Judge Orders Mayor Lightfoot To Clarify Policy Giving Interviews Only To Non-White Journalists
Judicial Watch said her office “hasn’t provided any non-racial reason as to why” she hasn’t granted an interview to a white Daily Caller reporter.
U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee told Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s lawyers she has until the end of the week to clarify her policy only allowing journalists of color to interview her.
From The Daily Caller:
During the Monday hearing related to a suit brought by the Daily Caller News Foundation and Judicial Watch, U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee ordered Lightfoot’s office to file within the week a declaration under oath about whether the mayor’s policy allowing interviews solely to journalists of color is still in effect or will be in effect in the future. The suit alleged that Thomas Catenacci, a reporter for the DCNF, was denied an interview with Lightfoot after repeated inquiries to her office.
Judicial Watch sought an injunction last week asking the court to immediately end Lightfoot’s policy, but the mayor’s lawyers argued in the hearing Monday that it was unnecessary, saying the policy is not currently in effect. The plaintiffs disagreed, arguing that the mayor has not provided any evidence of that.
“There is no evidence that this policy is not in effect,” an attorney for Judicial Watch said, adding that Lightfoot’s office “hasn’t provided any non-racial reason as to why the interview has not been granted.”
An attorney for Lightfoot’s office responded that “the plaintiff has no evidence this policy is in effect.” Lawyers for Judicial Watch replied that “there have been no statements or sworn testimony that the stated policy was rescinded.”
In mid-May, Lightfoot decided she would only grant interviews to “Black or Brown journalists.”
The Daily Caller News Foundation and Judicial Watch sued Lightfoot for racial discrimination after reporter Thomas Catenacci alleged Lightfoot denied him an interview after numerous inquiries to her office.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“What’s to clarify? I don’t give interviews to white people. Period. Oh, you’re giving me an out. Okay, let me clarify.”
For heaven’s sake, don’t ask her to clarify it. She had enough difficulty enunciating it.
The mayor is just performing her idea of Affirmative Action. She’s black, so she gets what she wants. Everyone else can go to hades.
The Mayor simply didn’t expect the pushback. She went way over her skies. Now she is forced into admitting that her interview policy was discriminatory. While also stating that illegal policy is no longer in effect.
The Judge doesn’t seem to be buying that. The plaintiffs correctly pointed out that the Mayor has made no similar public announcement about the termination of the policy. Nor has the Mayor or her attorneys stipulated that the policy won’t be renewed.
The very fact that Mr. Catenacci, a reporter for the DCNF, was denied an interview with Lightfoot after repeated inquiries to her office, makes clear that the policy is in effect. What’s perhaps missing (legally) is that Lightfoot’s assistant didn’t say to Catenacci “your request is denied because you sound white over the phone.”
So the judge has to force her to clarify, and that gives her the “out” to terminate the policy.
What has to happen after this is that news organizations have to send both black and white reporters to interview the Mayor, and keep score as to what happens.
“What has to happen after this is that news organizations have to send both black and white reporters to interview the Mayor, and keep score as to what happens.”
And the odds of the Leftist MSM doing this are?
Subotai Bahadur
Zero
“Lightfoot’s assistant didn’t say to Catenacci “your request is denied because you sound white over the phone.”
Besides, Catenacci is such a classically sub-Saharan name.
(I’m kidding, Don Patriarca, I’m kidding!)
While also stating that illegal policy is no longer in effect.
Wanna bet? I’m betting that even if Mayor Beetlejuice’s illegal policy is officially “rescinded” and no longer in effect she’ll find a way to not have any time (So sorry, schedule full for the next month. No interview for you, whitey.) for any person of whiteness that requests an interview from her or her staff. Guaranteed.
That’s why the Judge ordered a clarification. The Mayor Jas been ordered to attest, under oath, whether the policy is or is not active.
Her attorneys media statements don’t cut it.
