Mississippi Republicans Want Separate Police Force for White, Black Areas

[Coughdrop addict]

https://www.newsweek.com/mississippi...-areas-1780541

Mississippi's Black community was incensed earlier this week after state lawmakers proposed to create a separate justice system within the city of Jackson that would overrule the majority Black city council and put a large swath of the local justice system completely in the hands of state officials, all of whom are white.
As reported by Mississippi Today, the legislation would allow the state's white chief justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court, its white attorney general, and the white state public safety commissioner to appoint new judges, new prosecutors, new public defenders and new police officers to oversee a new district in the city encompassing all of the city's majority-white neighborhoods, effectively creating a separate justice system for whites in what is statistically considered the Blackest city in America.
And it would do so without any of those officials receiving a single vote of support from any resident from Jackson, 80 percent of whom are Black.
"It reminds me of apartheid," Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba told the website Tuesday.

So, can anyone here think of any reasons such a plan might be proposed beyond wanting to create a racial caste system? Because I can't.

[conon394]

I guess they really don't need to dog whistle anymore.

[Vanoi]

I guess the GOP really does want to go back to the "good ole days." This would be blatantly unconstitutional.

[conon394]

I guess the GOP really does want to go back to the "good ole days." This would be blatantly unconstitutional.

Possibly. But states typically have the power to assert control over sub jurisdiction and if they dress it in language note so obvious they might bury this in the courts.

[irontaino]

So the most ass backwards state in a region of the country notorious for being ass backwards wants to prove just how ass backwards it is. Lovely...

[conon394]

So the most ass backwards state in a region of the country notorious for being ass backwards wants to prove just how ass backwards it is. Lovely...

Hey don't Alabama or Idaho to steal your rep - got to keep running.

[alhoon]

Can they even do that? Wasn't segregation found to be illegal?

[Sir Adrian]

The source is newsweek. Take it with an entire salt mine and still doubt.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The source is newsweek. Take it with an entire salt mine and still doubt.

The article is clickbait which the OP seems to have clicked. The issue is the bill would create a separate court system within an area defined as the “Capitol Complex Improvement District.” Details are hard to come by with the media droning on about how the Chief Justice who would do the appointing is a white man and not a black woman or something, because the capital is majority black. Apparently it’s anti-racist to demand leaders match the skin color of their constituents. Of course segregation is illegal and that’s not what the bill does.

Proponents of the bill claim it will free up resources to address a backlog of cases crowded out by the capital’s highest-in-the-nation murder rate in a metropolitan area with as much a fifth of the state’s population. I don’t know the efficiency of an appointed vs elected court system, but judges are appointed by the governor in many states and adding a separate court system to improve processing time seems reasonable. The media is presenting this arrangement as unprecedented, which isn’t true.

Arizona, Kansas and Missouri all employ a mix of appointments and elections varying by area and the level of the court, as is proposed in Mississippi. Nobody seems to mind white Democrat Katie Hobbs picking Pima County judges with authority over majority-Hispanic Drexel Heights, for example, probably because that story doesn’t fit a narrative.

[Coughdrop addict]

The source is newsweek. Take it with an entire salt mine and still doubt.

Verifiable facts remain verifiable facts even when you have been told to distrust the source because it tells you things your leaders don't want you to know. A 5-second search would show you many other publications that are also reporting on the Republican plot to resurrect apartheid in Mississippi.

[antaeus]

The article is clickbait which the OP seems to have clicked. The issue is the bill would create a separate court system within an area defined as the “Capitol Complex Improvement District.” Details are hard to come by with the media droning on about how the Chief Justice who would do the appointing is a white man and not a black woman or something, because the capital is majority black. Apparently it’s anti-racist to demand leaders match the skin color of their constituents. Of course segregation is illegal and that’s not what the bill does.

Proponents of the bill claim it will free up resources to address a backlog of cases crowded out by the capital’s highest-in-the-nation murder rate in a metropolitan area with as much a fifth of the state’s population. I don’t know the efficiency of an appointed vs elected court system, but judges are appointed by the governor in many states and adding a separate court system to improve processing time seems reasonable. The media is presenting this arrangement as unprecedented, which isn’t true.

