Katie Couric admits editing 2016 RBG interview to remove comments critical of anthem kneeling

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It's one thing to oppose Colin Kaepernick's protest. That's bad and weird, but whatever. It's a little bit worse, however, to suggest that black people should be grateful we brought them here and that they aren't in Africa. There's no way to spin that in a way that isn't shockingly racist.

That is... not what she said.

"Black people lived a better life here than 'in the places that they came from'" is basically exactly what she said, and it's been a racist talking point used to justify present day racism against black people dating back all the way to the height of slavery. It's profoundly disappointing to me that she said it, and I think we'd all do well to be aware of the history of such arguments.

She referred to their "parents and grandparents." Meaning the places that they came from in this case would be referring to the Segregated South. So yeah, I do think that black people today are better off now, in many or most instances, due to changes in government policy, and this really shouldn't be controversial.

Amazing that so many on the left have interest in giving the GOP something of a challenge in the "who can deny basic reality more" department.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I do not think there's anything wrong with Ginburg's remarks regarding AAs here, and I disagree with her remarks about Kaeparnick, but I am understanding enough to recognize that liberals, especially those from different generations whose worldviews were formed in different times, can disagree on these issues. I feel I'd probably agree with her overall more than I would with some forumites anyway.
The Democratic party is a broad church.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This absurdity is quite telling really. Ginsburg was very much a New Deal Liberal, the last of them to fill a prominent public position, and so had certain views about the nature of America and the majesty of the Republic that are not fashionable amongst today's American Liberals (including the ones who call themselves Socialists to be edgy). This often showed up in her work: she was not particularly sympathetic towards Native claims about sovereignty and land-use, for instance. But contemporary American political and social discourse is characterised above all else by two things: firstly, an 'us and them' attitude that is almost pure Schmitt in character and which is routinely applied not just to people directly but also to issues, and a relentless ahistorical, no, antihistorical, approach to all things; the dogmatic insistence on a perpetual present.

Well put.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This absurdity is quite telling really. Ginsburg was very much a New Deal Liberal, the last of them to fill a prominent public position, and so had certain views about the nature of America and the majesty of the Republic that are not fashionable amongst today's American Liberals (including the ones who call themselves Socialists to be edgy). This often showed up in her work: she was not particularly sympathetic towards Native claims about sovereignty and land-use, for instance. But contemporary American political and social discourse is characterised above all else by two things: firstly, an 'us and them' attitude that is almost pure Schmitt in character and which is routinely applied not just to people directly but also to issues, and a relentless ahistorical, no, antihistorical, approach to all things; the dogmatic insistence on a perpetual present.

I don't understand all of this post. What is "pure Schmitt" and who is being antihistorical here?

I was baffled at first too
It makes a lot of sense when you think about it deep down from the right place anyway.