Jackson Free Press

I received this stunning letter a couple days ago from a (white, I think) man in Pearl, presumably in response to my recent column about the abominable Mississippi state flag. I post it now without comment but will be back along with some thoughts later. Here it is, verbatim:

Please permit me to submit the following letter to Jackson Free Press:

Some of us have heard the question "What happens when an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?" The puzzle might seem a bit superficial until one notices we have a similar problem concerning our state flag.

I think the JFP has well demonstrated that the Confederate emblem on the Mississippi flag continues to cause hurtful memories to blacks who have endured the horrors of segregation and the Civil Rights era.

So why would so many Mississippians continue to resist changing such a hated symbol of our state's dark past? Ignorance? Bigotry? Could there still be some unspoken reason why many white southerners insist on keeping our flag in its current form?

Hey. We want progress. So let's just go ahead and bring it out in the open.

Just as the current Confederate emblem causes hurtful memories to our state's blacks, the absence of the symbol would cause hurtful memories to many white southerners. And I do not mean just segregationists.

To many whites, the erasure of the Confederate emblem would be an unreciprocated nod to the kind of blacks who attempted, and in some cases, DID seize control of Jackson's schools by force, who pulled knives on white students and threatened them with violence, who stole my brother's school books and urged him to steal from my parents to get money to get his books back.

The erasure would be seen as a nod to "gangsta rap" stars who record songs saturated with sexualized slang and glorify abusing women. It would be seen as a nod to people who have petitioned the NBA to declassify the use of the "MF" word as a technical foul because it is part of "black culture."

To be blunt, there are some facets of "black culture" many of us do not want in Mississippi culture. THAT is what some Mississippi southerners are afraid of.

Though voters decided by referendum to keep our current flag, one can argue that we must have a system in place to protect people from a tyranny of the majority. But there is a bit of a corollary to that here.

If Mississippi blacks are a minority, there is a tiny minority to THAT minority. There are some blacks who want to keep our current flag. Some support groups like the Sons of Confederate Veterans because they are proud to be the descendants of black soldiers who fought for the CSA. Should not their rights be considered too?

But my position is not based entirely on fairness. Perhaps we should lose the current flag.

But that is not going to happen until we have answered the …

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood is touting a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that he says affirms the rights of state attorneys general to file lawsuits in state court.

Here's the full release from Hood's office:

Jackson, MS – In a case brought by Attorney General Jim Hood, the U.S. Supreme Court today unanimously upheld the right of attorneys general across the country to enforce their state’s laws in state court. The Supreme Court ruled in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp. that a state attorney general asserting state law claims for damages incurred by its citizens can have that case resolved by its state court, and is not required to be removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

All nine Justices agreed to reverse the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that the State’s antitrust and consumer protection enforcement suit could not proceed in Mississippi state court. The Fifth Circuit had encroached on state courts’ rights to hear important public matters by significantly broadening the interpretation of what can constitute a federal “mass action.” Under CAFA, that requires the presence of 100 or more individual “plaintiffs.” The Fifth Circuit had ruled that, despite the State Attorney General being the only plaintiff in the case, the court would treat all Mississippi residents as “plaintiffs” so that CAFA’s 100 person requirement could be considered satisfied, depriving the state courts of the right to interpret their own laws.

Having recognized the important state sovereignty issues at stake, all U.S. Courts of Appeals that had addressed the issue – except the Fifth Circuit – had flatly rejected this analysis. The Supreme Court has now corrected the Fifth Circuit’s error, and Mississippi’s case will properly be returned to Mississippi Chancery Court.

Attorney General Jim Hood stated, " The United States Supreme Court was crystal clear that federal courts have no jurisdiction under the so-called Class Action Fairness Act over actions brought by state Attorneys General for consumer and anti-trust violations. For far too long, large corporations have abused the federal judiciary by trying to drag every action filed by an Attorney General in state court into federal courts. The working people of Mississippi and other states won one this time."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that an action by an attorney general on behalf of the state’s citizens does not fit within CAFA’s language. The Court held that, because the State of Mississippi, through its attorney general, is the only plaintiff, this suit does not constitute a mass action.

The State sued makers of liquid crystal displays (LCD) in Mississippi state court in January 2011, alleging that these manufacturers had formed an international cartel to restrict competition and boost prices in the LCD market. Several of the defendants in the State’s case pled guilty to charges brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and paid criminal fines to the U.S. Government. The Mississippi Attorney General sued to recover for the economic harm to the State and …