Dallas GOP Politician to Kids: Marry White or Else

[Guest]

It's a will. 

Not public policy. 

[Brisketexan 104537]

It's a will. 
Not public policy. 

Using the COURTS...a public body, doing the work of we the people, to enforce the terms of your Will IS a matter of public policy.

Use public entities and resources to do your work (enforce your will), then be subject to public policy.

Leave the courts out of it, and you can do whatever you want. Just realize that you lose something really important: the ability to enforce your terms.

[JBJ 3648]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The beneficiary would write a letter to the trustee seeking their distribution and claiming the restrictions to be unenforceable, if so inclined.  The trustee can then follow the law and make the distribution, or decline to.  The beneficiary then sues.  Presumably beneficiary wins.

I think it's a stronger case if if the executor has already distributed the funds and whoever has standing (presumably his estate), sues the government to enforce the racial restriction.  That would more closely follow deed restrictions.  

In your case the executor just has to convince the government not to act.

 

Also, it just doesn't follow from race-restrictive deeds that all race-restrictive contracts are unenforceable:

1) Housing is recognized as a public policy matter.  Along with accomodations, employment, and education.

2) Focusing on that last one, there's a lot of race-restrictive grants and scholarships in education, so we aren't even consistent on matters of public policy when it is private money.

[burntorangebongos 10681]

Lulz.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

9 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I think it's a stronger case if if the executor has already distributed the funds and whoever has standing (presumably his estate), sues the government to enforce the racial restriction.  That would more closely follow deed restrictions.  

In your case the executor just has to convince the government not to act.

 

Also, it just doesn't follow from race-restrictive deeds that all race-restrictive contracts are unenforceable:

1) Housing is recognized as a public policy matter.  Along with accomodations, employment, and education.

2) Focusing on that last one, there's a lot of race-restrictive grants and scholarships in education, so we aren't even consistent on matters of public policy when it is private money.

Read Shelley v. Kraemer.  It has almost no caveats.  If a party seeks to have a court enforce such provisions, or conversely invokes the court's jurisdiction to invalidate such provisions, then they will be invalidated.

Also, I do believe the hetero and Christian restrictions would probably be enforced.  Just not the racial ones.

Edited May 22, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[JBJ 3648]

27 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Read Shelley v. Kraemer.  It has almost no caveats.  If a party seeks to have a court enforce such provisions, or conversely invokes the court's jurisdiction to invalidate such provisions, then they will be invalidated.

Yet almost all Title VI cases are full of caveats.  One of which being that public schools can administer race-restricted funding with funds raised from private donors.

The court would be doing exactly that here, and it's not even for a subject matter that most consider public policy.

 

There's also a difference between not enforcing and invalidating the provision.

Edited May 22, 2018 by JBJ

[wildcat09 29213]

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Using the COURTS...a public body, doing the work of we the people, to enforce the terms of your Will IS a matter of public policy.

Use public entities and resources to do your work (enforce your will), then be subject to public policy.

Leave the courts out of it, and you can do whatever you want. Just realize that you lose something really important: the ability to enforce your terms.

Slorch’s refusal to acknowledge this argument is telling. He can’t square his hatred of government with his desire for the government to do his bidding, so he pretends that that’s not what he’s demanding.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

12 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Yet almost all Title VI cases are full of caveats.  One of which being that public schools can administer race-restricted funding with funds raised from private donors.

The court would be doing exactly that here, and it's not even for a subject matter that most consider public policy.

Shelley v, Kraemer is straight up Constitution.  No laws/statutes involved.  That's why I think it reaches race only, maybe the religion part.  Because the involvement of the courts is straight-up state action, not some other shit regulated by interstate commerce.

[JBJ 3648]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Shelley v, Kraemer is straight up Constitution.  No laws/statutes involved.  That's why I think it reaches race only, maybe the religion part.  Because the involvement of the courts is straight-up state action, not some other shit regulated by interstate commerce.

But reconcile that with very real race-restrictions in scholarships, program funding, not to mention public contracts.

I might be convinced that the courts shouldn't enforce it.  I'm not going to be convinced on the grounds that "they don't enforce racially-restricted contracts. Full stop."  Because they clearly do.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

14 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Slorch’s refusal to acknowledge this argument is telling. He can’t square his hatred of government with his desire for the government to do his bidding, so he pretends that that’s not what he’s demanding.

