I was being very sarcastic Cohen. Mine was just a response to the assertions by refman that I found offensive. He claimed those that disagreed with him to be without common sense. I didn't hear you calling that offensive...just me. How can you not take into account that there was no way for these former slaves to receive reparations when they were alive? You really think anyone in that time would've listened to them? Absolutely not. I do think our government supported racism and discrimination in some way before the Civil Rights Act. Is that really hard to believe? We're only 40 years or so removed from people who weren't allowed to attend the same schools as other people, eat at the same restaurants, ride on the same buses. Before 1964, there were no laws against discrmination, excuse me if I view that as supporting discrimination in a way. Who would be against reparations for those who were slaves if they demanded them?
dylan, refman, who I suspect is more likely a failed law school student or a paralegal, is just being disingenuous. The exact same lawsuit cannot be filed in the exact same court a second time. You could take the exact same lawsuit to a different court, or you could sue for the exact same thing using a different victim, or you could sue for the exact same thing making a different legal argument. So while he is technically correct, he is purposely being misleading (if he is in fact a lawyer) by leaving out information and using legal latin to make himself sound smart. Sorry Cohen, I completely disagree with your assessment of this guy.
This is an issue that has absolutely no support anywhere. If the City Council of Houston, a majority minority city, can't put it on the agenda, good luck getting anything done in places where the demographics are more in line with the rest of America. Here is a controversial statement (Timing, Hayes Street, Batman get ready): There is no doubt that slavery was an atrocity. However, would one agree or disagree that blacks in the United States today are better off than blacks in Africa today? Would one agree or disagree that blacks would have the presence (# of people) they have in the United States without the existence of slavery. With these points established, can one say that slavery had its benefits in America? NOTE: These are just questions. These are not opinions.
Hayes, while I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding refman's legal prowess or lack thereof, my question wasn't about suing twice over the same matter. He stated earlier "A lawsuit at the time would have been unsuccessful because slavery was not illegal when it happened. There is a provision in the Constitution that does not allow ex post facto." He said this after timing noted that due to widespread legal prejudice a lawsuit could not have been realistically filed even if blacks had tried. Refman then said the above as if to say "well even if there wasn't prejudice the suit could not have been filed due to ex post facto." But my question to refman is if this is true, why did the Japense who were interned get compensation over the supreme court twice OK'ed it?
I really cannot believe that you have decided to get extremely personal and attack my professional skill. I worked very hard and received my law degree at the same ceremony as MadMax. so if you don't believe me ask him. I am currently looking at my law license dated November 1, 2000. You can disagree with me all you want, but don't toss around dispersions on how I earn my livelihood. What you say about refiling suits would not fly under the full faith and credit clause. Once a suit has been litigated that is it...period. If the suit was never decided on its merits then it becomes a different story. In the future I would appreciate it if you'd try to keep this away from my professional prowess. This is twice that you have done this. You sir are being an a$$.
I could explain to you my points further but since you think I'm incompetent, why would I waste my time? The fact of the matter here is that you do not know me and you have not seen my legal work. You are basing all of this on a few VERY general statements on a BBS. Those who actually have seen my work know that I'm pretty good at what I do. Am I the greatest lawyer ever? No. But to say that I lack prowess is inaccurate and presumptuous. You and Hayes really need to stop being a$$es.
BEST Post in this forum and something that I entirely agree with. I think people pushing monetary reparations are minimizing the significance of these people in building this country. I would donate for this and i'm sure most corporations, people and governements would to increase eduction about the African Slaves role in creating the economy that we benefit from today. In terms of Monetary reparations, I feel everyone, including Africans enjoy the fruits of their labor in today's society. Because of the African-Slave's work, the economy is stronger and we have culturally benefitted as well. This strength in the economy allows us to have government services that include free education, social security, law and order, medicare and medicaid, welfare and other social services that are produced by income derived from a strong capitalist system. For those who wish to recieve funding based on being slaves in America, you should also look to the African Tribes that enslaved them in the first place. Oh wait, Africa is the most corrupt, and economically deprived place on earth in which starvation is extremely common, AIDS is decimating the population and education is only a myth in most areas. I may get bashed for saying this: But I think African-Americans, even with the racism in the US, are MUCH better off than those who didn't become slaves and stayed in Africa, that continent is a War Zone. View some footage of the Hutu-Tutsi slaughters in Rwanda, the starvation in Ethiopia and Somalia. Hell, the luckiest Africans were the ones that were enslaved and brought to the US, for their hard work created a system in which their descendants and the entire US recieve a benefit. I've been to Africa, in terms of racism, there isn't any, but social mobility is impossible. Unless you are part of the .05% percent of the "elite" class, you are nothing there. And if the slaves ancestors were enslaved, they probably did not belong to those "elite" groups. America is the land of opportunity, everyone has one. This is just another scheme by legal groups because they've finished big tobacco and now are moving on the racism and fast food.
dylan, you are correct. My bad. For some reason I confused your question with (Timing's maybe) point about suing twice.
Wow. This thread is actually improving....not just a massive racial argument. Nice point, FDK. I would be supportive of that sort of education. And I agree that handouts would belittle the contributions of African slaves and their decendants to the construction of this great country. But that Quannel X guy, I dont think he agrees.
How is questioning someone's law abilities any different from saying someone who disagrees with you lacks common sense or that African-Americans who are for reparations only want money?
