He’s right, of course, and she’s lying. And I don’t mean she’s mistaken. The principle MHD is referring to is well-known to lawyers. It’s the principle on which the Supreme Court decided Shelley v. Kraemer. This is popularly known as the case which outlawed racial restrictions in real estate transactions, but that’s not exactly right. What the case did was outlaw government enforcement of racial restrictions in real estate contracts. Without state enforcement, which necessarily means violent enforcement, racially restrictive contracts, many of which still exist, are meaningless.
Every lawyer knows Shelley v. Kraemer, so the DCA didn’t fail to understand MHD’s point, she chose not to understand it. Her job is to serve the interests of the ruling class, and it’s in their interest to have the law seen as a neutral arbiter, not on anyone’s side, rather than as a violent tool serving the same interests. Of course, MHD’s job, at least in some defensible sense, is also to serve the ruling class. This comment isn’t any kind of call to arms, but coming from someone who’s not just a councilmember but is a councilmember able to work with his colleagues to pass ordinances it’s much more than nothing, and I appreciate it.