In a bold declaration that has all the markings of grandstanding legislation, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris have co-sponsored a bill to make lynching a federal hate crime. It would seem this was a major oversight in the history of the Senate.
We are poised for the 1st time in over a century – after hundreds of failed attempts – to finally make lynching a federal hate crime.
— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) December 19, 2018
Despite a noted lack of a rash of lynchings taking place, many had wild praise for the Senator taking a bold stance against a not-very-prominent problem.
I’m so proud of you two being in these positions. Thank you for your strength and voice!
— Christine (@12bdun45) December 19, 2018
The fact that this was ever considered controversial will never cease to appall me.
— Wayne Martorelli (@django22) December 19, 2018
Welcome to 2018 y’all where we have to tell people that lynching is bad.
— GypsyJess (@Jessicalt1) December 19, 2018
“Have to”. Because the concept of lynching being illegal was unclear to many people?
It's so bizarre that this is actually needed. But good for you both.
— BonFire&Ice (@TEAMServicesNY) December 19, 2018
Needed? Have there been cases recently of people commiting lynchings who have gone free? Uh, nope. It was largely symbolic legislation, to make a statement regarding the past instances. Booker himself attests to this.
“We do know the passage of this bill, even though it cannot reverse irrevocable harm that lynching was used as a terror of suppression, the passage of this bill is a recognition of that dark past.”
If you are confused by the fact that murdering another person is already considered a serious crime you are not alone.
I know it’s stating the obvious but,,, when someone decides to lynch you it’s a safe bet they hate you and that it’s a crime!!…
— Peter Lichota (@DrSpockets) December 19, 2018
Lol. Do something progressive Corey.
— Communist Dick Energy (@Marie___Manley) December 20, 2018
So glad we got this covered now because the last lynching that occurred was 1981.
— lMinglewoodl (@lMinglewoodl) December 20, 2018
So if it is unneeded, and admittedly a mostly symbolic bill, what was the purpose of bringing this up in the first place? Could it possibly be to see what politicians from the opposition party might vote against it, and use that vote as a political tool? Not just cynics are thinking this way.
Because if you don't, and we thought you might be racist, your abstaining or voting against it will confirm without doubt!
— Paul Tingler (@PTingler) December 19, 2018
It will be interesting to see the votes on this one.
— Merry Christmas (from a lib) (@UniqueMom444) December 19, 2018
Why would anyone be opposition to a bill like this? We will see.
— etwitts108 (@etwitts108) December 20, 2018
Please publish the name(s) of any senator(s) that don’t support this legislation.
— Shaan (@africanus786) December 19, 2018
Annnnnnnd there it is. Most of the time a new law gets passed to address a serious problem. This one seems at least equally designed to create one. Republican Tim Scott, in a posssible bid to stem that effort, was also a co-sponsor on the toothless bill.
We are eagerly awaiting the next proposal from Booker, making the hijacking of stagecoaches a federal crime.