I don’t think that her attorneys are foolish enough to advise that she, in effect says ‘not active policy’ and then create a factual record showing the opposite. People will be paying close attention to her statement to the CT and her follow through.
Waiting to hear the all-purpose Twitter/Facebook “human error™️” excuse in 3…
The policy is racist as hell, but it is not illegal. Granting interviews is not an official function, and the first amendment protects her right to do so or refrain from doing so as she pleases.
“…right to do so or refrain from doing so as she pleases.”
When acting as an official of the city, even if it is not in performing an official function, she can treat people differently based on skin color?
Official functions have underlying legal authority it seems to me. Other functions, such as communicating with the public, seem to have some level of implied authority. I think of a mayor as the face of a city and her behavior communicates racism. When speaking as a citizen with NO special authority or position, she can be her racist self. But, it seems to me that anything related to her elected office precludes racist behavior and that effects people which seems to be illegal.
I suspect you disagree. Help me understand why.
When acting as an official of the city
Therein lies the issue. Is she acting “as an official of the city” when giving one-on-one interviews? Remember, we’re not talking about press conferences here (although those aren’t technically official either). Is sitting down with Barbara Walters on 20/20 “acting as an official of the city”? What about appearing on the Sunday morning political talk shows?
There’s nothing about the mayoralty that requires giving one-on-one interviews to the press, or anybody else for that matter. That means when she does so she’s a private citizen and protected by the same First Amendment you are. This remains true whether you like it or not.
“That means when she does so she’s a private citizen and protected by the same First Amendment you are.”
Disagree. When speaking as the mayor she is communicating information to the public, and is therefore acting in an official capacity of speaking for the government, and is thereby controlled by all laws and acts and rules and regulations that entails. She is not acting as a private citizen, but as a government spokesperson, and cannot discriminate, therefore, in the performance of those acts on the basis or race.
If she were speaking outside of normal business hours, not in her office or in any other government building or location, not in her capacity as mayor or about official business or matters of government concern, but purely in regards to matters of personal interest but not conspiring to deny persons of their rights on the basis of their race, then I think you may have a point.
But even when acting as a private citizen she could not do such things as not allow white people to see her home if it were up for sale, or refuse to answer their questions or entertain an offer on the basis of the potential buyers race, There are many facets of even wholly private domains where people are not allowed, rightfully, to discriminate on the basis of race.
She cannot say that, as mayor, she can refuse to deal someone because of their race.
Daniel,
If the Mayor is being interviewed by ‘outdoor gardening magazine’ as to her personal favorite flowers that is not an official act because it has zero to do with her role or actions as Mayor. It is personal.
By contrast if the Chicago Tribune police beat reporter is asking the Mayor about rising crime rates, the CPD response and her official policies as Mayor that will hinder or help the crime rate….that is clearly an official act.
She could refuse all interviews as Mayor and accept all personal interviews about non official topics. She didn’t do that.
Do you know what an interview is? In granting an interview she is not speaking for the city. She is speaking for herself only. “Communicating information to the public” is exactly what the first amendment protects.
Also, a mayor is not a government spokesperson. As mayor she has official spokespeople, paid by the city, whose job it is to speak on the city’s behalf; they may not discriminate in whom they speak to in that capacity. Nobody’s interested in interviewing them; but in the unlikely event that someone was, they wouldn’t be speaking for the city then, so they’d be entitled to discriminate.
The time or place of the interview is irrelevant. Nor is the topic. She is entitled to speak, in her own capacity, about official business or matters of government concern, just as you and I are entitled. We’re doing it right now. When she speaks to an interviewer she’s doing the same thing. Official announcements are a different story.
Think back to the Trump Twitter case. The judge’s opinion was very clear and impeccably reasoned. Trump’s Twitter account was an official account because it was managed for him by a government employee, and was used to conduct official government business and to make official announcements. Had Trump continued to run the account himself, or paid someone privately to do so, as he had before he became president, and had he not made any official announcements on it or used it for official business, it would have remained a private account, and therefore he could have blocked anyone he liked from the “comment section”. Even though he would still president, and would still have been talking about the things he was doing as president, he would have been doing so in his private capacity. That’s what an interview is.