Arizona, Kansas and Missouri all employ a mix of appointments and elections varying by area and the level of the court, as is proposed in Mississippi. Nobody seems to mind white Democrat Katie Hobbs picking Pima County judges with authority over majority-Hispanic Drexel Heights, for example, probably because that story doesn’t fit a narrative.

On the one hand, Lord belittles those who claim to be anti-racist, on the other he justifies separate judicial systems.

He finishes his post with a dig at situations in other states, for that added splash of whataboutism.

Because, the media.

[mishkin]

Waiting for "how dare you accuse me of racism, I'm a person of color myself!!"

[Lord Thesaurian]

On the one hand, Lord belittles those who claim to be anti-racist, on the other he justifies separate judicial systems.

He finishes his post with a dig at situations in other states, for that added splash of whataboutism.

Because, the media.

Weak bait. It’s not whataboutism to point out the alleged “racial court system” actually has nothing to do with race and already exists in multiple states and jurisdictions for reasons that have nothing to do with race. OP’s article even admits the racial angle would be difficult to prove in court by those attempting to block the legislation on constitutional grounds, because of how common measures like these are. But facts like those don’t make a good headline.

Waiting for "how dare you accuse me of racism, I'm a person of color myself!!"

I am a BIPOC. You should reflect on why that bothers you so much.

[mishkin]

We've already had this conversation. That a friend of your mother once told you that you looked like a Jew or that a great-great-grandmother was not a wasp does not make you a person of color. you're white, and declaring otherwise to silence critics of racism is, again, pathetic.

[Lord Thesaurian]

We've already had this conversation. That a friend of your mother once told you that you looked like a Jew or that a great-great-grandmother was not a wasp does not make you a person of color. you're white, and declaring otherwise to silence critics of racism is, again, pathetic.

No, we haven’t had this “conversation.” You’ve made the accusation several times and I’ve ignored it. But according to your worldview my ethnic background does make me more credible than most on pretty much anything to do with race and lived experience in the Americas, Africa and Asia. Here’s as much proof as I can offer, and you should know demanding it of me is racist. People who claim to love diversity tell BIPOC like me to bring our perspectives and experiences to the table. But as soon as I do, I’m shut down by privileged white leftists who attack my credibility for crossing the party line.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Since we’re on the topic of narratives, yours is a common response to my existence. As Joe Biden put it, “if you don’t vote for me, you ain’t black.” As you put it, “you’re white and pathetic.” You may mistrust me because of my race, just as the Mississippi AG is distrusted for hers, but that’s not a problem for me to solve.

[antaeus]

Weak bait. It’s not whataboutism to point out the alleged “racial court system” actually has nothing to do with race and already exists in multiple states and jurisdictions for reasons that have nothing to do with race. OP’s article even admits the racial angle would be difficult to prove in court by those attempting to block the legislation on constitutional grounds, because of how common measures like these are. But facts like those don’t make a good headline.

A weak bait is one that the baitee doesn't feel compelled to reply to. And you couldn't help but scratch that itch. I'd call that a win in my books.

Also, sarcastic anti-racist remarks are not an argument. You haven't actually explained how those who claim to be anti-racist/who oppose this because their fears of it being a racist system are wrong here. Your entire argument comprises of "Well others do it" and "it kinda seems OK to me" with fancier words.

Oh, and the media.

[Lord Thesaurian]

A weak bait is one that the baitee doesn't feel compelled to reply to.

I called it out as such and explained why. Judging by your lack of response, I was correct.

And you couldn't help but scratch that itch. I'd call that a win in my books.

Conceding your bad faith tactics is only a “win” if the goal is to derail rather than engage in the discussion, but I’ll take it for what it’s worth.

Also, sarcastic anti-racist remarks are not an argument. You haven't actually explained how those who claim to be anti-racist/who oppose this because their fears of it being a racist system are wrong here. Your entire argument comprises of "Well others do it" and "it kinda seems OK to me" with fancier words.

