by Dennis Crouch
Although many of us will retreat to our families for this week’s thanksgiving holiday – the American tradition is to use the time to build cross cultural ties with our neighbors.
I am a great admirer of WilmerHale’s top IP Litigator Bill Lee. Lee is an amazing lawyer and delivers for his clients while maintaining the highest ethical standards for himself and his co-counsel. This past week’s AmLaw Daily helps bring home to me the disturbing American cultural and racial trends that are directed more at division than unity. Susan Beck writes:
On a Tuesday night in August, Lee stopped at a gas station near his home outside Boston in Wellesley, Massachusetts, to fill up his Mercedes-Benz SUV. Lee—a graduate of Harvard College and one of the nation’s most accomplished intellectual property litigators—was wearing a suit and tie, having finished a long day at work.
As Lee tells it, a man wearing a “Wellesley Hockey Parent” shirt walked up to him.
“Where does a guy like you get a car like that?” the man said to Lee, looking at the litigator’s vehicle.
Lee, whose parents came to this country from China in 1948, tried to defuse the situation. “From Herb Chambers,” he said, referring to a local car dealer.
“Why don’t you go back to your own country,” the man said, according to Lee.
“I don’t understand you,” Lee said.
“You mean, you don’t understand English,” the man said.
“I don’t understand ignorance,” Lee replied.
The Wilmer partner drove away, but the man followed in his car. When Lee pulled into a nearby police station, the man vanished.
“In the bluest of Blue States, Massachusetts, a mile from Wellesley College, if someone tells you to go back to your own country, this can happen anywhere,” Lee said. “If this can happen to the managing partner of an Am Law 200 firm, what’s happening to the rest of the country?”
Lee said he hadn’t heard a comment like this for 40 years. He attributes the encounter to the political environment that has encouraged hostility to immigrants. “He felt he could say it,” Lee said. . . . “I grew up in the fifties when we were the only Chinese family in our school district,” Lee recalled. “It was not a great time to be Asian. In many ways this brought back things that I thought we had put behind us.”
As leading lawyers we obviously play an important role in ensuring that racism and some kind of white-nationalism does not again become acceptable and normal. One of my friends who is openly gay here in Missouri was leaving his house last week and a passenger in a passing vehicle yelled-out “faggot” and targeted him with an open soda bottle. As with Bill Lee, T____ noted that he had not experienced this type of open vitriol for decades. These incidents are These incidents are not supposed to happen here, but they are happening. As Dan Rather writes “now is a time when none of us can afford to remain seated or silent. We must all stand up to be counted. . . . I believe there is a vast majority who wants to see this nation continue in tolerance and freedom. But it will require speaking.”
Happy Thanksgiving!
Thanks for posting this. Perhaps the patent law community cannot agree on what to do with 101, but I think most of us should be able to agree that the conduct of “Wellesley Hockey Parent” was utterly reprehensible, and that we have a responsibility to fight against such disgusting behavior.
Very much depends on what you mean by “responsibility to fight,” and what lines you draw to fight about.
Unless of course freedom of expression merely means freedom to express views that you happen to like.
This is real confusing stuff! Super nuanced.
And “anon” is a very deep and serious person.
And Malcolm continues to post meaningless nothingness (if you brush away his ad hominem).
Yay Decade of Decadence
I see that Godwin’s law is in full effect here.
Now Fidel Castro is dead….and Hillary is still nobody’s President.
Happy Thanksgiving.
You are off the deep end, Malcolm.
Get help.
I am distressed by the fewness of the suggestions for a Thanksgiving meal for Wellesley Hockey Parent.
My suggestions were Jerk Chicken and Humble Pie.
Can the combined ingenuity of Patently-O readers come up with anything better? The object is to be amusing but subtly disparaging.
Come to think of it, I have the further suggestion of cold cuts.
Is spam too simple?
😉
Ideal! Accompanied by Over-Hasty Pudding!
And Bitter Fruit for afters, remembering Billie Holliday!
That song was Strange Fruit.
Patent law is law. This guy you are so loathe to criticize will be given more power to affect the way the law is interpreted and applied than you ever will be. But you still have your “protest vote”! And we all know how super serious that is.
You attempt a false equivalency Malcolm as while patent law is indeed law, not all law is patent law.
