Frustration and Fury as Rand Paul Holds Up Anti-Lynching Bill in Senate. A dispute over legislation to make lynching a federal crime has grown fierce as Congress turns its attention to issues of race and law enforcement amid protests across the country.

New York Times ^ | June 5, 2020 | Nicholas Fandos

[karpov]

As Congress prepares to wade into a contentious debate over legislation to address police brutality and systemic racial bias, a long-simmering dispute in the Senate over a far less controversial bill that would for the first time explicitly make lynching a federal crime has burst into public view.

The bill, called the Emmett Till Antilynching Act [...], passed the House this year by a vote of 410 to 4, and has the backing of 99 senators, who have urged support for belated federal recognition of a crime that once terrorized black Americans.

But the private objections of one Republican, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, have succeeded for months in preventing it from becoming law. [...]

The issue erupted on the Senate floor on Thursday afternoon, when Mr. Paul sought to narrow the bill’s definition of lynching and push the revised measure through without a formal vote [...].

Mr. Paul argued that the lynching bill was sloppily written and could lead to yet another injustice — excessive sentencing for minor infractions — unless it was revised.

...

At issue is what, exactly, counts as lynching under federal law. The bill would add a new section called “lynching” to the civil rights statute to deal with group violence meant to intimidate people of color or other protected groups. The offense would be classified as a conspiracy by two or more people to cause bodily harm in connection with a hate crime, with penalties up to life in prison if convicted. Mr. Paul proposed to raise the bar beyond the standard in federal hate crimes statutes, to “serious bodily injury,” so that only crimes involving conspiracy to cause “substantial risk of death and extreme physical pain” could be charged as lynching, according to aides.

[Georgia Girl 2]

We don’t need another politically correct law for murder. Its already covered under well murder. Its all about expanding this hate crime chit.

[griswold3]

Thank you, Rand Paul for saving us from these vague laws that can mean anything.
If they want a “Lynching” as in rope- around -the -neck there would be no controversy Clarence Thomas used the term for his despicable treatment. Be careful what you wish for

[Jan_Sobieski]

Anyone Notice how all these “hate” crime laws move closer and closer to white people not being able to disagree or defend themselves from violence?

[MrKatykelly]

No, we don’t need any more laws. The government has thousands of lawyers, they can dump a $100,000 or a $million dollar legal bill on you over night as we’ve seen plenty of since 2017. The Brown Shirts have been replaced by the White Shirts, but the end result is the same, you’re destroyed and your family is hungry.

[hanamizu]

My wife’s ex wrote a book about the last black lynched in Illinois. Ironically, a white was lynched in the same town, the same day. No books will be written about him.

[eyedigress]

They are trying to redefine the word “lynching”.

[BushCountry]

A small bruise or abrasion is “lynching” is this bill.