Great. The judge is giving Lightfoot the opportunity to stipulate that.
“Also, a mayor is not a government spokesperson.”
You are actually say that when you schedule an interview with the mayor of a city through the mayor’s office and you go to that office and sit down with said mayor and ask a question such as “Can you explain the priorities of the mayor’s budget?” the mayor’s response is not speaking for the mayor of the city???????
If the mayor cannot speak for the mayor, who is head of the city’s government, who can?
Sorry, that argument simply does not fly. Of course she speaks for the mayor and the city government. She IS the mayor and the city government. As such, she cannot restrict the business of her office to exclude people on the basis of race.
“When acting as an official of the city
Therein lies the issue. Is she acting “as an official of the city” when giving one-on-one interviews?”
Trust me — if she were not a city official, NOBODY would want to interview her.
In an interview she is speaking for herself, not for the city. She is saying what she will propose and what she hopes to achieve, exactly as she did in her campaign, before she became mayor.
When Trump tweeted about such things that was also his personal speech. Whereas when he tweeted official announcements, when he conducted actual government business in a tweet, that was his speech as president.
Irrelevant. Remember, she was interviewed long before she became mayor, when she was merely a candidate, and obviously speaking for nobody but herself. But even if she had never been interviewed then, and the fact that she’s mayor is all that makes her an interesting person to interview, the fact remains that she is being interviewed. Her position makes her a celebrity, but it is she that’s the celebrity.
“If it were an official function then she would not be allowed to deny an interview just because the person had been unfair or hostile, to her or to anyone else.”
Absolutely she could. You can legally discriminate on any of these basis. You cannot discriminate on the basis of race as a government employee or functionary. Now you are taking an inverted position that the mayor CAN discriminate on the basis of race but MUST take interviews and questions in all other cases. This makes no sense. The government may discriminate on the basis of race. A mayor may not refuse services to a citizen, which include information, on the basis of race. There are numerous lawful reasons a mayor may deny communication with someone, but that person’s race is not one of them. I honestly do not know where you get your notions. The examples you use actually support my position.
Where on earth did you get such a twisted idea?
You can legally discriminate as much as you like, except where a law specifically forbids it. A government official is not entitled to discriminate in the provision of government services simply because he doesn’t like someone. The person at the DMV has to give you the same service as he gives anyone else, even if you insulted his mother and ran over his cat. Race is not special in that regard.
If granting an interview were an official function of the mayor, then she would have to treat all applicants exactly equally, and either give them all interviews, give none of them interviews, or apply some objective and relevant criterion, such as first come first served. A reporter’s hostility could not be a factor.
The fact, which you admit, that a mayor can, in fact, deny someone an interview because of their political position, proves that granting interviews is not an official function. That’s why she can give them to her friends and deny them to her enemies. And for the exact same reason she can use race as a criterion.
Huh?! How on earth did you derive that from anything I’ve written. You’re right that it makes no sense. It’s complete nonsense; nothing I wrote could possibly be understood that way.
Garbage. Information is not a government service just because it comes from the mayor. The government provides specific services, some of which come in the form of information; those must be distributed without any form of discrimination. The 14th amendment says so. Equal protection. But it is not the mayor’s job to answer random questions from citizens, so if you stop her on the street and ask her a question she is acting in a private capacity and she can decide whether to answer you using any criteria she wishes, including race. The same applies if you offer to buy her a beer, or if you ask her for an interview.
Again, you are wrong. “Communication” is not her job. Her spokesman, whose job it is to make official communications, may not discriminate on any grounds.
“The person at the DMV has to give you the same service as he gives anyone else, even if you insulted his mother and ran over his cat. Race is not special in that regard.”
