The Supreme Court's repeated Perpetuation of Systemic Racism

[cpwill]

I don't think you have a scintilla of appreciation for how radical a departure Alito's decision is from precedent and how it completely ignores the actual statute it was supposed to be applying.

So, we've moved from "Evil Intent Is Relevant" to "Evil Intent Is Immaterial - Disparate Impact Is Relevant" to "Disparate Impact Isn't Necessary - SCOTUS departed from Precedent".

Do you understand why this looks like you are just shifting from argument to argument as each fails, trying to find something that will justify coming to the conclusion you have already decided on?

 

[NWRatCon]

So, we've moved from "Evil Intent Is Relevant" to "Evil Intent Is Immaterial - Disparate Impact Is Relevant" to "Disparate Impact Isn't Necessary - SCOTUS departed from Precedent".

Do you understand why this looks like you are just shifting from argument to argument as each fails, trying to find something that will justify coming to the conclusion you have already decided on?

At the risk of repeating myself too ofter: "There are basically two ways of winning a voting discrimination suit under the law: 1) showing discriminatory intent (Section 5) "Evil Intent Is Relevant"/"Disparate Impact Isn't Necessary"; and 2) showing discriminatory impact (Section 2) "Evil Intent Is Immaterial - Disparate Impact Is Relevant". Get it now?

In Shelby County, the Supreme Court essentially eliminated the first category in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. With Brnovich, they essentially eliminated the other. The "guides" provided by Alito were simply signals to miscreants on how to avoid SC scrutiny - exactly the approach of Dred Scott and Plessey. They are a radical departure from Supreme Court precedent for the last 100 years.

 

[Glitch]

I'd advise you to know the subject matter before demonstrating that you do not know it.

The following jurisdictions were brought into coverage under the original coverage formula contained within the unrevised Voting Rights Act of 1965: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia.

Alaska, Arizona, and Texas became subject to court preclearance after the coverage formula was amended in 1975.

That does not change the fact that Alaska was not even a State when the Democrat-created segregation laws were in existence. To claim that Alaska was a Jim Crow State when none of the leftist Jim Crow laws were even in existence when Alaska became a State requires a whole new level of stupidity that I didn't think was possible.

 

[Rogue Valley]

That does not change the fact that Alaska was not even a State when the Democrat-created segregation laws were in existence. To claim that Alaska was a Jim Crow State when none of the leftist Jim Crow laws were even in existence when Alaska became a State requires a whole new level of stupidity that I didn't think was possible.

Try your Alaska "rah-rah" campaign on someone else.

 

[newpublius]

That is a nice spin, but not exactly true. Justice Taney was correct. The US Constitution excluded slaves from being considered as 'citizens' when he said blacks "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States."

That's true, his next sentence then should have been, "The case is dismissed for lack of standing." but instead he went on in the opinion to essentially invalidate the Missouri Compromise.

 

[Glitch]

That's true, his next sentence then should have been, "The case is dismissed for lack of standing." but instead he went on in the opinion to essentially invalidate the Missouri Compromise.

Where Justice Taney screwed up was thinking that the Bill of Rights only applied to citizens. The Bill of Rights applies to all the people within the borders of the US, not just citizens. That included the slaves.

Which meant that it would have been a violation of the Second Amendment had the federal government imposed any kind of firearm restrictions against slaves. Since the Second Amendment did not apply to the States before 1867 and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the various States could enact any gun control measure they liked, including banning slaves from owning firearms. The federal government, however, could not.

It was entirely at the hands of the States that the Bill of Rights were violated, not at the federal level.

The Missouri Compromise was destined to fail. It was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 that caused the Missouri Compromise to fail, not anything Justice Taney said. As soon as Kansas declared itself to be a free State, and Nebraska a slave State, the Missouri Compromise was dead in the water.

 

[newpublius]

Where Justice Taney screwed up was thinking that the Bill of Rights only applied to citizens. The Bill of Rights applies to all the people within the borders of the US, not just citizens. That included the slaves.

Which meant that it would have been a violation of the Second Amendment had the federal government imposed any kind of firearm restrictions against slaves. Since the Second Amendment did not apply to the States before 1867 and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the various States could enact any gun control measure they liked, including banning slaves from owning firearms. The federal government, however, could not.

