Tomorrow is a SIGNIFICANT day for #ADOS because of the Allen v. Comcast case arguments before #SCOTUS.

Something that dogged me for a while: Why did Allen use the 1866 CRA instead of the 1964 CRA? Is one more powerful than the other? Who cares?

3 terms: #ADOS, ’s & Workers

1) #ADOS were the intended target of the 1866 CRA enacted on April 9, as this was the first federal law post-Civil War to protect the rights of newly acquired citizenship for #ADOS.

History : This was the FIRST time Congress overrode a Presidential veto for a MAJOR piece of legislation, during Andrew Johnson’s presidency.

Let the record also state that he had the MOST Congressional overrides in history (he exercised 21 vetoes, Congress overrode 15).

For lack of time to describe Andrew Johnson and his lackluster presidency, you can think of him as the 1800’s version of Joe Biden: Sympathetic to Confederacy, nom. as VP for palatability to POTUS, etc.

Do your own research & tell me if you agree or think I’m reaching

2) Caps for damages are present in the 1964 CRA that are not included in the 1866 CRA. The Republicans after the Civil War didn’t even fathom Confederates paying to get from under the 1864 CRA so it was never considered. The goal was to guarantee #ADOS citizenship by any means.

@RealByronAllen is suing for $20 Billion; if he used the 1964 CRA, the max he could get for compensatory damages is $300,000. Yes, that’s a BIG DIFFERENCE!

Now the intention was for there to be unlimited compensation for damages in 1964 CRA as well for discrimination, but white women were upset that it was race-centered and not gender-focused as well.

For example, an #ADOS women could recover for damages due to sex discrimination but a white woman could only recover back pay, injunctive relief, etc. but not for damages.

Subsequent amendments, e.g. 1991 CRA included gender & other wrenches that muddied the use of it for #ADOS.

3) Employees are entered in the 1964 CRA as thresholds to its use; it can only be used against companies with > 15 employees, while the 1866 CRA mentions no thresholds.

How many #ADOS do you know that work at companies with < 15 employees? I know plenty!

So Mr. Allen clearly understood these things and applied them as they should be, as the 1866 CRA was to guarantee that government had the burden of proof to guarantee rights to #ADOS, especially if “motivating factors” such as race would affect the realization of those rights.

@Comcast is requesting that the burden is transferred to the plaintiff to prove that “but-for” his race, they would have purchased access his channels & made them available to its subscribers.

For comparison, I say that “motivating factor” is analogous to civil law’s burden of proof; the plaintiff must provide proof then the defendant must refute the evidence initially presented. All the plaintiff needs is a 51/49 win from the jury that he was wronged & is owed.

“But-for” is analogous to criminal law, but instead of the government having the burden of proof, the plaintiff does, and he must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (99.9%) that race is the reason he was wronged. Additionally in this case @TheJusticeDept sides WITH the defendant

This is why this is SO important: Byron has the wealth & time to fight @comcast & @TheJusticeDept, but #ADOS as a group do not.

The 1866 CRA could withstand caps on damages, employee thresholds, and other categories that water down & dismiss what was meant for #ADOS in 1964 CRA.

But if #SCOTUS rules in favor of @comcast, its the beginning of the end for fighting for our rights and the protection of them through the legal system.

THIS is why tomorrow is so important for #ADOS in our journey to #Reparations & a #BlackAgenda

S/O to the #ADOSDMV family & allies that will be in DC tomorrow outside of the building where the fight for the first & strongest #ADOS law guaranteeing our rights will hang in the balance.

This is why we POLITICALLY fight!