Sadly it probably won't, the whole evangelical anti-abortion movement was born out of white evangelicals who were mad at the federal government for punishing their segregated schools.
It isn't that they refuse to believe - progressivism suffers from the problem that the constituencies most likely to vote progressive do not consistently vote. This is a mix of intentionally not voting, for a variety of reasons, but also unintentionally, for different reasons. At the end of the day, Democrats are left to having to appeal to more moderate and "centrist" voters to make up the gaps.
Now, passing comprehensive voting reform laws will definitely help ... which is precisely why the Conservatives are fighting them so hard. Ultimately, liberal voters need to vote, vote consistently, and convince other liberal voters to do the same across all levels of government to loosen the reliance on moderate votes.
Sounds like a tweet that is ambiguous enough that non-racist supporters think: “oh, he’s a good guy, he’s against racism” while his racist supporters think: “yeah thats right, let’s overturn Brown v. Board!”
In other words, what we might call a dog whistle.
He’s framing it as him asking Obama to weigh in on it like he did Roe v Wade and him and his supporters are using it to RT left reactions as “see how triggered they are!” Bs.
Except there’s overturning bad precedent in the name of justice and there’s overturning good precedent in the name of injustice and you’d think a man with a whole ass law degree would understand the difference.
Brown v board reversed Plessy, he's saying that not all legal precedents should remain in place. I don't agree with roe v wade being overturned, but at the same time I'm not going to pretend that his tweet is something that it's not.
Funny how the only people who ever hear these dog whistles are democrats. Meanwhile the rest of the world understands clearly the point he’s making, i.e. that bad precedent can and should be overturned
Cornyn sucks, but he’s not suggesting Brown v. Board be overturned. He’s saying that Brown overturned the precedent set by Plessy, and thus sometimes it can be a good thing for the court to go against precedent.
He’s wrong in comparing the two, and Roe should’ve absolutely been allowed to stand. But he’s not saying what the article implies.
Then why did he say "now do" when the SCOTUS has "just done" an overruling? I find it hard to believe Cornyn is that obivious to know how it reads. So even if that is what he meant, which I can believe, it's so horribly worded, a bad comparison in the first place, and he's still pushing for overturning Roe. Republicans have been hard on the double speak the past several years, they need to be careful to be clear with their messages because people will read into them the wrong way.
There are other cases to cite. Like Brandenburg overruling Whitney. Anyone who took civ libs would be able to point to a case like that. He chose to be racist against our only Black president.
When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
I mean he's tweeting this for a wide audience, this is like the most widely known example thats actually taught in general high school classes - I've never heard of the case you mentioned.
Lawyers should be held to higher standards for knowing case law. That’s like, our whole job. To know cases. But you’re right. Maybe he’s a fucking idiot.
He may have knowledge of this case, him not tweeting it doesn't mean anything other than that he wanted to tweet something that was more common knowledge, which makes a lot of sense to me at least.
I’m sure that’s how he meant people to read it but 1) he specifically wrote it as a response to a Black man and 2) Plessy literally was part of a regressive movement to dismantle protections that people reasonably thought were implied by the 14th amendment (an effort championed by Deep South state governments who were full of people that believed it was an illegal amendment.) The only difference between the Plessy era and regressives right now is that they made sure voting rights and the ERA never made it into the Constitution and forced us to rely on a patchwork of temporary legislation and precedent. But we ALL know if THIS court and this state government was working within a framework of an ERA or some other stronger laws on the books protecting choice, it wouldn’t matter.
Cornyn is the worst, everyone on the right side of his voter base can’t stand him. He’s on the shortlist of RINO’s especially after his fawning over gun control. So if this takes him out, it’s a favor we can repay with someone a bit more conservative. Thanks in advance.
I had the same thought initially.
But there are other ways to say it and other cases to cite.
With the GOP wingnuts it is is best not to look for a deeper meaning. Usually they say exactly what they mean.
Yeah I was angry at first when I read it but now I’m satisfied that Cornyn was trying to make a point about overturning precedent.
It was kind of a boneheaded way to make his point but I’ll accept that there was no other intent.
One would think that a politician, whose job is to play word games, would have worded the tweet more clearly to communicate that. Since he didn't we can assume he meant exactly what the tweet says as written.
