Biden signs bill making lynching a federal hate crime

@Torsten Fell free to move on. Sorry you're so intimidated; you can counteract that with education.

@Graylight intimidated? I am not the one refusing to go look at evidence to support claims that dont match my own. That is intimidated and pathetic. I am done talking to you, You have the mentality of a child who is living is a fantasy and not ready to face the real world. I have wasted enough time on you. cya

@Torsten If he committed crimes on a national stage, he’d be investigated for it. If he were hurting so many people, someone would talk.

It’s you an your ilk who talk out of their asses about things with which they have absolutely no experience who drag down an entire society.

You are willfully ignorant. That means every morning, you make the decision to act like an idiot. Good luck with that choice.

@spjennifer 1.5 months, SCOTUS will treat it as an emergency and non originalist ruling, and reverse it.

@spjennifer Based on what those did to the Voters’ Rights Act, I can guess what they will do: declare the bill irrelevant because no one can "prove" they were lynched. 😳

@bijouxbroussard You may well be right, I guess it's easier to get away with things in the South when you're wearing a white sheet... 😖

I really don’t trust Scott and it has nothing to do with his race.@bijouxbroussard

@BackyardShaman I don’t trust Scott and it does have to do with his race. I put him in the same category as “Uncle” Clarence Thomas.

Yeah really you’re right, my angle is Lindsey Scott and Tim Graham but you’re right.@bijouxbroussard

@independentone hang mike pence .. remember
Trump defends Jan. 6 rioters' 'hang Mike Pence' chant

@independentone of course it is.

@markansas
[media=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St_egZE0Jz4]

@walabby Correct, says the non-American!

@walabby True, but this causes infinitely more trouble than it does create any real benefit. States' laws only mean inconsistency, jurisdictions, different penalties and interpretations of the same materials. Moreover, lynching in the past has been used as a form of social control (and there were more than 4,000 lynchings between 1882-1968.) They have been a nationwide problem and it's entirely appropriate to deal with them on a federal level.

What this bill will do is provide uniform sanctions, definitions and parameters on the crime. Moreover, it adds the heft that a hate crime brings with it. It's lastly an acknowledgment and the gravity of this kind of crime and statement it makes. It's a line in the sand, and even figuratively, it's badly need here.

@markansas The Congress Critters love to play games. When dealing with social issues that expand freedom they only act when they have to. So, they might pass a bill in one chamber and kill it in the other one. It is all part of the game. The citizens rarely get pissed off enough to stage mass protests and riot.

@Diotrephes dont say just congress its both houses. .

@markansas Per the constitution, Congress consists of both Houses. The dummy who wrote it should have used the word Chamber instead of the word House because the Senate is referred to as the Senate and not the House of the Senate, like the House of Representatives is referred to.

@SW-User It is very similar to those who clamor for a death penalty, until you’ve actually seen someone put to death.

@soar2newhighs touché

@SW-User Past efforts have been consistently met with filibustering and arguments about "state’s rights”.

@BohemianBabe Exactly. @Graylight, do you recall they were going to hang Mike Pence not that long ago? That would have been a lynching that wasn't racially motivated.

@LeopoldBloom you mean like when that southern Republican racist Jo(k)e Biden filibustered Janice Rogers Brown, the first black woman nominated to the Supreme Court or when he argued against bussing?

@redredred No, I mean Strom Thurmond, who left the Democratic party when they started making noise about giving equal rights to Black people.

Are you seriously saying busing was a good idea? If your children had been threatened with busing, you would have shown up with a shotgun to stop it.

@LeopoldBloom these are the facts even though you won’t read it.

- [ ] Once the Democrats had firmly failed to stop the Republican Civil Rights Act, of which 1964 was the last of several since the end of the civil war, they started pushing the "party switch" myth to claim the current Democratic Party was really the old Republican Party and thus they were the party that was responsible for ending slavery. There's even a school with a plaque with Abraham Lincoln on it, labeled a Democrat. They've been so successful at this lie that people believe that Republicans were responsible for "Jim Crow" segregation laws and refuse to believe the 1964 Civil Rights Act was Republican legislation the Democratic Party was solidly against.

The House passed the bill after 70 days of public hearings and testimony in a 290-130vote. The bill received 152 “yea” votes from Democrats, or 60 percent of their party, and 138 votes from Republicans, or 78 percent of their party.

It passed theSenatewith a 73-27 vote. About 82 percent of Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill, as did 69 percent of Democrats. TheamendedSenate bill was then sent back to the House where it passed with 76 percent support from Republicans and 60 percent support from Democrats.

Prior to this, Congress had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first major civil rights legislation to be enacted indecades, which sought to protect the voting rights of black Americans. The bill passed theHousein a 286-126 vote. Only 51 percent of Democrats voted in favor of the bill, or 119 of their 235 members, compared to 84 percent of Republicans, or 167 of their 199 members.
The bill was then brought to the Senate where Thurmond, an ardentfoe of integration, filibustered the vote for a total of 24 hours and 18 minutes in protest—thelongest individual filibusterin history. Thurmond once said in aspeechthat “there’s not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the Negro race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches.”
After the filibuster ended and a number of changes had been made, the billpassedin a 72-18 vote. The bill received 43 of 46 Republican votes, or 93 percent, and 29 of 49 Democratic votes, or 59 percent.

@redredred Believe it or not, I see the point in what you're saying. But we differentiate hate crimes because the motive is simple and clear, as in with the recent case of a man beaten blind here because two other men suspected him of being gay. That is a level of disregard and wanton violece will not be tolerated in this country, and legislation exists to support that.

The only people who think it's no big deal to enhance an otherwise horrific crime to the hate crime level are typically the people okay with the hate crimes happening in the first place.

@Graylight no, I’m simply asking for the kind of intellectual consistency that make the law worthy of respect. If killing without emotion is particularly odious, why is killing with emotion also particularly odious?

Contract killing vs hate crime points to a logical flaw in legislation. I’m not okay with either but if legislators are going to include emotion or it’s lack into legislation they need to clarify their logic.

@dakotaviper I don't think asking for hanging black people for being black to be considered a hate crime is demanding special rights.

@dakotaviper Lynching was never a federal crime and rarely a State crime. They made about 240 attempts to get an anti-lynching law passed by Congress. They were always blocked. And the lynchers used to post notices in the newspapers that they were going to lynch a guy at a certain time and place so that thousands of people could come see the action. Neither the local, State, or Federal governments did anything to stop it even though they knew it was going down days in advance.

@Diotrephes we have an ammendment for that...

@checkoutanytime That is an inaccurate statement regarding the federal constitution. There is no amendment regarding that. It is part of Article 1, Sections 9 & 10 =
Section 9 = "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9

"Section 10.
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

"Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:
This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
Art. 1 § 9 & 10."

This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
In the constitution Articles are like the bones in a body, they set the framework. Amendments fine tune the Articles.

@checkoutanytime Wasn't aware Jussie lynched someone

@Diotrephes The Emmett Till Antilynching Act, making lynching a federal hate crime for the first time in American history. Efforts to outlaw lynching have failed in Congress more than 200 times since the start of the last century.
NPR

@LordShadowfire They used to put notices in the newspapers for upcoming lynchings so that thousands could attend. Not one person in authority took steps to prevent them.

@Diotrephes I know. I think it should have been a federal offense a hell of a long time ago. I'm just imagining what past presidents, and probably past legislators, probably thought about the matter.

@LordShadowfire From January 10, 1925 =
https://www.flickr.com/photos/vieilles_annonces/4890197987/in/album-72157623915774564/

@LvChris Good luck getting the freaks in Congress to agree to that.