Initially pasted the comments to show how hurt they were over it but don't want to give them that attention. The big question is whether they can get the courts to block it like they did with the new subsidies for Black farmers. The fact that Trump got all those far-right judges into power is becoming a huge issue for programs like this and it's not going to be undone quickly unless the dems can get a big enough majority to pack the courts.
It's not really a question. Under this environment, you cannot help black people directly on the basis of being black. I'm starting to wonder if dr. king was right by making our issues a "poor people" problem or some other euphemism instead, in order to get change done.
We joke about that epic Kamala hot take about her laughing, "I can't do something only for black people, nooooo!" But she is actually correct here. You can pass as many of these thing as you want, but they will not stand. I understand that real good is being done by such programs and that such good would benefit the entire population; however "equal protection" when read through a strict constructionist's viewpoint means any moves to give resources to a specific group is unconstitutional, irrespective of prior history/ maldistribution.
I was speaking incredulously in another thread about it, but I think the only way to stop this back and forth with republicans is to hold an outright constitutional convention to amend that constitution to explicitly and specifically allow concessions based on prior history to specific groups. Or alternatively outline the concept of "restitution" in an amendment change. And yes I am aware of just how difficult it is to hold a constitutional convention, but it is the only way to stop this republican yo-yo ing.
And they aren't just doing it to us. Republicans are even trying to reclaim native American concessions under this same equal protection clause none-sense on the west coast and Midwestern wastelands.
Slightly off topic, I think the whole democratic coalition of diperate people's would back a constitutional convention if other interests were included. For example feminists still feel salty about the ERA never becoming a thing, gays are also interested in their rights being codified, and various assortments of minorities would directly benefit from the two clauses I mentioned earlier. A bit speculative on my part, but if you threw in a Republican corporate interest into such a convention you could probably get enough support to host one.
Even more off topic, I do get that the whole voting thing can work as a band aid, but I'm personally tired of only having rights and benefits for 8yr terms just for them to be overturned by the next set of republicans in office. I'm drawn to the permanency of these amendments. I would like the outright aiding of black people to be as unquestionable as birth right citizenship is or the right to not have random soldiers quartered in your basement.