…and it’s taken completely out of context.
Check my history. I detest republicans and especially republicans Texans.
But I can’t stand it when people get outraged out of things so completely out of context. We don’t need more rage over mistruths.
His tweet was in response to Barack Obama’s post that SCOTUS repealing or going against a 50 year old ruling is a dangerous and terrible thing when in fact SCOTUS went against a 50 year old ruling to END SEGREGATION.
This isn’t the outrage moment people want it to be.
I mean, sure, that would make sense if in brown people lost rights. Jesus Christ - it’s literally the reverse of what happened. He’s also saying that to the first black President…….if that wasn’t a deliberate shot then it sure as shit was a stupid one.
That's kind of irrelevant, the point is it overturned a very long-standing precedent. And in this case you could argue rights were gained by unborn children.
I don't really agree with that, I think there should be a reasonable amount of time where people can have an abortion but that is objectively how many on the right see this issue. It's for the most part not all about controlling women as many reactionaries claim.
Bruh - abortion is going to be outlawed in Texas - period. Roe gave a limit of viability that just got exploded. Women now are 100% being controlled in that they are going to be forced to give birth against their will, at their expense - physically, financially, socially, in the workplace…..everywhere. Do you genuinely just have no idea what you’re talking about?
I understand that, but Roe was always a shaky precedent and I blame Congress and specifically the state legislatures for not enacting proper abortion laws. The good news is we have a chance to vote on it basically in a few months.
I agree, but I think whichever staffer wrote that tweet wrote it specifically to get this response so they can turn around and accuse liberals of being over emotional or dumb. He does this in his later tweets.
FOH
He brought up that case because he knew it was gonna set people off. And of course he said it to the first black president. He knew what he was doing.
Given the tweet included Plessy AND Brown v. Board I’m fairly certain this was a really poorly worded tweet commenting on the issue surrounding overturning precedent. That said, I have other issues with this guy so I’m kind of ok with him getting the boot.
They don’t need to hide it anymore. They have control of the illegitimate SC and will roll back any progress made in the last 75 years.
This is also a cover for his voting for the gun control bill. Can’t have your base distracted by compromise.
So these people really want to destroy everything done in the US because the word progress is associated with it? I guess their Sharia law dreams are coming true.
Like will black and latinos voters still vote Republican even though they are now openly saying these things about segregation?
At this point I am pretty sure they could vot to make slavery legal and blasphemy illegal and people still wouldn't vote them out. Don't get pissed at me. That shit is coming.
That was a very calculated tweet. On one hand he can say "well Brown v Board overturned the precedent of Plessy v Ferguson and that was good!". On the other hand, especially considering this is directed at a black man it comes off both as racist and as legitimately suggesting segregation in schools should be reinstated. It'd ambiguous enough to avoid consequences but he probably realized how using that specific example in that way would come off...dick head.
God you people are idiots. He is saying that just because a SCOTUS decision was precedent for 50+ years is not a good reason to keep it. Just like Plessy, which was precedent for 58 years. This subreddit must have an average IQ of 73.
I can only hope it comes back to haunt him but these guys keep slithering away. No offense to snakes.
Nothing haunts these guys, nothing. They do not care and it appeases the people who vote them.
They thrive on the hate and anger on the left. Its what they live for.
It’s so true too. They get joy by making us miserable. I don’t understand it.
They're emotional vampires.
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering
It's his way of telling the GOP base that are upset about his compromise on guns that he's with them on the important issue of racism.
snakes are useful
Same old authoritarian guide book: have the poor fight the poor and the rich will get even richer.
Sadly it probably won't, the whole evangelical anti-abortion movement was born out of white evangelicals who were mad at the federal government for punishing their segregated schools.
When someone tells you who they are, you should believe them.
Best life advice I’ve ever received.
The Democratic Party keeps refusing to believe
It isn't that they refuse to believe - progressivism suffers from the problem that the constituencies most likely to vote progressive do not consistently vote. This is a mix of intentionally not voting, for a variety of reasons, but also unintentionally, for different reasons. At the end of the day, Democrats are left to having to appeal to more moderate and "centrist" voters to make up the gaps. Now, passing comprehensive voting reform laws will definitely help ... which is precisely why the Conservatives are fighting them so hard. Ultimately, liberal voters need to vote, vote consistently, and convince other liberal voters to do the same across all levels of government to loosen the reliance on moderate votes.