Something that interests me is what limitations should there be, in the new age of social media, on the age-old right of “free speech”. I suspect that, on what constitutes incitement to violence, an update to the new world of social media is sorely needed.
That’s why, at #20, I posted a Link to the newspaper report on social media activity surrounding the shocking murder of British Member of Parliament Jo Cox. She was no extremist but right in the middle of the political left-right spectrum.
When people of moderate and reasonable views cannot stand for public office without serious risk to their lives, the time has come to look very carefully at the relationship between living in a bubble, social media and “free speech”.
There remains – as always – the divide between speech and actions.
The velocity of today’s social media really does not change that (and in fact is exactly the type of thing to be guarded against from any “civil” politically correct desire to abridge freedom of expression.
Once again, MaxDrei, you write as if ignorant of US jurisprudence and the history behind such jurisprudence.
Again, I admonish you to become educated before you post.
Max, I have nothing brilliant to add to this discussion except this observation. The world now, connected as it is through the Internet, is simply filled with hate. I wish it would stop. But all one can ever do is exercise self-discipline and not engage in it oneself. The idea that one can censor another man’s speech by cutting him off, by shouting him down, or in the case of your British member of Parliament, Joe Cox, simply assassinating them, is unacceptable.
Xenophobia, simply one type of hate, seems to be a tool of the politician – the man with a political agenda. Identifying a group and then demonizing that group promotes the politician.
We can find anecdotes of acts of violence, acts of hatred, throughout our societies today: and these include 9/11, all the bombings and incidents in Europe, the Lee incident described here, violence by Blacks against police, and violence against Trump supporters. All of these are wrong. No one should excuse any of these for any reason.
“Identifying a group and then demonizing that group promotes the politician.”
Malcolm IS the Trump of these boards.
Perhaps those who regularly engage in hate or vilification ought to be required to use their real names.
The problem there Ned is that anything can be merely labeled “hate or vilification,” and then you immediately chill speech.
Look at Ben Franklin and others who used pseudonyms – your “answer” would have deprived us of their speech.
Well, anon, there would have to be clear rules about what constitutes hate speech or vilification. Any perpetrator should be warned. If the perpetrator is excluded, his record can establish precedent. If a perpetrator is not excluded after complaints, these examples can establish counter precedent.
Perhaps we might also create liability if a site or service does not provide adequate regulation of hate speech, vilification and bullying.
Good luck with those clear rules (ask yourself why such as Mr. Franklin could not achieve those).
If you wanna be on record as holding the ins#ne views that the problems in this country are “violence by Blacks against police, and violence against Trump supporters” then that’s your right.
It’s pretty amusing that you think our President-elect is just dandy, but deplore “Xenophobia” as “simply one type of hate” that “seems to be a tool of the politician – the man with a political agenda.” That’s the stock and trade of your boy. Remind us all again what his views on Mexicans and Muslims are.
AAA JJ, demonetization of all cops because of a few bad apples is the problem with the recent wave of violence against cops.
Trump said some pretty st p id things during his campaign and had to walk many of them back. But one thing is for sure, IMHO, the source of the Muslim terrorist is hate egged on by leaders who have political agendas. This is what we need to stop, if we can.
I think Obama might be right that naming Islam as a source of the problem but not limiting it to the hatemongers creating the terrorist might be counterproductive as it only enhances the hatemonger’s agenda by being able to point to anti-Muslim rhetoric and actions in the West.
Trump’s stance on Mexico in the beginning was laughable. He had to walk it back, and he did.
Ned, there are the sociopaths who go into a crowded theatre and, for fun or to further their own nefarious purposes, bawl out “Fire, fire, fire down below”.
And there are those standing for public office, these days, who are just as irresponsible in what they post on social media.
The explosion of use of social media brings a whole new set of challenges, for a democracy, for its legislative branch and for its judicative branch.
Social media is not anything like being in a crowded theater.
There was s running joke here awhile back about 6 dating a guy who had it in his online bio that he was a Fench model (modeled after a well known States-side commercial).
Your analogy is just not apt.
Max, well stated.
All that hate speech has consequences. But what can we do about it?
I know Germany banned all references to the Nazi’s. This no longer works as the Germans have right of access to the internet as well.
We could ban Muslim hate speech, but how in the world could we enforce it?
We are all in a brave new world and have to put our thinking caps on.