OK Milhouse. Try this experiment. Go to the DMV. Tell them you lost your driver’s license and need a new one. When called to the service counter, start name calling and insulting the clerk. Call her a bitch. If a minority, use racial epitaphs. Tell her to hurry the hell up or she will not like it. Tell her you are going to spread all over Facebook her rotten service. Then glance over your should and watch the police officer stationed there for security approach to strain you and eject you from the premises. Please give this a try. Let us all know how it goes. Let me know before you try it. Even at my advanced age, I will buy a plane ticket to New York City and film it on my cell phone. I will cherish it forever and share it broadly. Afterward, when released on no-bail by the city, I will buy you a drink and we can critique your performance.
Oh boy. This is a long one.
Not true. First of all, a tradesman is not an employee, so the discrimination in employment laws don’t apply. But even if I were to hire a full-time handyman, the federal law on this doesn’t apply until I have 15 employees. State laws vary, but in most states the threshold is significantly higher than one. In any case, we’re only discussing it because there’s a specific law against discrimination in employment. It’s not a general proscription.
I highly doubt a yard sale counts as a public accommodation. But even if it does, it’s only relevant because there’s a specific law covering that.
Well, the company, being private, is likely to fire me for saying such a thing. But would I be liable in court?! Would it be liable?! That would depend on whether it’s my job to answer such inquiries. If it is, and the company has at least 15 employees, then the federal law applies. If not… still, if the person called the company’s number, and I answered speaking for the company (whether I was authorized to do so or not), he might have a case. After all, answering enquiries about employment is part of the hiring process. But if he called me at home (having found my number somewhere) and asked about employment opportunities at my employer, I don’t think my refusing to speak to him creates a cause of action. Again, though, we’re only discussing this because there’s a specific law covering discrimination in employment. So it doesn’t apply to other cases, such as mayors granting interviews. which is inherently a private function, not an official one, since there’s no such thing as an “official interview”.
Almost certainly not. Which law do you allege covers that?
That is just not true. You’re making it up. The mayor is not the government. She acts for the government only when performing her official functions. Answering random questions is not one of them. There is no such city function as “granting information to citizens”. There are city employees whose job is to provide specific kinds of information, and those people, when providing those kinds of information, may not discriminate on the basis of race or anything else. They must treat everyone equally, unless they have a rational basis for discriminating. But outside the specific scope of their official functions they have the same rights as everyone else.
“The mayor is not the government.”
Milhouse – the Mayor IS the executive authority of a city. ALL executive authority resides within the mayor unless otherwise specified in law. All other functionaries of the executive exist and perform their duties under authority derived from the mayor. The may IS THE GOVERNMENT, or to be precise, the executive component of the city government.
Providing information IS a function of government. There are laws and statutes that direct and compel governments to provide certain information to the public in recognition of this.
A government MUST treat its citizens without regard to race. Therefore it cannot deny things to citizens on the basis of race, such as access to government officials, information, data, or any service, privilege or benefit normally allowed to any person or citizen.
The government MAY deny access and services on basis other than specifically prohibited by law, such a discrimination on the account of race. Again, walk into your DMV to renew a license and become overtly hostile and angry. When the police office stationed there walks up, become overtly hostile to him. Let’s see which transaction is completed – the renewal of your license, or your arrest.
“The time or place of the interview is irrelevant. Nor is the topic.”
It is exceptionally relevant. If she is acting in the capacity of a government official, she cannot discriminate on the basis of race. Imagine waling up to election registrar and having the election registrar say, “Sorry, I don’t talk to black people.”
The mayor may deny an interview which is a public communication from her office on any number of legitimate grounds to include, “I do not have time,” “You have been unfair to me,” “You have exhibited hostile behavior in interviews with other people,” “You do not reach a large enough number of people,” etc., etc., but you cannot say “I don’t talk to white people,” because then you, as a mayor, in the act of providing public communications, have discriminated against someone on the basis of their race and she cannot do that any more than person in private business can do that.
