Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - this is why it should be easy to remove a sitting judge

roachboy · 04-06-2007, 02:30 PM

what this ruling clearly means is that if you are african-american and poor, you cannot count on your right to travel across local boundaries, particularly not in the context of a huge natural disaster one result of which is the flooding of what--70%?--of the city where you live.

worse, it seems pretty clear to me that the reasoning is strained in order to justify the police blockade. so it would seem that the ruling responds to at least an asepct of local political conditions----you know: the political conditions that obtained in gretna of the sort that made the blockade seem like a rational idea.

like it didn't mean what it obviously did: that the people who were trying to get out of new orleans across that bridge should have been forced to turn back. so it seems to me that the most direct and disturbing implication of this is that if you are poor and african-american in lousiana, you can be compelled to "stay in your place" even if that place is under water.
and that if you are so compelled, you have no legal recourse.

bourgeois property uber alles yes?
good thing that the situation in new orleans after katrina was so well managed. good thing that conditions in new orleans were so nice so quickly. yay fema. yay state of lousiana. yay city of new orleans.

if you forget what this is about, have a look at spike lee's "when the levee breaks" and then tell me that the most disturbing aspect of this involves the constitutional implications of shabby reasoning on the part of a rightwing judge.

i assume that means that i do not "get it"....

04-06-2007, 02:30 PM	#23 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what this ruling clearly means is that if you are african-american and poor, you cannot count on your right to travel across local boundaries, particularly not in the context of a huge natural disaster one result of which is the flooding of what--70%?--of the city where you live. worse, it seems pretty clear to me that the reasoning is strained in order to justify the police blockade. so it would seem that the ruling responds to at least an asepct of local political conditions----you know: the political conditions that obtained in gretna of the sort that made the blockade seem like a rational idea. like it didn't mean what it obviously did: that the people who were trying to get out of new orleans across that bridge should have been forced to turn back. so it seems to me that the most direct and disturbing implication of this is that if you are poor and african-american in lousiana, you can be compelled to "stay in your place" even if that place is under water. and that if you are so compelled, you have no legal recourse. bourgeois property uber alles yes? good thing that the situation in new orleans after katrina was so well managed. good thing that conditions in new orleans were so nice so quickly. yay fema. yay state of lousiana. yay city of new orleans. if you forget what this is about, have a look at spike lee's "when the levee breaks" and then tell me that the most disturbing aspect of this involves the constitutional implications of shabby reasoning on the part of a rightwing judge. i assume that means that i do not "get it".... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 04-06-2007 at 02:32 PM..