One thing just occurred: at the end of WWII, Eisenhower went out of his way to let the world know about the camps, and even forced the German people to go there and see for themselves so that they would know it was not just Allied propaganda.
But today, even when hundreds die in a Paris club, a large portion of the Muslim world celebrates. I find this appalling. What, if anything can we do?
That is one of the reasons I want America simply to get out. We can never expect to change the Muslim world in any way and trying only gets us war and such things as 9/11.
even when hundreds die in a Paris club, a large portion of the Muslim world celebrates.
Please define “large portion.”
I find this appalling. What, if anything can we do?
You can express your view that the attack is appalling, you can donate some money to help the families of the victims, and you can try to avoid making d-mbsh-t observations about “the Muslim world” like the one you just did.
Violent religious fundamentalism (“God demands this! He said so in this book!”) is a form of ment@l illness. And Muslims don’t have a monopoly on it. Call it out when you see it. And recognize that violent religious fundamentalism begins with (surprise!) religious fundamentalism which begins with (surprise!) ign0rance.
MM, Strong religious beliefs, held by a majority, tends to be enacted into law. Thus religion infests politics. Because of this, I would never say that a religion is inherently peaceful unless the religion is willing to forgo its beliefs and practices to the extent they are inconsistent with law.
But, as we all know, there are issues about which most if not all religions do not compromise. This breeds political conflict that in the past has lead to war.
This line of think tells me that we need to stay away from and out of the Middle East because it is dominated by Islam.
Do we stay out of France because it is dominated by Catholicism? Do we stay out of Britain because it is dominated by Anglicism? Do we stay out of Germany because it is dominated by Protestantism?
anon, we do not “go into” France, GB or anywhere else with a view of imposing on them culture and rules that are contrary to their religions. Moreover, look at all the problems that England has had in even maintaining a foothold in Ireland because of religion. The mere presence of a power of a different religion within Ireland is an issue.
“imposing on them culture”
You could not be more wrong on that Ned.
Sure, it is not the US Government going in (per se), but our export engine exists to impose our culture.
In what follows, the strange spellings are my effort to defeat the editor.
Ned, like MM, I am disappointed in your singling out one of the three Abr—–ic r’gions as inherently less commendable than the other two. How can you dare to say that “we can never change the M–l1m world in any way” when it is manifestly clear that something terrible has changed within “the M–l1m world” in the 20th century. Something caused it. It didn’t happen by chance.
If you go back in time, just a little, you would have found at the interface of cultures a world where the M–l1m governed parts were far more tolerant of the C—tian minorities than vice versa. Sorry, but it ill-behoves any C—tian to lift his finger and lecture the other two r’gions about living in peace and tolerance.
Max, the conflicts between Christian religions are well known. The conflict between the Christian West and Muslim Holy Land is well known.
I personally have felt its sting when my Irish Catholic mother married my Lutheran dad. My Dad converted and was effectively cast out of his family because of it.
Sounds like more countries that we need to stay out of…
Ned, do you think that George Washington was right about foreign entanglements?
Anon, of course I think George Washington was right. He made a speech at the time England and the French Revolution were at war with each other, sucking in the whole of Europe with it. Who won that war did not involve American interests; but our involvement would have imperiled the very existence of the United States.
We only reluctantly got involved in both world wars in the 20th century; and, in each case, we did so because our interests were involved and we were attacked.
While it is clear that Al Qaeda has attacked America, it is not clear that they did so unprovoked. Had we not meretriciously involved ourselves in the Kuwait war, Al Qaeda would never have even been formed. We brought the whole house of cards that is the Middle East down upon us when we stepped in to what essentially was an Arab Civil War – lines dividing Arabia drawn by the British to serve British interests. It is almost like we never learned the lessons of Vietnam – another case of a country divided by lines, drawn this time by the withdrawing French, where we took sides on behalf of a government that did not exist at the time those lines were drawn.
The idea that we should get involved everywhere there is injustice in the world is utopian at best and downright idi o tic at worst. In most of these cases, these are not genuine wars between nations, but internal conflicts between elements of nations. We get involved because we see oppression and want to do good. But in the end, our involvement does no good and the United States is little loved. And, worst of all, our soldiers and fellow citizens die it what one can justifiably say were unjust wars because they were not in self-defense or in defense of other nations.