So I do know what an interview is. It is a public relations exercise normally scheduled through the staff government paid public affairs office, and held on government premises or at the offices of the interviewer, scheduled during the normal working hours of the mayor while the mayor is getting paid, which all makes it official government business, the exercise of which she may not discriminate on the basis of race.
“you, as a mayor, in the act of providing public communications, have discriminated against someone on the basis of their race and she cannot do that any more than person in private business can do that.”
The irony here is that under constitutional originalism, you COULD do that (freedom of association) and she COULDN’T (equal protection of the laws).
Isn’t it interesting how our rules have turned our freedoms on their heads?
If it were an official function then she would not be allowed to deny an interview just because the person had been unfair or hostile, to her or to anyone else. If it’s a government service it must be distributed fairly, and to everyone equally. If there’s a shortage of slots they’d have to be handed out either by lottery or first come first served.
The fact that she can favor interviewers who she thinks will be nice to her and refuse those who she thinks won’t proves that she’s not acting in an official capacity.
The time and place are irrelevant, because she’s not on a wage, she’s on a salary, and she sets her own work hours, so she’s entitled to engage in personal and political business whenever she sees fit. She’s also allowed to use her office for personal and political business.
Well then she should just tell the judge that.
Obviously she doesn’t want to. But the judge has an independent obligation to obey the first amendment, and is violating it.
I agree. From her own point of view Lightfoot’s mistake was to openly announce this policy. Even if it is not illegal it made her look bad.
What would have been (diabolically) smarter would be to quietly freeze out all white journalists. Then if challenged she could issue the usual antiracist boilerplate: “Persons of color have long been discriminated against due to systemic racism….I am simply trying to give them opportunities AmeriKKKa has denied them…..Anyone who objects is a white supremacist who hates brown and black people…blah blah blah.” The Joseph Goebbels media would have eagerly lapped it up.
Milhouse,
Your position is undercut by today’s events.
The DoJ today reiterated the long-standing principle that ‘speaking to the public and the press is part of an elected official’s job’. Further because those statements are ‘official acts’ MS Carroll may not pursue a lawsuit against DJT for libel.
Every non personal act by an elected official is an official act. I don’t understand why you refuse to acknowledge that. She can absolutely refrain from official interviews entirely and grant zero official interviews.
However if she chooses to grant official interview requests then she can’t use race as a basis to refuse or accept the interview requests.
First of all the DOJ position may not be correct. We’ll see how the court treats it.
Second, it’s a completely different context. The government defends officials who are sued, unless the act in question is completely private, without any connection with the fact that they hold public office. In the Trump case the freedom of speech weighs in favor of the government defending him; in the Lightfoot case that same freedom of speech weighs in favor of defending her. In both cases it’s about giving the maximum weight to an official’s freedom to speak for himself, and making it difficult for courts to interfere with that.
Milhouse,
I would be very happy to oblige your perfectly reasonable request to wait and see…so long as you are willing to be a bit less strident and insistent re whether the Mayor can lawfully discriminate under the 1st amendment.
I doubt there is any recent, say 4 decades or so, case law about an elected official and discrimination in their official acts. It’s simply not done anymore and has not been for a long time.
IMO, we potentially have a clash between the Mayor’s 1st amendment rights v press 1st amendment rights buttressed by the general public 1st amendment rights in association/publication subscription choice/reporter choice. Plus 14th amendment issues ECT.
IMO this is more than simple looking at the Mayor’s 1st amendment claims, which she has not in fact asserted to my knowledge.
Even if she does eventually make that claim as you do, her rights are limited when they conflict with the rights of others. Especially given that she would be asserting a claim for official acts.
To my knowledge the only time race based ‘remedies’ are allowed is when one can show past wrongs based upon race for the people one wishes to favor. A generic claim of past injustice, which was what the Mayor invoked in her original statement, isn’t sufficient to clear the hurdle.