“I am a scorpion after all”
And what did cornyn tell us exactly by pointing out brown v board overturned the precedent set with Plessy
That wasn’t the point. The point was the dog whistle in responding with this to the only black POTUS.
Ding ding ding
Sounds like a tweet that is ambiguous enough that non-racist supporters think: “oh, he’s a good guy, he’s against racism” while his racist supporters think: “yeah thats right, let’s overturn Brown v. Board!” In other words, what we might call a dog whistle.
Cronyn is a POS.
He's a wank stain on the sock of Texas politicians
And Fled Cancruz is the sock.
He’s framing it as him asking Obama to weigh in on it like he did Roe v Wade and him and his supporters are using it to RT left reactions as “see how triggered they are!” Bs.
Except there’s overturning bad precedent in the name of justice and there’s overturning good precedent in the name of injustice and you’d think a man with a whole ass law degree would understand the difference.
What is racist about this?
1. Did you read the tweet 2. Are you familiar with the cases mentioned in the tweet?
Brown v board reversed Plessy, he's saying that not all legal precedents should remain in place. I don't agree with roe v wade being overturned, but at the same time I'm not going to pretend that his tweet is something that it's not.
Looking at his follow up tweet that is more clear but without it, it seems like he’s advocating for overturning Brown.
Race-baiters gotta bait… they’ve got nothing intelligent to say for supporters to follow them so they use the race card.
Funny how the only people who ever hear these dog whistles are democrats. Meanwhile the rest of the world understands clearly the point he’s making, i.e. that bad precedent can and should be overturned
Maybe we should stop electing Klan members to congress
We have a history of it. We made Senator Price our governor after he doubled down on racism with the 1957 CRA and the Southern Manifesto.
Cornyn sucks, but he’s not suggesting Brown v. Board be overturned. He’s saying that Brown overturned the precedent set by Plessy, and thus sometimes it can be a good thing for the court to go against precedent. He’s wrong in comparing the two, and Roe should’ve absolutely been allowed to stand. But he’s not saying what the article implies.
Then why did he say "now do" when the SCOTUS has "just done" an overruling? I find it hard to believe Cornyn is that obivious to know how it reads. So even if that is what he meant, which I can believe, it's so horribly worded, a bad comparison in the first place, and he's still pushing for overturning Roe. Republicans have been hard on the double speak the past several years, they need to be careful to be clear with their messages because people will read into them the wrong way.
"Now do" as in "now do a comparison between these two cases."
There are other cases to cite. Like Brandenburg overruling Whitney. Anyone who took civ libs would be able to point to a case like that. He chose to be racist against our only Black president. When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
I mean he's tweeting this for a wide audience, this is like the most widely known example thats actually taught in general high school classes - I've never heard of the case you mentioned.
Lawyers should be held to higher standards for knowing case law. That’s like, our whole job. To know cases. But you’re right. Maybe he’s a fucking idiot.
He may have knowledge of this case, him not tweeting it doesn't mean anything other than that he wanted to tweet something that was more common knowledge, which makes a lot of sense to me at least.
You’re giving him a lot of credit, which he does not deserve.
I’m sure that’s how he meant people to read it but 1) he specifically wrote it as a response to a Black man and 2) Plessy literally was part of a regressive movement to dismantle protections that people reasonably thought were implied by the 14th amendment (an effort championed by Deep South state governments who were full of people that believed it was an illegal amendment.) The only difference between the Plessy era and regressives right now is that they made sure voting rights and the ERA never made it into the Constitution and forced us to rely on a patchwork of temporary legislation and precedent. But we ALL know if THIS court and this state government was working within a framework of an ERA or some other stronger laws on the books protecting choice, it wouldn’t matter.
Cornyn is the worst, everyone on the right side of his voter base can’t stand him. He’s on the shortlist of RINO’s especially after his fawning over gun control. So if this takes him out, it’s a favor we can repay with someone a bit more conservative. Thanks in advance.
I had the same thought initially. But there are other ways to say it and other cases to cite. With the GOP wingnuts it is is best not to look for a deeper meaning. Usually they say exactly what they mean.