It was entirely at the hands of the States that the Bill of Rights were violated, not at the federal level.

The Missouri Compromise was destined to fail. It was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 that caused the Missouri Compromise to fail, not anything Justice Taney said. As soon as Kansas declared itself to be a free State, and Nebraska a slave State, the Missouri Compromise was dead in the water.

"The Bill of Rights applies to all the people within the borders of the US, not just citizens. That included the slaves."

No it didn't. If slaves were ‘persons’ for purposes of constitutional law in the antebellum period, then they could not be deprived of their ‘liberty’ without due process of law. Since being a slave is merely a legal status and was not the result of having committed an offense or crime, it would be impossible to maintain this status in any place the federal govt had exclusive control, like DC for instance. You'd be hard pressed that Madison intended for slaves to be included in the V Amendment! There is no historical evidence to emancipate slaves or deprive slaveholders of their slaves.

It would be dangerous to slavery to think of slaves, in the constitutional context, as being ‘persons’. However, if slaves were ‘property’ then masters could not be ‘deprived’ of their ‘property’ without due process.

Indeed this logic prevails in Dred Scott's antecedent in Prigg v PA. Indeed of further note is the act banning the international slave trade, the importation of slaves after 1807/1808 which didn't set the slaves free. The statute contemplated arresting the smugglers but not actually freeing the slaves. The slaves could be sold by the government and the 'prize' (the prize would also include other things on the ship) would be split between the government and the crew actually effecting the capture.

So, with respect to Dred Scott, Taney's ruling, while its morally wrong, but it does accurately state the state of the law at the time. Dred Scott did not have standing in federal court.

 

[ClaraD]

while we are talking about voter fraud....Hershel Walker's wife committed voter fraud...she voted in Georgia, yet she lives in Texas...and the house she has in Texas, she claimed a homestead exemption...which means you claim residency in that state and that home is your primary residence...

 

[NWRatCon]

while we are talking about voter fraud....Hershel Walker's wife committed voter fraud...she voted in Georgia, yet she lives in Texas...and the house she has in Texas, she claimed a homestead exemption...which means you claim residency in that state and that home is your primary residence...

Now, the question is, did she vote in Texas too?

 

[Glitch]

"The Bill of Rights applies to all the people within the borders of the US, not just citizens. That included the slaves."

No it didn't. If slaves were ‘persons’ for purposes of constitutional law in the antebellum period, then they could not be deprived of their ‘liberty’ without due process of law.

They could be deprived of their right to life, liberty, and property by the States because the Fifth Amendment only applied to the federal government before 1867. As far as the States were concerned, there was no such thing as the Bill of Rights.

Why do you think there are so many illegal gun control laws today? Because for 221 years States were allowed to violate the Second Amendment with impunity. It was only since the McDonald decision in 2010 that required States to abide by the Second Amendment for the very first time. So now the States are scrambling to undo all of their unconstitutional State laws.

The same thing was true with slavery. Before the Thirteenth Amendment there was nothing to prohibit any State from having slaves. The States could, and did, impose what we consider unconstitutional restrictions today. The federal government, however, could not. Which is why there were no federal laws banning slaves from owning firearms, instead there were State laws that banned slaves from owning firearms.

 

[ClaraD]

Now, the question is, did she vote in Texas too?

I am wondering that as well...why would anyone think that just because they own a house somewhere, that they can vote there...

 

[natman]

The Supreme Court's recent Brnovich decision is the latest iteration of a pattern of the Supreme Court legitimating systemic racism in the law, and under the Constitution. In the antebellum period, this pattern was epitomized by the infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857.

Taney's decision is widely regarded as the worst decision in Supreme Court history. It was an immediate precursor to the Civil War, and impetus for both the Emancipation Proclamation, and the 13-15th Amendments.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, however, there was an intense and sustained effort to undo those amendments, which resulted in the Civil Rights cases

And Plessey v. Ferguson. That tradition of awfulness is carried forward by the Roberts Court in its Shelby and Brnovich decisions, and on similar bases.

Instead of fogging the issue with comparisons to Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson, how about addressing the actual issues in Brnovich?

