This is how the country used to be most of the time prior to the Civil War, then changed, then changed back after the South was reclaimed by former Confederates / the demise of Reconstruction, then changed back again during the Great Depression and FDR, then it's scaling back some. This is not my argument, but what I'd say is a legal counterargument to your position: A good theory of action by courts for when it is just to interfere with laws, national or state, is the levels of scrutiny regime enacted after the filled milk case. In representational democracy, there are winners and losers in a fair process. Generally, the government should stay out of the way of laws when it comes to that process, even if government regulates economic laws intrusively because the Lochner era incorrectly recognizes a constitutional right to economic liberty. That stated, a court should interject when laws violate recognized constitutional rights and when laws violate the rights of certain minorities. When those are in violation, the highest level of scrutiny must be applied. This is because the representational democratic system is broken when it comes to certain groups that lose time and time again. That is when courts need to step up, to uphold the rights of those who don't have a chance. Now, when it comes to modern day DEI programs, I generally divide them into categories of diversity for the sake of diversity (the O'Connor opinion from Grudder), and then diversity as an aid to the harms of generations of racist laws and programs (redlining, restrictive racial covenants, Jim crow laws. The latter was acceptable justification for some of SCOTUS years ago, and arguably more now. The former was the swing vote justification that was adopted into policy by many schools, even though it teetered for years on a 5-4 decision. Though it's fair to say, schools can't predict that SCOTUS could change their mind, Harvard's policies were invidious discimination and probably rightfully struck down. SCOTUS arguably went too far, well, depending on your interpretation of their decision, because it can be read narrowly or broadly. Anyhow, many far right groups are grabbing onto the Harvard decision, hoping for a broad interpretation (Thomas, Alito for sure, not sure about the others) and parlaying it with many antidiscrmination laws already on the books from the post Civil War era and the Civil Rights era of the 1960's and 70's to help white people against minority aid programs. I am very skeptical from a moral standpoint and legal standpoint. These laws were intended to counteract or nullify the invidious descrimination against blacks, then latter expanded to Latinos by the courts in the 1960s then other minority groups. For some laws, they were outright ignored by states for a hundred years (Jim Crow era), allowing for systemic racism to impact multiple generations because blacks couldn't live in certain neighborhoods, couldn't get loans that others could, couldn't vote etc. Ameliorating those impacts are attempted by private citizens, state laws, and national laws. In fact, from a political participation and representation standpoint, that's the whole point of the Voting Rights legislation. But of course, there is a tension between non-discrimination and the passage of laws to attempt to correct the ills of discrimination. But it's a balance than can be struck by serious people, conservative and liberal. This is why Alabama's partisan gerrymander can also legally be construed as violating the Voting Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act can be legally interpreted as Consitutional, even by conservative justices who didn't want the VRA passed in the first place. But once it's national law, you have to follow it. So here, we have a national law from 1866 that has a tension between the text as read in 2023 and the original public meaning of the text, because it was intended to counteract all the unfair labor contracts whites had with blacks during reconstruction. The freedman's bureau helped execute many of these laws. But if you're going by pure definition of non-descrimination, the freeman's bureau itself would be arguably unconstitutional, which is too rigid of a reading and misunderstanding of the 14th. So even though the injuction was granted against Fearless Fund, I would argue that and orginalist interpretation of that statute wouldn't hold this program in violation. But it might not even get there on the merits due to a very stretched standing argument. In addition to that, while I generally agree that private contracts should be without government interference, I do support laws that promote (not force, but promote minority involvement) and also protect minorities because they are constant losers when representational democracy is broken...and it arguably still is due to gerrymandering. Also, Astros123 fell into your trap. I don't think we should force DEI from the state's standpoint, but I also don't think we should ban it. So I don't think it should be purely a one-way racket. Government involvement into things like saying "everyone has to serve blacks" at their restaurant doesn't mean we can have restaurants that don't serve whites. But as stated, I do argue that minorities generally need greater protections, which is in line the the original public meaning of all of these equality laws.
(Ignoring that the court and plantiff used that law...) Because we've been down this road multiple times, and it's never been a pretty sight. Achieving the society we have today, one that is considerably less racist and sexist, required not only the enactment of civil rights laws but also years of lawsuits and prosecutions for violations of those laws. Yet, we still have a way to go. We've experienced the ups and downs, and we're fully aware of the hardships faced by minorities. It would be naive to return to a society that relies solely on the marketplace to self-correct racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination against minorities. (For those who harbor racist or sexist views or any of those archaic biases, they will always find support in such a society.) Personally, I would love to live in a world where these laws are unnecessary, but that's not the reality we face. Today, these civil right laws play a crucial role in protecting minorities, and we should utilize them as such. If a minority-focused service or initiative exists, I see no issue with it, as it has minimal practical impact on the majority. The reverse scenario, however, is not true.