Reporters have no special first amendment rights. They’ve got the same rights as any other member of the public. Granting an interview is an exercise of her first amendment rights, not those of the person she’s granted it to. And the public have no first amendment right to be provided with reading material; their only right is to read it or refuse to, if and when it has been provided. So there’s no conflict of rights here.
Milhouse,
I am not going to adopt your theory that the Mayor can choose to racially discriminate via the exercise of her 1st amendment rights.
I am willing to let this drama play out in the CT and reserve judgement.
So if a public official says, “I will not be granting any official interviews to black or brown people.” you would make the same argument that such a position, while racist as hell, is not illegal and that the first amendment protects the person who makes such a statement?
Absolutely. Seriously, how could you even consider the possibility that I might not? What do you think I am, some kind of lefty?! I think I take offense at that.
Milhouse,
I believe you. You are remarkably consistent on an expansive and near absolutist view of the 1st amendment.
I think you are incorrect but you are hella consistent and incredibly tenacious in your viewpoint.
Really, Milhouse? Let a Repub try that stunt and see how long it takes for the DOJ to get involved
The DOJ would have no right to interfere, and would be thrown out of court, with sanctions, if it tried.
The actual racism is pretty clear.
If a white mayor said I’m not giving one-on-one interviews with blacks – you can be sure the mob would not need clarification.
For example – BLM did not ask for clarification when Floyd died. They told the world that the cop was racist and was the poster-child for systemic racism. They said we have to change our entire society. But, at the trial, the prosecutors provided ZERO evidence that the cop was racist. In fact the Minnesota Attorney General outright said that races was NOT a factor in the officers actions.
No one seems to talk about what was NOT presented at trial. A motive that involved racism. I kept waiting for them to present something about racism – if only to give cover to BLM and keep consistent with their narrative. Nothing. Their Silence speaks volmes. But the race-baiting media never pointed out this inconvenient fact. Because for months they went along with the “BIG LIE” that the officer was racist. CNN even implied the cop was a “white supremacist” until they found out he married an Asian (just to be clear – “White Supremacists” do not marry other races).
A lot is revealed by what people don’t say. But it is harder to find – because they don’t say it. You have to look for the lie both in what people say – and what they don’t say.
Whether the mayor rescinds the policy or not, she’s still a racist. That won’t change.
It would be funny if the judge found an excuse to slap her with a huge fine.
The Mayor responds, “I’m not speaking to Whitey”.
I can’t decide if she is a golem, a goblin, or a mere troll.
I am certain, however, that she is a racist.
I have seen people with an uncanny facial resemblance to cows and pigs, she is the first which looks like an insect.
U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee ordered Lightfoot’s office to file within the week a declaration under oath about . . .
Wow. That doesn’t happen often. Can’t remember the last time any democrat politician was required to make a statement under oath for a legal proceeding. That means she can’t wiggle out of the fact that she created and implemented a racist policy of turning away white journalists. Good for the court.
I don’t give a sh*t about Lightfoot. I do care about the first amendment, which this order violates.
Keeping in mind I happen to agree with you on this one – as reported, all the order requires Lightfoot to do is indicate whether that policy is still in effect. Does the judge have the power to so order?
I mean, it’s technically a moot point since she has every right to have such a personal policy, but could he? Would it perhaps fall under compelling her to testify?
All the order does is ask Defendant for an affirmative sworn statement if the policy is in effect, or not, or if the mayor intends to bring it into effect, or not. If the sworn answer is no, the case is moot. That is all that is happening here. The order does not violate any amendment. It seeks sworn clarification on a central point of contention of Plaintiff so the case may be dismissed.
Let me go further. Even if the judge wishes to dismiss the case in summary judgement, the judge may still want clarification that the policy is active and in force, or their is intention to make it so, to affirm the right of the mayor to act in a racist manner.