 

[natman]

The Supreme Court's recent Brnovich decision is the latest iteration of a pattern of the Supreme Court legitimating systemic racism in the law, and under the Constitution. In the antebellum period, this pattern was epitomized by the infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857.

Taney's decision is widely regarded as the worst decision in Supreme Court history. It was an immediate precursor to the Civil War, and impetus for both the Emancipation Proclamation, and the 13-15th Amendments.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, however, there was an intense and sustained effort to undo those amendments, which resulted in the Civil Rights cases

And Plessey v. Ferguson. That tradition of awfulness is carried forward by the Roberts Court in its Shelby and Brnovich decisions, and on similar bases.

Instead of fogging the issue with comparisons to Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson, how about addressing the actual issues in Brnovich?

So predictable. Mounds of hysterical hyperbole, rampant charges of racism flung to and fro, but when asked to discuss the actual issues, nothing.

 

[bomberfox]

Your projection of evil intent does not change the thing itself, and, interestingly enough, the Court looked into the question of intent, and found that the motivating animus was the desire to ensure secure and trustworthy elections.

Now, was heightened concern about the security of elections an outgrowth of a bunch of kookery and lies? Probably. But police reform can be a good in and of itself, and doesn't have to be based on evil intent just because a proponent believes in the Hands Up Don't Shoot myth. So too, here.

Yes. Most definitely. The hands up dont shoot thing isnt quite a myth. The heightened concern about the security of elections are coming from the same actors that just tried to commit a coup. Other states do mail in voting just fine and dont have a particular party closing damn polling locations in districts full of people they dont like.

 

[bomberfox]

......maybe you need to sit and think through where you come down on this?

evil intent is a non issue.

 

[bomberfox]

You claimed that evil intent was relevant, and, then, when I pointed out that (just as the District Court did) the Court looked into the question of intent, and found that the motivating animus was the desire to ensure secure and trustworthy elections, you declared that evil intent was immaterial, and changed over to "disparate impact" as a standard. It appears as if you are starting with your conclusion - This Law Bad - and working backwards to find the justification that will allow you to come to that conclusion.




Yes. Unfortunately for this argument, as the decision points out, The plaintiffs were unable to provide statistical evidence showing that HB 2023 had a disparate impact on minority voters, and, and additionally point out:

Even if the plaintiffs had shown a disparate burden caused by HB 2023, the State’s justifications would suffice to avoid §2 liability. “A State indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1, 4 (2006) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Limiting the classes of persons who may handle early ballots to those less likely to have ulterior motives deters potential fraud and improves voter confidence. That was the view of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker. The Carter-Baker Commission noted that “[a]bsentee balloting is vulnerable to abuse in several ways: . . . Citizens who vote at home, at nursing homes, at the workplace, or in church are more susceptible to pressure, overt and subtle, or to intimidation.” Report of the Comm’n on Fed. Election Reform, Building Confidence in U. S. Elections 46 (Sept. 2005).​

It is not evident in the evidentiary record, and, projecting evil intent onto those you dislike does not make it so. This Is Illegal Because The People Who Want It Are Bad Because I Say So is not a terribly compelling argument.



The majority pointed out that the plaintiffs were unable to even show it. The dissent assumed it was there, but.... also, apparently, er, for some reason, ah, um, gosh, forgot to put the actual supporting evidence, you know, in their document, or reference it.....

disparate impact and patterns that single out certain people from being able to exercise their right to vote is key and can be shown with data. Racists used to hide their intent by pointing out that it effects white people too when they started poll taxes and voter tests.

 

[OpportunityCost]

disparate impact and patterns that single out certain people from being able to exercise their right to vote is key and can be shown with data. Racists used to hide their intent by pointing out that it effects white people too when they started poll taxes and voter tests.

Ok, calling bullshit. Voting in your ward, precinct, district isn't racism, its not disparate impact its how elections have always been done, always. Just because your side decided they wanted to **** with every single voting rule they could because of Covid-19 doesn't mean those laws should exist forever or even should have existed at all...or were even laws that were passed in many cases *cough* Pennsylvania *cough*

I cannot believe you guys are crying and whining about "Jim Crow" bullshit over this, of all things.

 

[natman]

disparate impact and patterns that single out certain people from being able to exercise their right to vote is key and can be shown with data. Racists used to hide their intent by pointing out that it effects white people too when they started poll taxes and voter tests.