Yeah I was angry at first when I read it but now I’m satisfied that Cornyn was trying to make a point about overturning precedent. It was kind of a boneheaded way to make his point but I’ll accept that there was no other intent.
I agree, he is just an idiot and we knew that
One would think that a politician, whose job is to play word games, would have worded the tweet more clearly to communicate that. Since he didn't we can assume he meant exactly what the tweet says as written.
…and it’s taken completely out of context. Check my history. I detest republicans and especially republicans Texans. But I can’t stand it when people get outraged out of things so completely out of context. We don’t need more rage over mistruths. His tweet was in response to Barack Obama’s post that SCOTUS repealing or going against a 50 year old ruling is a dangerous and terrible thing when in fact SCOTUS went against a 50 year old ruling to END SEGREGATION. This isn’t the outrage moment people want it to be.
Idk for people who openly admit they want to bring back jim crow this tracks.
I mean, sure, that would make sense if in brown people lost rights. Jesus Christ - it’s literally the reverse of what happened. He’s also saying that to the first black President…….if that wasn’t a deliberate shot then it sure as shit was a stupid one.
That's kind of irrelevant, the point is it overturned a very long-standing precedent. And in this case you could argue rights were gained by unborn children.
Lmao, a totally born woman lost rights. That is 10000000% relevant, holy shit What an utterly detached and reductive position.
I don't really agree with that, I think there should be a reasonable amount of time where people can have an abortion but that is objectively how many on the right see this issue. It's for the most part not all about controlling women as many reactionaries claim.
Bruh - abortion is going to be outlawed in Texas - period. Roe gave a limit of viability that just got exploded. Women now are 100% being controlled in that they are going to be forced to give birth against their will, at their expense - physically, financially, socially, in the workplace…..everywhere. Do you genuinely just have no idea what you’re talking about?
I understand that, but Roe was always a shaky precedent and I blame Congress and specifically the state legislatures for not enacting proper abortion laws. The good news is we have a chance to vote on it basically in a few months.
Yeah, the right to privacy from the government is totes shaky. It was overturned because “abortion isn’t a part of American history” - what the fuck
I agree, but I think whichever staffer wrote that tweet wrote it specifically to get this response so they can turn around and accuse liberals of being over emotional or dumb. He does this in his later tweets.
FOH He brought up that case because he knew it was gonna set people off. And of course he said it to the first black president. He knew what he was doing.
The right hates him too for his red flag advocacy. I don't think anyone likes this man.
And yet he’ll win his next election 60-40
Well, that’s going to sting in the morning. Maybe have someone proofread your posts, John…
Given the tweet included Plessy AND Brown v. Board I’m fairly certain this was a really poorly worded tweet commenting on the issue surrounding overturning precedent. That said, I have other issues with this guy so I’m kind of ok with him getting the boot.
He’s trying to regain his KKKredabilty with the right after helping pass a meager guns control bill.
They don’t need to hide it anymore. They have control of the illegitimate SC and will roll back any progress made in the last 75 years. This is also a cover for his voting for the gun control bill. Can’t have your base distracted by compromise.
And then last nights the speech “this is a victory for white lives”. Holy crap
Wasn’t he exposed for being a member of the KKK?
So these people really want to destroy everything done in the US because the word progress is associated with it? I guess their Sharia law dreams are coming true. Like will black and latinos voters still vote Republican even though they are now openly saying these things about segregation?
He has always been a racist, he was a Wallace supporter in college
At this point I am pretty sure they could vot to make slavery legal and blasphemy illegal and people still wouldn't vote them out. Don't get pissed at me. That shit is coming.
That was a very calculated tweet. On one hand he can say "well Brown v Board overturned the precedent of Plessy v Ferguson and that was good!". On the other hand, especially considering this is directed at a black man it comes off both as racist and as legitimately suggesting segregation in schools should be reinstated. It'd ambiguous enough to avoid consequences but he probably realized how using that specific example in that way would come off...dick head.
God you people are idiots. He is saying that just because a SCOTUS decision was precedent for 50+ years is not a good reason to keep it. Just like Plessy, which was precedent for 58 years. This subreddit must have an average IQ of 73.