In a society in which equal protection of the law is both regarded as good and is enshrined in the Constitution, the bolded section doesn't pass muster. Either it is okay to discriminate on the basis of race (or sex, gender, sexual orientation, hair color, whatever) or it isn't. What you cannot do is have one set of rules for group A and another set for group B.
But that's not what the complicated voting rights act does as interpreted by the courts. It tries to ameliorate the past wrongs by creating minority majority districts and minority opportunity districts because the old system resulted in 0 minority representation in the many parts of the south, even though discrimination was not allowed. And yes, you do have legal theories to essentially make it harder to discriminate against certain minorities than certain majorities. It's mainly due to the fact that in a representative democracy, some minorities can never get policy protections or policy advancements.
Elected officials tell Texas to ignore the USSC. So much for upholding the Constitution, but we already knew that was fading with their leader stepping all over it. Some Republicans call for Texas to ignore Supreme Court border ruling: 'Let's see them enforce it' https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/gop-border-wire-supreme-court-18623608.php After the Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for federal agents to remove Texas-owned razor wire along the Rio Grande, some conservative lawmakers and commentators suggested a drastic response from the state: defy the court’s ruling.
Not conclusive at all from that short video. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. The razor wire was always political. It covers only a very small segment of the TX/Mexico border, so it doesn't have any real impact on illegal crossings. However, it did force the federal government's hand to push back. No administration would lapse on its responsibility and let a state clearly violate the Constitution. So, it's not surprising to me that Republicans will still want this fight to continue, even if it means ignoring the USSC. The danger here goes well beyond this legal battle between TX and the Fed government. When elected officials (U.S. Senators, U.S. Congressmen, state officials, state governors) ignore the USSC, it opens a can of worms for others to do the same. Making it acceptable to ignore the USSC is another pathway to destroying law and order, something that was once a pillar of conservative politics and practically everyone. This is a continuing degradation of norms, and eventually, if this continues, there comes a time when state and federal law enforcement and even the military will clash—all made possible because of extreme politics.
Honest question: does the Court's decision mean Texas cannot install more razor wire? ...or just that the feds can cut it down, should they wish?
Interesting to watch this play out. Of course, no one expects an ethical position from thomas and he will always be counted to take the extremist republican position and especially supportive of trump. But in this particular case, he is being asked to possibly define and confirm the crime that his wife was involved in.
I am guessing you are basing this on your years of constitutional law? CASE PREVIEW Supreme Court to decide whether insurrection provision keeps Trump off ballot Whether Trump “engaged in insurrection” Although Trump had contended in an earlier brief that Jan. 6 was not an “insurrection,” he now argues only that Section 3 does not apply to him because he himself did not “engage in” insurrection.Trump never told his supporters to enter the Capitol on Jan. 6, he says, nor did he lead or encourage any of the violence that occurred there that day.To the contrary, he emphasizes, in his remarks at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, he told the crowd to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” and “support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement.” Trump adds that even if he didn’t respond when rioters entered the Capitol, that is not, by itself, “engaging” in insurrection. Moreover, he notes, although he has been the subject of several investigations since 2021, he has never been charged with insurrection. The voters counter that Trump has “no serious defense” on the question whether he “engaged in insurrection.” Trump’s insistence that he merely called for “peaceful and patriotic protest” is inconsistent, they say, with the extensive findings of the trial court, which concluded that Trump’s actions and speech “were the factual cause” of the attack.Trump, they emphasize, “incited violence both explicitly and implicitly during his speech at the Ellipse,” and he continued to do so after the mob had breached the Capitol – for example, identifying former Vice President Mike Pence on social media as someone who “didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.” The voters similarly reject Trump’s suggestion that he could not have “engaged in” insurrection because he did not participate in the attacks on the Capitol.They point to opinions interpreting Section 3 by Henry Stanbery, who served as attorney general in 1867, that indicated that someone can “engage in” insurrection without actually taking up arms. Indeed, they note, holding that Section 3 only applies to individuals who themselves commit violence would frustrate “a core purpose of” the provision: “to target leaders rather than foot soldiers. Leaders rarely take up arms themselves,” the voters observe. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/...nsurrection-provision-keeps-trump-off-ballot/
I'm saying these are not the grounds on which the court is likely to decide the case. but feel free to bookmark this post and we can come back to it when the court has rendered its decision.
preemptive schadenfreude serves no purpose. as I said, bookmark my post. let's see what they come back with. I strongly suspect Roberts does not want to wade into the question of whether or not it was a riot or an insurrection.
This court has already tipped its hand... they will rule against the state of Colorado. They will protect trump next week on the immunity case. It paid off for trump having the three justice nominations, regardless of impact on democracy and the rule of law.
