Certainly One Cannot Ban Cross Burning In

The Court Today Completes The Process Of Converting Title Vii Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964 From A Guarantee That Race Or Sex Will Not Be The Basis For Often Will.

There Is No Basis In Text, Tradition, Or Even In Contemporary Practice (if That Were Enough), For Finding In The Constitution A Right To Demand Judicial Consideration Of Newly Discovered Evidence Of Innocence Brought Forward After Conviction. My Concern Is That In Making Life Easier For Ourselves We Not Appear To Make It Harder For The Lower Federal Courts, Imposing Upon Them The Burden Of Regularly Analyzing Newly-discovered-evidence-of-innocence Claims In Capital Cases (in Which Event Such Federal Claims, It Can Confidently Be Predicted, Will Become Routine And Even Repetitive).

Individuals Who Have Been Wronged By Unlawful Racial Discrimination Should Be Made Whole; But Under Our Constitution There Can Be No Such Thing As Either A Creditor Or A Debtor Race. That Concept Is Alien To The Constitution's Focus Upon The Individual. ...to Pursue The Concept Of Racial Entitlement - Even For The Most Admirable And Benign Of Purposes - Is To Reinforce And Preserve For Future Mischief The Way Of Thinking That Produced Race Slavery, Race Privilege And Race Hatred. In The Eyes Of Government, We Are Just One Race Here. It Is American.

Persuade Your Fellow Citizens It's A Good Idea And Pass A Law. That's What Democracy Is All About. It's Not About Nine Superannuated Judges Who Have Been There Too Long, Imposing These Demands On Society.

What Is A Moderate Interpretation Of The Text? Halfway Between What It Really Means And What You'd Like It To Mean?