Yes it is. Contrary to your protestations, you are defending just that.
"Yes it is. Contrary to your protestations, you are defending just that."
If I say that Roe should be reversed, does that make me anti-abortion or pro-life? No, it makes me against the federal government intervening in the issue.
If I say that the War Powers Act is wrong, does that make me pro-war or anti-war? No, it makes me against the federal Congress abrogating its constitutional duties.
You can argue against a law on procedural grounds. You can argue against a law on moral grounds. You can even--believe it or not--argue against a law on the basis of federalism.
You evidently see all civil rights laws only in terms of moral grounds. So he is a racist, because no one could oppose civil rights laws without being immoral in your eyes.
Your simplistic vision of what is 'good' law demonstrates how easy it is to fool some of the people all of the time. No law is good. Good is in the discretion of the executive.
Rmlew may be a racist to you because of your perspective. But I see the law in terms of constitutionalism and federalism. And because no one could advocate the extension of federal power into state civil rights without knowing they are advocating the permanent establishment of government intervention in that arena, and no conservative would do that for fear that same government in the hands of leftists would enforce a different vision of 'rights' (see affirmative action, homosexual marriage, etc.), you are a fool, and especially foolish when you call yourself a conservative.
Moreover, anConstitutional law, regardless of its intent is damaging to the Republic.