“should have” does not equal “did”
"A Wisconsin candidate for attorney general who said he would have
defended a ban on interracial marriage in the 1950s, now says that the hypothetical was ‘absurd’ "
No, your answer was absurd to anyone but a bigot. Thank you for self-identifying.
1 Like
candidate for attorney general ???
… and stupid enough to answer this king of question - this directly?
yeah! new slogan - Vote for ‘Stupid’ for Attorney General
4 Likes
Actually, the Supreme Court decided the case the year after Schimel was born. You can’t expect someone to remember stuff from when they were 1 year old, but you would think someone running for AG would know about significant cases like Loving v Virgina.
6 Likes
Schimel was correct that Wisconsin is one of 9 states never to ban interracial marriage.
And his math and/or history is wrong. Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967 which by my liberal math is 47 years ago, not 60.
3 Likes
Frankly, when I was asked to answer that question previously I should've declined to answer that question previously I should've declined to answer because it's senseless."
No, not because the question is “senseless,” but because
“I should not have answered the question in such a way as to reveal my actual opinions.”
1 Like
“Actually” or “probably?”
So he was for it before he was against it??? What is this guy, a whirling dervish? Answer: Yes, a wiggly, corrupt one!!
have heard smarter answers given by candidates for student council president.
This loon has a law degree? … and does not understand how to deal with questions like this ? Oh Come on!
2 Likes
so he was for it before he understood he should have said he was against it. or vice versa. your move WI voters.
1 Like
well said. only in Milwaukee. extra points for the WI reference.
“Now that’s an absurd hypothetical because the U.S. Supreme Court resolved that issue 60 years ago, before I was born. And Wisconsin, actually, probably, was never a state that had that law. So the hypothetical was absurd,”
The question was actually whether or not you would defend a knowingly racist and obviously unconstitutional law, would you use your office to knowingly perpetuate institutionalized racist (or sexism, or homophobia), or would you in fact try to protect justice.
You answered honestly: ‘Yes, I would defend an obviously unjust, unconstitutional, discriminatory law without thinking.’ Turns out that there is a backlash to that. We know you can’t understand why, and that’s why you should never be the attorney general.
1 Like
So why are you attacking a woman’s right to choose, the Supreme Court decided Roe v Wade a long time ago too.
1 Like
Shit Meal kneels at the zipper of his partisan panderers. Someone should check his bullshit about prosecutions. He makes extra effort to prosecute child abusers which is all good and fine but no effort to prosecute elder abuse.SWINE caps off
It was a perfectly sensible question, designed to bait an ace-in-the-hole into revealing himself as such. It worked perfectly!
1 Like
Yes, Schimel, you are absurd.
Yes, many laws have been overturned over the years. But the fact that Loving was decided in 1967 (less than 50 years ago – not 60 years ago) doesn’t mean there aren’t people like Mr. Schimel want to revert back to the “good ol’ days.” Let’s take a quick tally, shall we?
The GOP wants to do away with the Voting Rights Act. SCOTUS gave them a leg up on that just last year. All the voter ID laws enacted by GOP are nothing more than attempt to suppress the vote – just like Jim Crow. Wisconsin’s Voter ID laws were struck down – this is a law Schimel said he would defend. So he’s in favor of taking away the right to vote.
Many in the GOP want to do away with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (or overturn the Heart of Atlanta Motel decision of 1964) so that people would be free to discriminate on the basis of race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.
Interracial marriage is relevant because the same arguments used against it in Loving are being used against same sex marriage. Yes, Loving was decided in 1967, but that doesn’t mean that Schimel and the GOP wouldn’t like to see it reversed.
Contraception. Griswold (which decided that a woman had a right to privacy to make medical decisions – like taking contraception) was decided in 1963. And yes, Mr. Schimel, the GOP is trying to undo that as well with “personhood” laws.
Abortion. Decided in 1973. 40 years ago. Yet, Mr. Schimel plans on defending Wisconsin’s laws which are designed to limit if not outright ban a woman’s right to make that decision.
So your line that it was settled a long time ago rings hollow. Mr. Schimel and the GOP are trying to send us back. Way back. And the GOP (and Mr. Schimel) are trying to do that through “shameful” new laws.
5 Likes
That’s exactly what happened. He didn’t want to say anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional or else it would’ve opened him up to further questions about defending anit-equality laws. He has a simple choice: sound like a hypocrite or sound like a racist. He chose the latter. GOPers always do.
1 Like