Not quite following your logic there Ned vis a vis Kuwait (a country that appears to be your starting point), and yet defending a country appears to be a legitimate point for US involvement.
Also, I think our own interests (rather than British drawn lines) speaks to our involvement.
We find a different meaningful source of energy than oil, and watch how little involvement in that part of the world we will have.
Well, anon, the line drawn between Iraq and Kuwait by the Brits was effectively the same as the line drawn by the French dividing Vietnam into two “provinces.”
The policy of the US before our intervention in Kuwait was that we did not get involved/takes sides in Arab-Arab disputes. That policy was communicated to Sadam. He relied on it. Once he committed his troops, we changed our position.
There is a thing called estoppel. Perhaps it does not work in international law; but, ethically, legally and morally, we were wrong to intervene in that war.
Do you have (written) evidence of this policy, Ned?
It sounds like a non-aggression treaty. Surely such an understanding was not only memorialized but also received Congressional blessings, right?
“There is a thing called estoppel. Perhaps it does not work in international law; but, ethically, legally and morally, we were wrong to intervene in that war.”
You think we should have let Kuwait be overrun? Nah bro, they have a base of ours, and refuel our ships etc. They’re a tiny little outpost of the west in the mid-east. But we were wrong to somehow give him the impression we would not help Kuwait.
As I mentioned, Ned, I would like to see the actual policy you are referencing, as you may be overstating the policy into some type of total non-aggression treaty, which is doubtful to have been in place.
You appear to want to use the euphamism of “commiting troops” in place of “invading another Sovereign.”
Lastly, the “line drawn” being drawn by the British has nothing to do with the real driver of the conflict (number one being oil – and 6’s additions of Kuwait being a friendly and strategic base at the top of the Persian Gulf should not be overlooked).
6, I am not aware that Saddam ever threatened to remove any base we may have had in Kuwait and that was the reason we went to war against Saddam.
As far as I know, we were not allies with Kuwait. Even so, Saddam checked in and asked our policy. This shows respect.
Oh Ned. You think Saddam is going to let us have free reign to make bases inside what would have become an annexed into Iraq Kuwait?
link to militarybases.com
See also the wiki military bases in kuwait.
“As far as I know, we were not allies with Kuwait.”
I’m not sure formal allies (as in they would send mans to fight for us and our wars), but they certainly have plenty of our bases in their country.
It’s the fact he walks it back that’s troubling. I literally have no idea what Trump’s true beliefs are.
He also seems to have trouble with judges of Mexican ancestry. Or with any reporter with which he disagrees. Has he walked those back yet?
I literally have no idea what Trump’s true beliefs are.
Maybe you should ask the hundreds of people who have sued him.
You could start with the people he just paid $25 million to settle a fraud claim against him, which he previously said he would never do.
Or you could just accept the plain fact that Trump is a s0ci0path, elected by his fell0w s0ciopaths, racists, mis0gynists, ign0rami and people out to make a buck. Yes, some of those people are patent attorneys! And yes they have expressed their support for Trump, publically, right here on these boards.
And yes our “liberal media” has previously covered up a President’s ment@l incompetence for years. For the sake of the country!
So awesome.
..and others have not (and yet Malcolm will still lump all those who do not hold his beliefs into one bucket).
“Go figure Folks.”
Except for the fact that your entire post is wrong, you were almost right there…
You do realize (or at least you should realize) that I was referring to your direct “response” to me and not your original post…
(that should not be a difficult thing for even you to grasp)
Agreed, no one should be harassing Bill Lee, or anyone else, because his parents came to the USA from China or some other country. (Harassing him because he’s a lawyer, however…)
But don’t confuse tolerance with liking or agreeing or embracing. I tolerate homosexuality: I’m not going to try to regulate what people do in their bedrooms, and the sexual orientation of colleagues in the legal profession has never been a consideration, for or against, in recommending them for work if I thought a particular person would do good work for a particular client. But I still think homosexual behavior is morally wrong. Similarly, I don’t try to shut down abortion clinics, because I think there are circumstances in which abortions are merited. But that doesn’t mean I think abortion should be used as contraception. And I’m sick to death of having to bite my tongue on those two points, and many others, because of concern that the p.c. crowd will vilify me or organize a boycott of my business because I think homosexuality and abortion are wrong. I’m tired of seeing commercial bakers subjected to financial punishment – imposed by the state – for refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding; I’m tired of people trying to make gendered languages ungendered; I’m as tired of seeing people getting jobs and promotions and government contracts on the basis of their skin color as I am of seeing people get those things on the basis of connections, rather than on the basis of merit.
