to.
In the Florida decision, the U.S. Supreme Court correctly prevented the Florida Supreme Court from making law.
Let me ask you this: Do you think the Supreme Court had the power in the Dred Scott case to rule that slaves are property?
You know the official law of the land, according to the Supreme Court back in Dred Scott was that slaves were property.
Do you think the Supreme Court had the power to do that? I don't think they should have, but they did.
Do you think the Supreme Court had the power in Plessy vs. Ferguson to hold that separate but equal is equal?
I don't think so, but they did.
Dred Scott and Plessy were outrageous decisions, and they had to be fixed later on. ...."
Note the words, "..they had to be fixed later on."
For more insight, you may be interested in the thread I just started here, too:
2002: Justice Scalia's comments on constitutional interpretation
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/936601/posts
5 posted on 06/27/2003 9:52:07 AM EDT by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/936594/posts?page=5#5
Thanks for posting that link. I knew I could find it here. :o)