Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bizarrely xenophobic vibe to many comments in this thread . . . .

Agree. Seriously.

Ilya was born in Russia as a Jew.

Do most of you have any clue what that was like back then?

Along with the rest of his family, they were required to carry their “internal passport” whenever they set foot outside their apartment. The police/military could, and often did, demand: “your papers please!” (yeah, Nazi-style).

Only Ilya’s internal passport didn’t list him as “Russian;” only as a “Jew.”

Here: I’m posting this link in light of the obvious ignorance of many of you when it comes to anti-Semitism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bizarrely xenophobic vibe to many comments in this thread . . . .

Agree. Seriously.

Ilya was born in Russia as a Jew.

Do most of you have any clue what that was like back then?

Along with the rest of his family, they were required to carry their “internal passport” whenever they set foot outside their apartment. The police/military could, and often did, demand: “your papers please!” (yeah, Nazi-style).

Only Ilya’s internal passport didn’t list him as “Russian;” only as a “Jew.”

Here: I’m posting this link in light of the obvious ignorance of many of you when it comes to anti-Semitism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union

How is this relevant to his comments about Scotus nominees?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bizarrely xenophobic vibe to many comments in this thread . . . .

Agree. Seriously.

Ilya was born in Russia as a Jew.

Do most of you have any clue what that was like back then?

Along with the rest of his family, they were required to carry their “internal passport” whenever they set foot outside their apartment. The police/military could, and often did, demand: “your papers please!” (yeah, Nazi-style).

Only Ilya’s internal passport didn’t list him as “Russian;” only as a “Jew.”

Here: I’m posting this link in light of the obvious ignorance of many of you when it comes to anti-Semitism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union

Anonymous wrote:Bizarrely xenophobic vibe to many comments in this thread . . . .

Anonymous wrote:Bizarrely xenophobic vibe to many comments in this thread . . . .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hack hack hack, and a stupid one at that. His “speech” is meaningless. Let’s all move on and forget him.

It’s best not to try to forget all the Republicans who seek to end the country.

Anonymous wrote:Hack hack hack, and a stupid one at that. His “speech” is meaningless. Let’s all move on and forget him.

Anonymous wrote:(note: I was right. Former Soviet emigre.)

I grew up with a lot of kids who got out from behind the iron curtain in the 80s. I don't mean this to denigrate their struggles. But it is notable how many Cato and Federalist people fall into the former Soviet category, is what I am saying.

A conservative optimist might say that's because so many of them appreciate America, knowing what they left behind. I wish that was actually true. As a realist, looking at actions and intent, the truth seems far more cynical and calculated. They are the children of propaganda and autocrats. It's what Ilya gravitates toward because it is what he knows.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for Ilya to explain why he doesn't consider Amy Coney Barrett a less justice given she was picked because she was a woman and, under Ilya's metric, there were more qualified candidates.

It seems his prefers to target women who are racial/ethnic minorities. Sounds pretty racist to me!

There you go, hanging a little asterisk next to Amy's name, noting that she was picked, in part, because she was a woman. Didn't you just prove Ilya's point?

It’s to point out Ilya Shapiro’s blatant hypocrisy and obvious racism.

I see. You're calling him out for being inconsistent. But inconsistency is not hypocrisy. Unless, perhaps, you're aware of some principle that Ilya committed to follow but intentionally chose to break when it came to commenting on Amy Coney Barrett's nomination? What's more interesting is that you agree with Ilya that there will be an asterisk hung by the name of Biden's nominee, but you're still made at him. I guess that means you're also mad at yourself.

It's not hypocrisy, it's racism.

And we’ve come full circle. Claim that his use of the phrase “lesser black woman” can ONLY be read as having a racist meaning. Ignore evidence to the contrary. People see that its disingenuous. I’ll hop off this wheel now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously Ilya has reasons for being extremely enthusiastic about Amy's nomination - and apparently having another standard for the upcoming Biden nominee (not to mention Ilya's previous comments about Sotomayor).

The best thing at this point is for Ilya to speak out and reconcile his views in a way that provides comfort that he's not a racist.

He clearly has enough time on his hands to send out press releases and whine about 'cancellation'.

So why not spend some time defending his opinions. He doesn't seem to want to do that.

Because he can’t.

Typical right wing tactic when caught in something indefensible: Start flailing around with deflections, whataboutisms and other things, like "cancellation." And, regarding cancellation, any thinking person will tell you that it's not "cancellation" - nobody has taken away his right to free speech. Instead, free speech is not a one-way street and does not come without consequences, like others speaking out against you. The problem is not at all that he is being denied free speech.