Dumb and Dumberererer
Q: What’s dumb?
A: Liberal Democrats getting their panties in a bunch over a Supreme Court nominee’s ownership of property that contains a racially restrictive covenant he probably didn’t know about and could not have easily removed if he had wanted to, and which every lawyer in the world except maybe Michael McMenamin knows has been unenforceable since 1948.
Q: What’s dumber?
A: Other liberal Democrats getting their panties in a bunch getting their panties in a bunch over a different Supreme Court nominee owning property that doesn’t contain a racially restrictive covenant he probably didn’t know about and could not have added if he had wanted to, and which every lawyer in the world except maybe Michael McMenamin knows would have been unenforceable anyway since 1948, but happens to be located in an area where such covenants were once common.
Q: What’s dumberer?
A: That the second group of liberal Democrats consists not of Senators from dark blue states, whose job it is to be stupid and obnoxious, but of Ass. Press reporters, whose job it is to at least sound neutral.
Q: Whats’ dumbererer?
A: That neither the first nor the second group of liberal Democrats cared a whit that a third Supreme Court nominee (actually the second one, chronologically speaking) also owned a property that also didn’t contain an undisclosed, unenforceable-since-1948 racially restrictive covenant, but which was also located in an area where such covenants were once common.
August 17th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
If I recall correctly, either Feinstein or Boxer (I think it was Boxer), also had one of these meaningless things on their property. It was a minor embarrassment at the time, but it didn’t really matter because we know that only Republicans do evil things, and not Democrats.
The AP, however, deserves a swift kick in the butt for this one. I just keep shaking my head over it.
August 17th, 2005 at 9:06 pm
Actually, I can’t guarantee that the covenants to keep the area homogenous were racial in nature. Not that it really makes a difference, as I explained in the update.
August 17th, 2005 at 10:49 pm
I don’t see how they could have been anything else. What other kind of restrictive covenants applied to sales, or had anything to do with the neighborhood’s racial homogeneity?
August 18th, 2005 at 3:42 am
I heard John Roberts once forgot to tie his shoes when he went out to play as a child.
I’m off to tell the AP about it.
August 18th, 2005 at 6:23 am
They could have had to do with homogeneity in the appearance of the houses — you can’t build another story, or whatever. As if it matters.
Actus actually asked whether the covenants were only on houses in Victorian Flatbush, as opposed to the rest of Flatbush. Everyone is out of their minds.
August 18th, 2005 at 6:48 am
If the restrictive covenant was on the appearance of the house, the news story you linked to was wrong. It describes it as a restrictive covenant on sales, i.e., who you can or cannot seel it to, not what you can or cannot do with it once you’ve purchased it. It also doesn’t make sense to say “While it had once protected its home values by enforcing restrictive covenants on sales, by the mid-1990s the SMRA began promoting the benefits of its racially integrated, activist, middle-class neighborhood” if the restrictive covenant in question had nothing to do with preventing the neighborhood from becoming racially integrated.
August 20th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
I knew it!!! I knew it!!!
I knew Leahy wore panties!
Of course, it was no secret about Kennedy, though.
He so often wears them on his head.