Oh, and the media.

That’s not how evidence works, but then, this is all projection on your part to begin with. I’ve discussed far more substance on this topic than the OP or anyone else for that matter. No one should be expected to disprove evidence-free claims of racism. Those making the claim have to present the evidence, which OP’s article conceded would be difficult to do. I’ve already explained the rationale behind the legislation and how it relates to existing systems throughout the country that have nothing to do with race. Your deliberate misrepresentation of the latter is not a counterargument.

[antaeus]

I called it out as such and explained why. Judging by your lack of response, I was correct.

You couldn't resist responding to someone sarcastically pointing out the obvious flaws in your argument. Which are essentially, "other people are OK with it so Mississippi should be, and I reckon it is OK"

No actual analysis of why it isn't racist to create two systems that largely serve minority and majority demographic groups separately. Efficiency doesn't mean not racist. Others do it doesn't mean not racist. Difficult to take to the courts doesn't mean not racist. Because the media doesn't mean not racist.

Your deliberate misrepresentation of the latter is not a counterargument.

I don't need to make a counter argument. The OP's position speculates that the situation is racist. You are arguing against it. You're the one who has to refute the OP's case. I'm just pointing out the weakness of your points.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You couldn't resist responding to someone sarcastically pointing out the obvious flaws in your argument.

No actual analysis of why it isn't racist to create two systems that largely serve minority and majority demographic groups separately. Efficiency doesn't mean not racist. Others do it doesn't mean not racist. Difficult to take to the courts doesn't mean not racist. Because the media doesn't mean not racist.

I don’t get the point of admitting your bad faith intentions while accusing me of the same. No analysis has been presented for why the legislation is motivated by racial bias, and the clickbait article provided for discussion admits toward the bottom this would be difficult to prove, which I explained based on the criteria underpinning the OP’s claims. That’s not the characterization presented by the OP or subsequent posters, so I am correcting the disinformation. If there’s any other “analysis” I missed, feel free to present it.

Which are essentially, "other people are OK with it so Mississippi should be, and I reckon it is OK"

If the legislation is racist because court officials would be appointed instead of elected, the bare minimum standard would be to establish that phenomenon as inherently discriminatory or at least motivated by racial bias in this case. If other states pick judicial officials in this way, including ones run by the “anti racist” party, I don’t know how the OP intends to make that case, and no one has.

If the legislation is racist because of the creation of a new/separate legal district, the bare minimum standard would be to establish that phenomenon as inherently discriminatory or at least motivated by racial bias in this case. If other states have done similar things for similar reasons, including ones run by the “anti racist” party, I don’t know how the OP intends to make that case, and no one has.

If the legislation is racist because state leaders don’t match the skin color of the majority of residents in Jackson, the accusation is itself racially prejudiced. Putting that aside, the bare minimum standard would be to establish that phenomenon as inherently discriminatory or at least motivated by racial bias in this case. If white officials in other states pick judicial officials with authority over majority-minority areas, including ones run by the “anti racist” party, I don’t know how the OP intends to make that case, and no one has.

I’ve explained why those criteria remain unmet, which is probably why you can’t offer anything in response.

I don't need to make a counter argument. The OP's position speculates that the situation is racist. You are arguing against it. You're the one who has to refute the OP's case. I'm just pointing out the weakness of your points.

You do need to make a counterargument if the alleged “weakness” of my argument is anything more than an empty accusation.

[Sir Adrian]

Verifiable facts remain verifiable facts even when you have been told to distrust the source because it tells you things your leaders don't want you to know. A 5-second search would show you many other publications that are also reporting on the Republican plot to resurrect apartheid in Mississippi.

My brother in Christ, your source has no facts to speak of.

I don’t know the efficiency of an appointed vs elected court system, but judges are appointed by the governor in many states and adding a separate court system to improve processing time seems reasonable. The media is presenting this arrangement as unprecedented, which isn’t true.

Over here the entire court system is appointed and it works pretty efficiently, when it's working. It's usually not working because of a very large personnel shortage because you have to pass an exam with a 95% failure rate to get into magistrate school.