Quannel X doesn't agree with much...he seems like that type of person who isn't happy unless he's b****in bout something. Agreed, the thread has improved a bit..I just wish some more folks would chime in with their opinions, this is becoming a 3 way argument.. As for my opinion, I already gave it...and as noted b4, I strongly agree with AstroRocket's assessment ...
Sorry slick, but if you are referencing yourself as an authority on the law, you and your 'professional' background are subject to scrutiny. The point was made that if the reparations suit failed in court, it would be tried again and again until the desirable (some would say 'just') verdict/decision was returned. You say 'Not possible because of Rectus Abdominus.' If you were correct, then as dylan pointed out, the internment reparations issue would have died after the FIRST Supreme Court decision. It didn't. In fact, it didn't after the SECOND Supreme Court decision. Please explain. How is it possible that there were HUNDREDS of tobacco lawsuits defeated, and yet more filings with the same arguments continue to be brought forth, and fewer and fewer are being thrown out despite the defendants being the same? Please explain.
Reparations are a joke. Ok, I will agree to them with these conditions. Only people who were slave owners must pay, and only people that were slaves can receive the benefit. Offer free shipping back to the Africa for anyone who is unhappy living in the USA and feels their ancestors were unjustly uprooted. Common sense people...common sense.... Waste of time...and our tax dollars are paying these people.......SHEESH !!! DaDakota
Ummm, refman, I did not say you were incompetent. I know nothing about you and I have no idea about your lawyerly skills or lack thereof. I don't agree with HayesStreet, and I don't disagree. Please stop being so incredibly oversensitive. Hell this is the first time I've exchanged posts with you so it's not like we have a history or something. I'm an analytical chemist and if you said I could be a bad chemist, you'd be right. I could also be a good chemist. You have no way if knowing therefore you shouldn't assume I'm an expert chemist just becuase I have a degree. Sound fair? Sheesh! Now, could you please, oh great and wise lawyer, deign to answer my question? It's a serious question and since I am not a lawyer I don't know the answer. Could you bless me with a small fragment of your mad skillz?
Originally posted by Rocketman95 I was being very sarcastic Cohen. Mine was just a response to the assertions by refman that I found offensive. He claimed those that disagreed with him to be without common sense. I didn't hear you calling that offensive...just me. Because my impression was that Refman was supporting AstroRocket's post, which I did not believe contradicted anyone's position here. Maybe I overemphasized his second paragraph and downplayed the first. How can you not take into account that there was no way for these former slaves to receive reparations when they were alive? You really think anyone in that time would've listened to them? Absolutely not. Thats correct. I'm not arguing the point. The point that I am making that the opportunity to 'repair' is gone. Those people are dead. It is impossible to go around 'repairing' history. It just cannot be done. Again, the fact that the Civil Rights Act was passed is not sufficient to deduce that the Federal Government was wronging people the day before. I do think our government supported racism and discrimination in some way before the Civil Rights Act. Is that really hard to believe? You can believe it, but unless you support it with specifics, you may not get anyone else to. I admit a certain amount of ignorance in this area. I have certainly heard of how the Federal government faced off with some States after the CRA, but I have heard little of what the Feds did prior to that. What do you know? We're only 40 years or so removed from people who weren't allowed to attend the same schools as other people, eat at the same restaurants, ride on the same buses. Which of those are the federal government's fault? Before 1964, there were no laws against discrmination, excuse me if I view that as supporting discrimination in a way. I will.
As for internment reparations...Id's have to see the court's opinion. In any event, such interrment was unconstitutional. It may have been a different Constitutional argument than was made the first 2 times to the Court. That being said, Congress appropriated the funds. In order for the Court to rule on it somebody would have to file a lawsuit AFTER the funds were appropriated. As for tobacco litigation...the arguments made their were thrown out consistently. Then some novel arguments were made. That suit was successful in Florida. Also EACH state has to make their law on this. Accordingly, many of the tobacco suits that were thrown out were done in many different states. That was just each state making its own law on the subject. That really doesn't fit the case here since this is a federal, not a state, issue. I hope that makes my point more clear.
Hmmm, I'm confused again. You said a lawsuit would have to be filed after Congress appropriated funds? Do you mean appropriated funds for reparations or do you mean funds for sutting up the camps in the first place? I'm not doubting you but that just seems weird to me if it's the former. It looks like you're saying that Congress would have to appropriate funds for reparations just in case the suit went in favor of the Japanese before the Japanese could even file suit?
I said... You said... Then you said... This contradicts your 'period' assertion. It ALSO is EXACTLY what I said (reread the last sentence of my quote). And it shows you were either misunderstanding the point of filing the same suit over and over again or being disingenuous. Even if you were pointing out that the (literal) 'same' suit could not be brought twice, as in Mr X. v the government twice, you are giving a false impression that the 'same' type of suit could not be brought once the Court had ruled on the legal points. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were being disingenous. I don't understand this. Can you elaborate?
I don't know about the funding, but doesn't the government have to approve of a suit against it before you can sue it?
I must not have been clear. My bad (I'm NOT being sarcastic...I really want to be clear). If the Court had ruled that interrment camps were not any type of violation, that does not stop Congress from disagreeing and appropriating funds for reparations. Once Congress takes that action then an individual could file suit seeking Congress to be overruled. If no such complaint is filed, then the Court will sit by and watch the reparation funds be distributed. The Court cannot of its own volition stop Congress from acting upon Congress' resolution. That is one way that the government can pay reparations for acts the Court found to be legal. I'm not sure whether this is what happened with Japanese interrment, but this is one viable way that this could have gone down.