I agree that tolerance is not only a good thing but a necessary thing for any civil society, and that it’s unfortunate that the recent election seems to have made some people think that it’s ok to not be tolerant. However, as a long-time reader of this blog, this is the first time I recall Dennis editorializing about non-IP matters, which makes it hard to read this particular piece and not wonder if it’s directed only at people who likely voted for Trump, or is also intended for the Bernie and Hillary crowds who are just as intolerant, and in many ways more intolerant, of opinions other than their own.
God bless the United States of America – Americans have a lot to be thankful for. I hope they don’t screw it up.
“Criminal Harassment Definition: Unsolicited annoying, alarming or abusive conduct or words which are threatening, and which are prohibited by law.
(fyi)
I still think h0 m0 se xual behavior is morally wrong. Similarly, I don’t try to shut down ab 0rtion clinics, because I think there are circumstances in which abortions are merited. But that doesn’t mean I think ab 0rtion should be used as contraception. And I’m sick to death of having to bite my tongue on those two points,
Because everybody needs to know your views about stuff that is none of your fl0c k ing business. Oh, how awfully frustrating it must be to you. Nobody has ever heard about your awesome beliefs about h0m 0s exuality and ab0 rtion before! Nope.
You know what elseI’m tired of people trying to make gendered languages ungendered;
Oh, the pain. The pain! How burdens0me for you.
I’m as tired of seeing people getting jobs and promotions and government contracts on the basis of their skin color
LOL You mean like Ben Carson? Or like Jeff Sessions?
I’m tired of seeing commercial bakers subjected to financial punishment – imposed by the state – for refusing to bake a cake for a h0 m0 sexual wedding
Nobody’s ever whined about this before! Thank goodness you can finally let your big0 ted whine out. Boo hoo hoo! Gay people! You don’t like their “behavior.” Go ahead and tell everyone how it’s a “lifestyle choice.” It was fun listening to you and your fellow big0ts sh0ve that in every American’s for … how many years? 20? 50? 100? Nobody got tired of that. Nope.
But …. the cakes. The cakes! Oh, what a h0rrible thing to have to bake a cake for someone who’s being …. immoral! According to your personal beliefs.
not wonder if it’s directed only at people who likely voted for Trump, or is also intended for the Bernie and Hillary crowds who are just as intolerant,
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Because Hillary and Bernie supp0rters don’t actively court racists, big 0ts and mis0gynists to be in their “big tent.” Totally int0lerant!
Super fascinating and serious stuff. We’ve never heard any of this before, “Atari Man”! Truly you’ve been so “oppressed.”
My goodness the next year is going to be a fun ride.
?
“You know what elseI’m tired of people trying to make gendered languages ungendered;
Oh, the pain. The pain! How burdens0me for you.”
It is becoming burdensome for a professor about to lose his job because he declines to do this in Canadia land.
If I could upvote you, I would.
I read this blog for patent related matters. Let’s stick to that.
+1
” wonder if it’s directed only at people who likely voted for Trump, or is also intended for the Bernie and Hillary crowds who are just as intolerant, and in many ways more intolerant, of opinions other than their own.”
Tolerance doesn’t require tolerance of the intolerant, and their intolerant views.
“I’m as tired of seeing people getting jobs and promotions and government contracts on the basis of their skin color”
Imagine how tired of that African Americans are after 350+ years of seeing white people get jobs and promotions and government contracts on the basis of their skin color. But its “evil social engineering” to give any of those things to non-white folks simply on the basis of their skin color, right?
You guys are pa th et ic.
Sorry AAA JJ, your line of “Tolerance doesn’t require tolerance of the intolerant, and their intolerant views.” is pure BS.
No. It’s not. We don’t have to tolerate, e.g., the KKK, the anti-abortion zealots, the Westboro Baptist Church, etc. Do they have the freedom to say whatever they want? Sure. But we don’t have to tolerate them. We don’t have to accept them into civil society. In fact, it’s our obligation not to. If you want to open a bakery, a restaurant, a hotel, etc. then you have to serve everybody, including those people who you think are “morally wrong” (lulzapalooza on that one). If you don’t, if you’re not tolerant but instead intolerant, you’re getting shut down. Plain and simple.
