(June 9, 2020 at 11:15 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(June 9, 2020 at 11:06 am)onlinebiker Wrote: You think that the state can nulify legal contracts that it entered into anytime there is popular support to do so?
Think that is a good precidence?
Sorry, Brian, but I gotta go with OLB on this one. No matter how repugnant you find the Confederate monuments (and I agree with your sentiment), there’s a little thing called ‘due process’. And it matters. A lot.
Boru
I agree with "due process". It still sucks, and it still is a no brainer.
But lets face it, humans, no matter the nation, when abused are going to react.
It amounts to me which is more understandable in logic. Giving benefit of the doubt to to the wrong side of history, or someone who commits civil unrest in interest of saying, "Stop stepping on my neck".
If I were a judge, and had two cases in front of me. One brought to me by assholes clinging to the past out of fear to keep a horrible symbol in a position of honor up, vs another case where someone or group of people tore down that symbol and dumped it in a river without legal process. Guess who I am going to have more sympathy for?
In an ideal world you are correct "due process" keeps society civil But what good is any law or "due process" if all it does is maintain a lopsided social structure and perpetuates inequality? The people who want to keep that statue up hide behind "protect history" which is not the point. They want to protect the social structure and dominance through monuments of "honor" which we all know the South was on the wrong side of history.
But at least we both agree it still sucks. But we cant be so rigid in law, to ignore history. If the law was always the law and never meant to be broken, then Harriett Tubman was a law breaker. I don't know about you, but I am damned pissed that Trump scuttled her image replacing Genocidal Andrew Jackson on the $20. Now if you ask me the real law breaker was Jackson, not Tubman.
