Federal Judge rules "No fundamental right to literacy"

[Rev. Rye]

The judge is in violation of Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Even an illiterate lawyer should be able to win that case before the old buzzards in the SCOTUS.
A person isn't really educated unless he can read and write at least one language.  

Detriot and Chicago are two of the most racist cities in America against blacks.  Their intent is to drive all of the blacks out of those cities.

I hate to break it to you, but in America, it actually isn't binding law. According to Sosa v. Alzarez-Machain (2004), "The United States ratified the [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] on the express understanding that it was not self-executing and so did not itself create obligations enforceable in the federal courts."

Why, yes, that does suck. The fact remains (as I argued on another thread) that, barring what is explicitly provided for by the Constitution, our laws are ultimately at the mercy of judges who have their own agendas and prejudices and given the right opportunity and a sufficiently changed set of circumstances, all our laws are potentially up for grabs. Normally, this isn't much of a problem, but with this presidency and the Republican Party's turn into a Far-Right party that doesn't even try to hide its contempt for the people (especially the minorities) it's something that we have to watch out for, especially with Anthony Kennedy's imminent retirement and his inevitable replacement.