The Brnovich decision says it's OK to require people to vote in their own precinct and restricts who can handle ballots.

Kindly explain how this decision "singles out certain people from being able to exercise their right to vote" and how it's racist. Please be specific and detailed.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Taney could have manned up and said that all of this was trumped by American principles, standards that hold sway over the monstrous prejudices by the Founders, adding -albeit anachronistically- that any notion of the founders that blacks could not be considered as citizens was as horse shit as a notion of “separate but equal” might be.

This was back in an era where before communists who saw their role as subversion of society seperate from the legitimate political order existed in America.

slavery, and later Jim Crow were always going to be temporary institutions. The courts really created more problems then they solved with Brown v Board and the various civil rights cases. The judicial attempts to end segregation outside of a legislative political settlement were far worse then segregation and we are still paying for it now. The mass suburbanization of American cities is one example, the skyrocketing crime of the 70s, the breakdown of intermediate institutions, in some regards even the death of corrupt political machines brought on the civil rights era created much unneeded emnity that wouldn’t have otherwise existed.

some “desegregation” schemes were just plain dumb, like how a lot of blacks were settled in Boston’s Mattapan district and they proceded to ethnically cleanse it of the Jews who previously lived there. Or immediate school desecration instead of beginning desegregation with kindergarteners and leaving upper grades segregated for a period of time. A negotiated solution would’ve prevented many problems. Which is why courts shouldn’t be making policy decisions like segregation or abortion or anything really. They should exist to settle private disputes and rubber stamp the legislature

 

[Nickyjo]

This was back in an era where before communists who saw their role as subversion of society seperate from the legitimate political order existed in America.

slavery, and later Jim Crow were always going to be temporary institutions. The courts really created more problems then they solved with Brown v Board and the various civil rights cases. The judicial attempts to end segregation outside of a legislative political settlement were far worse then segregation and we are still paying for it now. The mass suburbanization of American cities is one example, the skyrocketing crime of the 70s, the breakdown of intermediate institutions, in some regards even the death of corrupt political machines brought on the civil rights era created much unneeded emnity that wouldn’t have otherwise existed.

some “desegregation” schemes were just plain dumb, like how a lot of blacks were settled in Boston’s Mattapan district and they proceded to ethnically cleanse it of the Jews who previously lived there. Or immediate school desecration instead of beginning desegregation with kindergarteners and leaving upper grades segregated for a period of time. A negotiated solution would’ve prevented many problems. Which is why courts shouldn’t be making policy decisions like segregation or abortion or anything really. They should exist to settle private disputes and rubber stamp the legislature

Slavery lasted for close to 350 years, and for 90 years after independence. Segregation/Jim Crow started after troops were withdrawn from the South. Blacks were denied the vote there for generations. Thousands were lynched. The push for change was understandable, justified and unstoppable. As JFK said in another context, those who would have made peaceful change impossible, would have made violent change inevitable. Added to that was that we were losing a propaganda battle with the Soviets on racial issues.

And the role of the courts was established in 1803 with Marbury. And segregation as "temporary"? Just look how quickly states forerly covered by the Voting Rights Act passed restrictions when the Supreme Court gave them permission.

Much of this happened before communism. What is it with conservatives that makes them call people they disagree with communists? MLK, Cesar Chavez, other labor leaders. Why should communists get credit for good stuff that happens? (Though now the term of art on the right is socialist.)

 

[Rich2018]

That is a nice spin, but not exactly true. Justice Taney was correct. The US Constitution excluded slaves from being considered as 'citizens' when he said blacks "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States."

So the Constitution regarded all blacks as slaves ?
I think not

However, the Bill of Rights does not limit those rights only to "citizens." The First, Second, Fourth and Ninth Amendments all specifically refer to the rights of "the people," not just citizens alone.

The rights specified in the Constitution apply to all people (legally) living in the USA, with the exception of the right to vote.

The Supreme Court was correct in part. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 violated the Tenth Amendment.

How and in what way ?

Congress has no jurisdiction over public transportation within each State...

Wrong
If you take a flight from say San Diego, Ca and San Francisco, Ca, you will find federal law applies to your conduct on the airplane.