Harvard Law Professor: ‘Imagine a New Democracy’
“I believe and say often that we are in a democratic crisis”
When someone on the left says something like this, you should run. Remember a few years ago when they wanted to ‘imagine’ a new way of policing?
The College Fix reports:
Harvard law professor tells audience to ‘imagine a new democracy’
A professor at Harvard Law School told a crowd this past Wednesday about her “vision” for a “new democracy” — and it comes straight from the critical race theory playbook.
Sherrilyn Ifill (pictured), former president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and soon-to-be founding director of the 14th Amendment Center for Law & Democracy at Howard University, likened violence such as the January 6 “insurrection” to the 19th-century Reconstruction era in the U.S., The Crimson reports.
“I believe and say often that we are in a democratic crisis,” Ifill said. “I see no reason to pretend that we are not, and in fact, I see a danger in pretending that we are not. Part of the crisis we are in is a law crisis, a crisis in the rule of law, in the legitimacy of law and legal actors, of lawyers and of judges.”
Using terms such as “transformative change,” Ifill claimed the U.S. is “ill-suited” to create and maintain a “multiracial democracy premised on ideas of equality and justice,” but it nevertheless can “mine […] some of the tools that actually work.”
“We can’t afford to throw out the baby with the bathwater,” she said. “That is, we should be mining our system for some of the gems […]
In particular, Ifill said she took inspiration from the 14th Amendment — one of three passed in the wake of the Civil War as part of what she called the country’s “Second Founding.”
“The 14th Amendment is really the provision in the Constitution to my mind that confronts with a measure of honesty the fact that those very guarantees and the project of this democracy are threatened by two powerful forces from within: the stubbornness of white supremacy and the threat constituted by the spirit of insurrection,” Ifill said.
“In its promise, its power, and pragmatism, it is in my view the most dynamic and potentially most powerful provision of our Constitution,” she added.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Utterly meaningless article. Both here and from TheCrimson. It says nothing substantive about her legal program or views. Zero.
Actually it says a lot about her legitimacy and her views.
Someone tell Sherrilyin that the real and developing threats to our republic are the black and transgender supremacists.
Sherrilyn Ifill is a documented racist who blames all her problems in life on white people. CRT is such a fraud. There will be NO REPARATIONS.
“Our Democracy” is an euphemism the left won’t be caught defining with any accuracy.
Any time a huckster begins a pitch with “Imagine,” my hands automatically cover my wallet and my Glock.
Of course he wants a “new” democracy. Because the one we had (which was actually a Republic) is broken – that darned Constitution and the idea of limited gov’t.
The democracy he wants is the one where the marketing can be controlled by the important people, and that allows them to sway the public into deciding, en masse, that the important people are right. And therefore, they elect the same important people who were already in power.
She luvs her dat 14th Amendment.
Somebody ought to interview her on her opinion about how wonderful it is that McDonald v. Chicago finally incorporated the Second Amendment under the 14th 13 years ago, after 230+ years of being the red-headed stepchild of the Bill of Rights. I bet she won’t be able to hold back her enthusiasm.
“incorporated the Second Amendment under the 14th”
(For those to whom this phrase may be inside baseball, it means that the Second Amendment is no longer a “federal-only” guarantee that can be denied with impunity by state legislatures.)
That might be technically true, but SCOTUS has refused to defend both McDonald and Heller against attacks by the lower courts.
To the contrary — they awarded Bruen to the plaintiff in an attempt to stop the games.
There’s only so much SCOTUS can do when blue states stick their fingers in their ears and chant, “Na na na na, I can’t hear you.”
Is she amongst those law profs at Harvard who want to eliminate things like the Electoral College, the filibuster, and anything else that puts a brake on their preferred policies? Or was that Yalies?