GG can be heard on the new WNYC news program, The Takeaway,

link

http://www.thetakeaway.org/

Robert Taft's 1946 Civil Rights Proposal:

Very interesting (but mercifully brief) piece by David Engstrom in the Winter 2006 Green Bag (not yet internet accessible but available on Westlaw at 9 Green Bag 2d 181):

few know that the history of American fair employment law reached an equally critical juncture more than 20 years earlier, in 1946. It was in May of that year that Republican Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, perhaps the leading conservative voice in Congress at the time, privately approached an emerging coalition of civil rights, labor, religious, and civic groups with a draft bill — reproduced in its entirety at the end of this essay — that broadly prohibited job discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, or national origin and empowered federal courts to oversee sweeping injunctive remedies, including the requirement that employers hire a particular quota of protected workers. The stunning details of that proposal, and its quiet rejection by the nascent liberal coalition, offer a window onto the early, pre-Brown politics of civil rights in the United States. What makes the Taft episode so intriguing, however, are the rich counterfactual possibilities it presents. Though the liberal coalition's rejection of the Taft bill prevented its formal introduction in Congress, a contrary response would have fundamentally altered the course of American fair employment law and the American civil rights movement along with it. More sweeping still, it is not at all implausible that enactment of the Taft measure would have transformed the post-war American party system, making Republicans, not the sectionally challenged Democrats, the party of civil rights going forward. It is therefore surprising that Taft's offer has entirely escaped popular or scholarly treatment until now.

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1143071737.shtml

Although I doubt many on the right think this was such a hot idea then and even less so now.

Let's not get nasty---it was an honest mistake.

From a quick google (http://www.nps.gov/archive/manz/hrs/hrs3a.htm):

Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio spoke briefly against the bill, although he did not vote against it:

I think this is probably the "sloppiest" criminal law I have ever read or seen anywhere. I certainly think the Senate should not pass it. I do not want to object, because the purpose of it is understood. . . .

[The bill] does not say who shall prescribe the restrictions. It does not say how anyone shall know that the restrictions are applicable to that particular zone. It does not appear that there is any authority given to anyone to prescribe any restriction. . . .

I have no doubt an act of that kind would be enforced in war time. I have no doubt that in peacetime no man could ever be convicted under it, because the court would find that it was so indefinite and so uncertain that it could not be enforced under the Constitution. [14]

The debate was no more pointed or cogent in the House, where there seemed to be some suggestion that the bill applied to aliens rather than citizens. [15] The bill became Public Law 503, passing by voice vote in both houses on March 19, and it was signed into law by President Roosevelt on March 21, 1942. [16]

Apparently not LWM, who is busy hiding under the bed because LWM is afraid of the Big Bad Wolf's ostracized toothless Grandfather that refuses to blow down houses. Who knew that the Big Bad Wold was a neoliberal interventionist? Oh, and LWM is also hiding from the Wolf's Grandpa's friend that might get 4% of the vote in a general election while the Big Bad Wolf get more than 10x that number.

We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material.

...

How in the holy hell can you serve in our government as long as McCain has and make basic errors like this?

Just like the others who don't like the majority opinion, McCain is lying about it. Intentionally, straight-facedly, lying. He's going to throw the kitchen sink at the thing, becuase it infringes on his ability to do what he wants to do overseas.

By the way, all of the Justices who voted for this decision were not elected by the american people. I just wanted to mention that.

Buy yourself a big TV and sit back and be happy. Quit worryin'!

I think there's a lot we Americans could teach y'all about just enjoyin' life.

Now if only we could find us some cheap gas, life in the ol" US of A would be just about perfect.

What you said:

An example of principled conservatism here at home

Roosevelt's decision in 1942 to intern Japanese Americans living on the west coast encountered virtually no opposition in the U.S. Congress. The most notable dissenter was Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio, the man known as "Mr. Republican" and the most staunch conservative of his time. Indeed, when the law criminalizing the refusal to evacuate one's home and accede to internment was passed, the only vote in Congress against the law came from Sen. Taft.

What you now say:

The order to intern was an executive order. The order did not, however, criminalize refusal to abide by the internment order. That action was taken by Congress in 1942, and Taft voted against it.

I was correct in the first case. You are moving the goal posts and I say you are still wrong.

Congress hurriedly sanctioned the president's order when, with little debate and a unanimous voice vote, it passed Public Law No. 503, which incorporated the procedures of 9066, criminalizing the violations of military orders, such as the curfews and evacuation directives outlined in the order.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/7813/Japanese-American-Evacuation-Cases-History.html

This reference source says otherwise. Prove it is wrong and I will acknowledge you are correct in the latter case but you are still in error in the former.

Or, you could just quit before you end up your own behind.