Your question is a form of the Argument by Authority, a logical error. It presumes that the courts are infallible, something demonstrably false. The courts haven't ruled the unconstitutional excesses invalid because the court is a political body.
Welcome to the real world.
Wrong.Exactly. That's why there *must* be AA: In order to balance the existing racism against blacks.
Being racist is not the means to end racism.
Violating the rights of one set of individuals because another group had suffered opression in the past.
Welcome to the real world, where today's white people aren't responsible for the actions yeserday's white people committed.
Again, the Mayor refers you to the First Amendment. And telling the truth is never a "smear".That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But you have no right to smear those who disagree -- with good arguments -- as "racists" or authoritarians.
That's racism without direct reference. The Mayor has known far too many blacks (and why did you select just one particular minority) who are succesful and self-reliant to buy into the nonsensical The Man is Holding The Brothers Down theory.The difference is that this party assumed blacks can't do that, because they're racially inferior. I argue they can't, because they are disadvantaged by white racism against blacks. The former is racism, the latter is the opposite.