I do not agree with either you or Milhouse that officials interviews granted by a mayor in the capacity of being mayor negate a legal requirement for public officials to act without racial prejudice. The logic of such racist policy is extendable to other areas of official duties and activities if allowed to stand, such as the mayor could refuse to award or bestow awards on the basis of race, or answer questions from the public (which is the same as the press) on any matter on the basis of there race, or speak to employees of the city on the basis of race, etc.
I do agree the mayor cannot be compelled to speech. She simply cannot deny or grant any official activity on that basis, and if so acts upon such basis, is liable for some penalty. Plaintiff would need to show damages.
The mayor cannot be compelled to speech, but in her official capacity as mayor, she may not discriminate against people (be those people reporters or constituents) on the basis of race.
Imagine saying, “I won’t speak to that city resident on the issue of garbage pickup on his block because he’s white.” We’d all instantly recognize that as illegal (14A incorporated into 1A) because she’s acting in her official capacity, and she’s not allowed to discriminate when doing so.
Now imagine saying, “I won’t speak to a white reporter.” Those reporters aren’t there to ask about her cookie recipe or da Bears, they’re there to ask about city policy, city politics, and so on. Not one chance that she can get away with that sort of discrimination.
You and Milhouse are attempting to carve out a right for her that she doesn’t have. Yes, as a private citizen she can refuse to talk with anyone, if that’s her wish. But most of time, most of the days of the week, she’s NOT A PRIVATE CITIZEN, she’s a public official, and the reporters are asking for interviews (through her official office and press secretary!) for the purpose of public discourse and debate. She can’t discriminate by race which journalists she’ll talk to and which she won’t.
Both of you are making this more complicated than it is. She’s a mayor, and she’s talking to journalists on the public dime.
The central point here is whether “officials [sic] interviews granted by a mayor in the capacity of being mayor” even exist, which both Milhouse and I have pointed out do not. You may disagree. Ultimately the courts will rule one way or the other,
There seems to be a disturbing tendency on these threads for people to treat habit and custom as if it has the force of law. The US isn’t England or Republican Rome; “well, we’ve always done it that way” isn’t law. The state constitution and/or the articles of incorporation of the City of Chicago are, and those are the laws which determine what “Mayor of Chicago” means.
“I won’t speak to that city resident on the issue of garbage pickup on his block because he’s white.”
If there’s no relevant law requiring the mayor to speak to individual city residents as part of their official job duties, then that’s entirely within her rights. There are, I’m assuming, laws or bylaws that dictate how mayoral business is conducted and the manner in which the mayor must communicate such business to the citizens. I would be flabbergasted if such laws require the mayor to interact directly with any individual who felt like accosting him or her.
“There seems to be a disturbing tendency on these threads for people to treat habit and custom as if it has the force of law. ”
“If there’s no relevant law requiring the mayor to speak to individual city residents as part of their official job duties, then that’s entirely within her rights.”
We are not saying she can be compelled to grant an interview. What we are saying is she may not make a decision to grant of deny an interview on the basis of the race of the person requesting the interview. It’s no different than someone sending a letter to the mayor asking about a permit for roadwork and the mayor responding, I don’t respond to white people.” The mayor may choose to respond to the letter or not, but not on the basis of the person’s skin color.
I am not sure why this is difficult to understand.
It’s difficult to understand because it’s wrong. A mayor, just like anyone else, is entitled to refuse to answer letters that she has no duty to answer, on any basis she likes, including race. A mayor can indeed announce that if you’re black/white/purple then don’t bother writing to me about the pothole on your street, because I won’t answer.
She’d look terrible, and her opponents at the next election would surely use it against her; the city council might even censure her, and someone might start a recall petition, if Chicago has such things (or even if it doesn’t — there are any number of petitions circulating to recall or to impeach de Blasio, even though he can’t be recalled or impeached). But she’s still entitled to do it.