You remain confused.
Perhaps you should recognize what “tolerate” means. I think you have taken that term to mean something else entirely.
I’m confused? You’re the one who thinks that affirmative action is “the same evil” as slavery.
Who’s confused?
Integration is the ultimate salve to racism. Whatever promotes integration is to be promoted.
AAA JJ, do you think Indian reservations promote integration of the Indian people into America?
You want to kick dust now, AAA JJ?
Try getting right what I actually had to say about the e vi1 of racial discrimination no matter the ends that such e vi1 is used for.
Your slipping into the Malcolm “Ends justify the Means” territory.
Perhaps you should recognize what “tolerate” means.
Perhaps you should learn to “tolerate” being told that you sound like a racist apologist liz@rdbrain by reasonable people everywhere.
That doesn’t mean that you actually are one. I mean, you might be a genius! There’s always a chance.
But you should “tolerate” being told otherwise. Seriously: get used to it.
AAA JJ: We don’t have to tolerate, e.g., the KKK, the anti-abortion zealots, the Westboro Baptist Church, etc. Do they have the freedom to say whatever they want? Sure. But we don’t have to tolerate them. We don’t have to accept them into civil society. In fact, it’s our obligation not to.
AAA JJ, but how do you tell who they are if they wear masks, or hide behind pseudonyms?
When the baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding, when the hotel owner refuses to rent a room to African Americans, etc., it’s pretty clear “who they are” and we don’t have to tolerate those people.
Simple questions for you: should a hotel that refuses to rent rooms to African Americans be fined? If the hotel owner thinks African Americans are “morally wrong” should he/she be allowed to refuse to rent a room?
There’s no doubt who these intolerant jackholes are, Ned. Now that your boy has been elected they all free free to spew their nonsense without shame. And without anonymity. Do we have to tolerate those people?
AAA JJ, you are free to miss my point if you please. But the KKK and anonymous posters have the same thing in common which prevents anybody “shunning” them.
As to bigots now feeling no shame? It seems to me that you have to distinguish between those who condemn globalism because of unfairness and those who simply hate. The problem I see is that some, nay, many, try to shout down anti-globalists as bigots the same way that big companies shout down all NPEs as trolls.
But the KKK and anonymous posters have the same thing in common which prevents anybody “shunning” them.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Nobody is arguing that the KKK can’t put on their hoods and pretend to be s00per serious about their liz@rdbrain ideas in the comfort of their own bunkers.
But it’s not surprising to see you pretend otherwise, Ned.
Now, if you want to hold hands with “anon” and k00mb@ya all over the proposition that True Freedom Luvvers everywhere should welcome the KKK to their town because “diversity” and “tolerance”, then go ahead and make the argument.
Seriously: put it right up top in the first comment and make the argument. Use a pseudonym like “anon” does, if you wish. Make the argument as compelling as you can. Breathe some real life into it! And be sure to cite some awesome facts.
I can hardly wait! Please show us what you g0t, Ned.
Malcolm,
There is a case about action ad speech (a parade) and the clan that you should be aware of.
Maybe you should refresh yourself about the legal principles involved in that case instead of dwelling on your feelings.
There is a case about action ad speech (a parade) and the clan that you should be aware of.
Ah yes. That was the famous case when the Supreme Court said that everybody in town had to cheer for the KKK. Nobody was permitted to boo them or yell “Get outa town you racist liz@rdbrains!” Because that would be oh-so-unfair to the white supremacists and their s00per d00per serious beliefs.
Is that the case you’re talking about, “anon”? Or is there some other case? You’re the expert after all. You’re a real deep thinker! A True Patri0t. Yup. That’s you.
Way to be obtuse, Malcolm.
Maybe try again for the point of the case, and reflect exactly how that case fits what I have been posting here.
Come man – give it a try.
reflect exactly how that case fits what I have been posting here.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Up is down, black is white, and “anon” — who can’t argue his way out of a paper bag — thinks he’s got a Supreme Court case that “fits” what he’s “posting” about here.
Beyond parody.