I'm not a huge fan of government, myself.  But I obviously accept this without qualms.  Draw up a legal agreement and expect it to have legal effect, you avoid putting unlawful provisions in it or accept the consequences.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

But reconcile that with very real race-restrictions in scholarships, program funding, not to mention public contracts.

I might be convinced that the courts shouldn't enforce it.  I'm not going to be convinced on the grounds that "they don't enforce racially-restricted contracts. Full stop."  Because they clearly do.

But those are in arenas that arent' governed strictly by the Constitution, there are some pretty shitty laws with large loopholes and unintended consequences out there.  This doesn't happen to rely on those.

[bolverk 29394]

Is the distribution of assets dictated by public policy?  I'm not talking deed restrictions either.  WTF does the court have to say about my shit with regard to protected classes?  It should not. 

Now, if my wishes are made public and that disuades people from voting for me, then I should have calibrated accordingly. That should be the only repercussion of said stipulations, IMHO. 

 

Slorch, while I get where you're coming from and respect your belief in private property rights, you're ultimately relying on the State to enforce the terms of the contract. The State, however, has made it clear (no matter your opposition to the rationale) that it will not enforce contracts that discriminate according to race. Without State-backed enforcement, the contract is only worth the paper it is written on.

 

We get that you're opposed to it on principle, but the law was settled on this back before you and I were born. That's just the way the cookie crumbles, bro.

 

 

 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

So does this mean Muhammed Ali is a racist?

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Slorch’s refusal to acknowledge this argument is telling. He can’t square his hatred of government with his desire for the government to do his bidding, so he pretends that that’s not what he’s demanding.

You're right.  I would just leave everything up to the government when I die.

 

"Just let THEM decide.  THEY know best."

 

Because discussing the PRINCIPLE means I am endorsing dependency upon the government, right?

 

Just like many of the other discussions on this board, now's the part on your flow chart where it tells you to wish my kid turns gay so it'll teach me a lesson in 'How to get along."

Fuck off.

[HenryJames 65884]

8 hours ago, bolverk said:

That's just the way the cookie crumbles, bro.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13406]

Why wouldn’t this guy just do what other old, rich people do and write people in and out of the will when necessary?  And not enter a qualifier that actually has to be interpreted after he dies.   His qualifiers are white, straight and Christian.  These aren’t determined by a blood test.   What if one of the kids’ spouses is 1/8 Non-white.   Or one of the spouses once had a gay affair for a minute back in 2002?  Does that stop that child from receiving an inheritance?

wouldnt you just write this kid into the will and this one out as needed?  Is he just trying to save a buck and not rewrite a will?  Do his kids remarry that frequently?    This situation just seems like an odd, dangerous way to accomplish a goal.  There are simpler methods.  There has to be more to the story.  

[TwiceHorn 31240]

5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Why wouldn’t this guy just do what other old, rich people do and write people in and out of the will when necessary?  And not enter a qualifier that actually has to be interpreted after he dies.   His qualifiers are white, straight and Christian.  These aren’t determined by a blood test.   What if one of the kids’ spouses is 1/8 Non-white.   Or one of the spouses once had a gay affair for a minute back in 2002?  Does that stop that child from receiving an inheritance?

wouldnt you just write this kid into the will and this one out as needed?  Is he just trying to save a buck and not rewrite a will?  Do his kids remarry that frequently?    This situation just seems like an odd, dangerous way to accomplish a goal.  There are simpler methods.  There has to be more to the story.  

Well, one thing about it is this is a living trust, meaning apparently he put all his assets in a trust, now, while he's still alive.  I believe these must be irrevocable, meaning you can't just change them, so you have to specify from the outset what conditions are necessary to be a beneficiary/receive distributions.

 

Living trusts don't require probate, they are self executing.  It may have been fear of probate and the exposure of his views (the will would become public record) that motivated him to do that.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13406]

thanks for the correction.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

I re-read the article.  Cunningham has a business called "Recovery Healthcare."  As compassionate as it may sound, it isn't.  It's a supplier of alcohol and GPS monitoring products and services to the courts.  One of the worst aspects of our pretrial release and community supervision/probation systems.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

In the end, it's pretty simple.  In your truly private affairs, you are free to be as big a troglodyte as you wish, but as soon as you involve the courts to attempt to give your retrograde notions teeth and effect, the courts won't permit you to be a troglodyte.

