NBC Agitates for the Last Step Before Violent Civil War: Voting for Trump Is Illegal, and the Government Should Act to Forbid It

Come and arrest me for voting against the violent revolutionary left, Noah.

Come slap a citizens arrest on me.

We'll see who winds up in a small confined space.

Noah Berlatsky Trump voters motivated by racism may be violating the Constitution. Can they be stopped?

Republicans and Democrats alike have been unwilling to reprimand voters or to hold them accountable. But racist voting isn't an accident.

Say, are there any Democrats motivated by racism or antisemtism, I wonder?

I know Obama met with and posed for pictures with antisemitic cult leader Louis Farrakhan.

Should we deploy the police around polling stations in Democrat cities?

By Noah Berlatsky

If the Trump era has taught us anything, it's that large numbers of white people in the United States are motivated at least in part by racism in the voting booth.

Seems like you should just strip them of their right to vote.

Pretty straightforward from here, as Sally Kohn once said

...

Some politicians deny the evidence, no doubt because they don't want to alienate white voters, including prejudiced ones. Other commentators try to parse whether Trump's racism will be a winning strategy in 2020. Terry Smith, a visiting professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, offers a different response in his new book, "Whitelash: Unmasking White Grievance at the Ballot Box." Rather than excuse racist voters or try to figure out how to live with their choices, he argues that racist voting is not just immoral, but illegal. The government, Smith says, has the ability, and the responsibility, to address it.

This sounds radical.

Sounds. A bit.

But Smith argues that it's in line with the Constitution and with years of court rulings. For example, Smith points out that racist appeals in union elections are illegal and that an election in which one side uses racist appeals can be invalidated by the National Labor Relations Board. Similarly, in the 2016 case Peña v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court ruled that when a juror expresses overt bigotry, the jury's verdict should be invalidated.

,,,

So how can you tell when voters are acting out of prejudice? Again, Smith says, employment discrimination law provides a useful analogy. In discrimination cases, courts look for pretexts. If someone gives a reason for a hiring decision that is obviously false or makes little sense in context, the court has good reason to believe that prejudice or bias may have influenced the hiring decision.

Trump's unprecedented, compulsive, easily documented lying during the 2016 campaign made him an irrational choice. It's reasonable to conclude that voters were willing to swallow the falsehoods because they liked what they heard: overt racist appeals and incessant lies about rising crime rates. Research has since suggested that plenty of Trump voters were indeed strongly motivated by racist resentment and anti-immigrant animus.

As you can probably tell, this is heading for the conclusion that "the government" -- or at least the parts of it in leftist, Marxist hands -- should step in to find that Trump's election was based on "racism" and thereby invalidate it.

The usual remedy for racial discrimination is censure or fines -- as Trump was subjected to when the Justice Department found that his housing developments were discriminating against black tenants in the 1970s. It's more difficult to censure voters who have violated their constitutional duties. Nullifying elections would be essentially impossible. But Smith argues that there are other options.

...

Even more ambitiously, Smith suggests expanding the Voting Rights Act to address the racist patterns of voting in Senate elections in the South. Because the majority of white voters in the South vote Republican, and because they outnumber black voters, there isn't a single Democratic senator from the Deep South other than Doug Jones in Alabama, who may well lose his seat in 2020. Smith argues that we could remedy these disparate, racially motivated outcomes by creating Senate districts. Presumably, that would make it at least possible for black voters to elect a senator who would support their interests.

They continue becoming more lunatic, more radical, and more extreme about imposing a New Jim Crow aimed at creating an exciting new Officially Disfavored Race, and they think we're just going to bargain and compromise with them about how much enforced servitude we're willing to accept.

And for those who say "Oh, this is just an opinion piece" --

1, it's an opinion piece pushed by a billion-dollar corporation. They've moved the Overton Window to the point where this now fair grist for consideration.

2, The opinion they're pushing is an official government apartheid, but with a target class selected by the antifa left.

3, the extremism of their demands is accelerating. Only recently they started agitating to repeal the First Amendment's right to free speech; that is now in peril, and restricted where it still exists. Now they're upping the ante to say that the right to vote must also be limited -- and preserved only for the right people, who vote the "right way."

4, the last opinion they pushed -- which the "reasonable" fake conservatives told me wasn't anything to worry about -- was the idea that a man could wake up one day and declare himself a woman, and that I would be under legal compulsion to agree with his delusion.

And now that's a fact of daily life.

These are not just hot takes. These are previews of coming attractions.

This will not end well.

But it will end.

posted by Ace at 04:40 PM

| Access Comments