Pants-of-dog wrote:No, you have misunderstood.
It would be more correct to say that since US property laws are an imperfect mechanism, instances of infractions against these rights still occur and there still exists the very real possibility that the causes of said infractions are systemic.
Yet that doesn't amount to claiming the legal system is geared to defending theft - or, let's say, white supremacy. Even worse, those technicalities (such as not being able to fulfill a standard of proof) may arise as a result of protecting other fundamental civil rights (such as presumption of innocence). So I'd like you to provide an example just to see what you mean by "technicality" here.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you saying that the individual legislators intentionally acted against the interests of BIPOC people?
I'd say that, for instance, when several Southern states imposed segregation laws or barred Blacks from voting during Jim Crow, that's precisely what they did - and I don't think anyone would disagree with this idea. Same holds for the advent of Black being turned into chattel slaves in the 17th and 18th centuries. And the infamous 1857 Dredd Scott SCOTUS ruling was quite clear in its intent as well.
But what's the intent of current Civil Rights legislation?
Pants-of-dog wrote:If your only evidence is your incorrect idea about another aspect of CRT, this argument is unconvincing.