 

Another interesting tidbit, in that Evans case cited above, the racial restriction on land donated in trust as a park for honkies was struck down.  After that happened, it went back to the state court for further proceedings.  The court found, and the Supreme Court affirmed, that the entire transfer failed of its essential purpose, so the whole trust was voided, not just the racial restriction.  So I guess there's some risk, by challenging the trust provisions, that the whole thing gets dumped and you get stuck with intestacy.

[Ghost of LL 15469]

On 5/21/2018 at 8:40 AM, slorch said:

I’ve zero issue with that and my feelings on the subject are not why I objected to the subject of the thread.  I just feel the gov’t shouldn’t have a say.  Within existing laws, execute the will.  IDGAF about anyone’s butt getting hurt.

I honestly don't know why you can't get this through your head.

If you won't want the government to have a say, then fine.  Do whatever you want in your trust or will.

But if you try to enforce that provision in court, you're expressly asking for the government's say in the matter.  And once you do that, the government is going to have it's say.

Seriously--why is this so fucking hard for you to understand?

[JBJ 3648]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I honestly don't know why you can't get this through your head.

If you won't want the government to have a say, then fine.  Do whatever you want in your trust or will.

But if you try to enforce that provision in court, you're expressly asking for the government's say in the matter.  And once you do that, the government is going to have it's say.

Seriously--why is this so fucking hard for you to understand?

Because it's an argument that the opinions of the courts matter more than the opinions of citizens.  And it's an argument that the courts shouldn't be impartial on social questions.

If it's illegal, the courts shouldn't enforce it.  If it has a far-reaching public policy aspect (like deed restrictions), that is understandable.

If it's a personal matter with private money and limited scope, courts should stick to the language.  We are essentially talking about a gift that the courts could force the donor to give against his wishes.

[safe sex 11676]

I mean, when you're asking the courts to enforce a contract, their opinion does matter more than the opinion of citizens. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I re-read the article.  Cunningham has a business called "Recovery Healthcare."  As compassionate as it may sound, it isn't.  It's a supplier of alcohol and GPS monitoring products and services to the courts.  One of the worst aspects of our pretrial release and community supervision/probation systems.

The judge made me have some things they provided; had to go to the location on Stemmons by that Whataburger and Denny's a few times. Ankle monitor, drug patches for trips out of the county, blow tubes, etc. It's a racket.

That said, they do hire some wonderful people. Former Baylor football player and crack addict Ken Quesenberry ('75) being one of them. He really helped me when I was at a low point.

[wildcat09 29213]

13 hours ago, slorch said:

It's a will. 

Not public policy. 

Why do we as a society choose to enforce wills?

[SKJ 1305]

Shit is so slorch'd

[Mojo Hand 4580]

13 hours ago, slorch said:

It's a will. 

Not public policy. 

Why should any of us give a fuck about your will, then?  Your dead body isn't going to stop anyone from taking the shit that used to be yours. 

[Tuco 5076]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I re-read the article.  Cunningham has a business called "Recovery Healthcare."  As compassionate as it may sound, it isn't.  It's a supplier of alcohol and GPS monitoring products and services to the courts.  One of the worst aspects of our pretrial release and community supervision/probation systems.

  Did he start that before he retired from being a judge?  Seems like a hell of a conflict of interest.

Quote

...and you get stuck with intestacy.

I think I tried that once in the 90s. 

[Guest]

Buncha community property loonies up in here...

 

All your shit belongs to us...but fuck the authorities.

 

mindfuck, indeed.

[wildcat09 29213]

Just now, slorch said:

Buncha community property loonies up in here...

 

All your shit belongs to us...but fuck the authorities.

 

mindfuck, indeed.

You seem to think the system you're demanding is some sort of default mandated from on high by God. Our system is merely one that we as a society over time have determined to be preferable because we think it is the best of various options. If you cannot even begin to discuss the pros and cons of the system that you are advocating for, then any discussion is pointless.

[yaqdum 182]

it takes some fucking guts to refuse money under terms you don't agree with, but that would settle this sordid shit.

[Ghost of LL 15469]

So Cunningham lost yesterday by 25 votes out of 10,000 cast.

Good job, Dallas County Republicans?

[DDD Dad 14243]

So Cunningham lost yesterday by 25 votes out of 10,000 cast.
Good job, Dallas County Republicans?

Good job, brother Bill.