“It’s difficult to understand because it’s wrong. A mayor, just like anyone else, is entitled to refuse to answer letters that she has no duty to answer, on any basis she likes, including race.”
Actually, this is wrong. Say you hiring someone to do some minor repairs on your home, and a black person shows up to ask for the work, and you say, “I don’t give work to black people,” You are in court and you are going to lose.
If you are having a yard sale, and a black guy walks up and wants to buy something and you say, “I don’t talk to black people,” you lose again.
If you are at work and a guy cold calls and wants to ask a few questions about the company you work for because he is interesting in working there and you reply, “I don’t talk to black people,” you get fired or disciplined or the company is liable for your behavior, and it loses.
If you are head of a company and a black guy cold calls you to tries and sell a product or service to the company and you say, “I do not talk to black people,” that black guy just had his lucky day, because soon you will be working for him.
I will say it again, Milhouse. No one here is saying the mayor must interact with someone for any reason not specified in law. What the may CANNOT do is refuse to interact with someone as mayor on the basis of their race.
If the mayor is sitting in her car with the window down, and another car roles up, and the passenger , a white guy, looks over and asks, “Excuse me, but do you have any Grey Poupon, the may could say, “I do not talk to white people,” that’s racists but not contrary to law. But if that same white guy sends in a request for information to the city government and the city government refuses to comply because “they do not talk to white people,” that’s not going to fly before a court, and a court will make them comply with servicing the request if it would otherwise normally be granted.
The mayor of a city IS THE CITY GOVERNMENT executive. When the mayor speaks on a matter of government, the government has spoken, and granting information to citizens is an act of government. Refusal to provide information to a citizen on the basis of race is contrary to the protections under the 14th amendment. The rights of the mayor under the 1st amendment is in no way violated. She can say anything she wants, but she cannot actually deny a person legitimate government services, of which an interview is one, on the basis of race.
Her “plight” will likely be played out in the MSM this way:
The poor, minority, oppressed gay mayor of Chicago is being persecuted in US District Court by an Obama appointee judge who is apparently not woke as to the mayor’s rights to unilaterally approve interviews only for black and brown journalists and is siding with Russian media outlets.
No worries! Mayor Lightfoot has way too many “privilege” cards to play: black, gay, Democrat, stupid…the list goes on.
I regret the fact that I am able to give only one Thumbs Up!
Is this judge a moron? What did she say about giving interviews only to people of color was ambiguous?
“Lee was nominated to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by President Obama on November 10, 2011. ” (ballotpedia.org)
So . . . the Trump Administration restricted one obnoxious “reporter” named Jim Acosta while continuing to allow others from his network, and that was the end of the world, but Lightfoot seeks to exclude reporters on the basis of race, and the Mainstream Media hardly care.
The court said that the way White House press passes had been issued made them private property, and so the administration could not confiscate or cancel his pass arbitrarily. It had to make explicit rules, and wait for him to break them before it did that. Alternatively it could cancel all passes and reissue them under different terms that made it clear they were not private property and could be canceled at any time. The administration chose not to follow through on this.
How does one clarify an obviously racist act. Racism is racism and there is no clarification needed, only legal action in removing this incompetent person.
Racism is not illegal.
Neither is B.O.
Lightfoot, as mayor, is refusing to grant a one-on-one interview with persons of pallor. How is this different than when President Trump blocked an individual from his twitter and was sued for it? The judge forced President Trump to unblock the individual because they had the right to communicate with the President.
I’m not sure where this is all going but its going to get interesting 🙂
As for Lightfoot:
Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice.
this is not the first time I have found myself wondering why so many people voted for her. WLM, got it “your honor”? racism is ugly, but for some reason it’s even uglier coming from her
i am of the opinion that as long as we allow this kind of deliberate assault on our constitution to continue we are lost. The next step is going to be catastrophic and is exactly what the leftists want to happen
Clarify? I can help:
she is a racist.