Presentation Transcript

1. Supreme Court Justices&Racial Discrimination

   POL 327 Slides for 2/03/09
2. IDEOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SUPREME COURT 2005 Strong Liberal Moderate Liberal Moderate Conservative Strong Conservative Breyer (C) Ginzburg (C) Souter (B-1) Stevens (F) Rehnquist (N/R) Scalia (R) Thomas (B-1) O’Connor (R)Kennedy (R) None B=Bush Appointee, C=Clinton Appointee, F=Ford Appointee, N=Nixon Appointee, R=Reagan Appointee. Carter had no appointees to S.Ct. during his four year term
3. IDEOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SUPREME COURT 2009 Strong Liberal Moderate Liberal Moderate Conservative Strong Conservative Breyer (C) Ginzburg (C) Souter (B-1) Stevens (F) Scalia (R) Thomas (B-1) Roberts (B-2) Alito (B-2) Kennedy (R) None B=Bush Appointee, C=Clinton Appointee, F=Ford Appointee, N=Nixon Appointee, R=Reagan Appointee. Carter had no appointees to S.Ct. during his four year term
4. AGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUPREME COURT(As of 1/29/09) Strong Liberal Moderate Liberal Moderate Conservative Strong Conservative Kennedy (72) Scalia (72+) Thomas (60) Alito (58+) Roberts (54) None Stevens (88+) Ginzburg (75+) Breyer (70) Souter (70) + indicates they will have a birthday before the end of the current term.
5. Retirement of Judges Justice Stevens will be 89 in April 2009. He appears to be healthy and still have sharp mind Chief Justice Rehnquist didn’t step down when he was dying from throat cancer. Oliver Wendell Homes Jr. was 90 when he retired. Justice William O. Douglas served on the Court for 36 yr. 6 mo. Justice Stevens could break Douglas’ record if he stays on the Court through the end of the 2011 Term (7/11).
6. Religious Affiliation of Supreme Ct. Justices Before Bush II Apt.
7. Religious Affiliation of Current Supreme Ct. Justices

8. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

9. Discussion Questions Plessy & Brown Is it true that people have natural social prejudices that cannot be overcome by forced integration? Is this a legitimate basis for not passing legislation designed to integrate racial minorities?
10. Discussion Questions Plessy & Brown Can separation of the races be justified on the basis that it preserves the public peace and good order?
11. Brown v. Bd of Education (1955) After hearing additional arguments on the issue of what constituted an appropriate remedy, S.Ct. handed down Brown II Contains famous quote about “all deliberate speed.” We will discuss Brown II later in the semester in context of studying “implementation” problems.
12. Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)See reference E&W p. 621 Decided same day as Brown I FACTS: Challenged racial segregation in District of Columbia public schools. SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE IN FACTS: Washington DC schools are considered to be part of the federal government rather than part of one of the state governments. 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause limits the state governments—not the federal gov.
13. Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) HOLDING: Court ruled that racial segregation by the federal government violated the due process clause of 5th amendment. REASONING: It was an arbitrary and unreasonable denial of plaintiff's right to liberty and property interest in getting a good education. SIGNIFICANCE OF RULING: This case marks the beginning of an "equal protection component" in the 5th amendment.
14. Loving v. Virginia (1967) FACTS: A black woman and a white man were convicted of violating Virginia's miscegenation law when they returned to Virginia after having been married in Washington, DC. Prison sentence was suspended on the condition that they leave the state. They brought this suit to have the conviction set aside.
15. Loving v. Virginia (1967) ISSUES: Did the Virginia law banning interracial marriage violate the due process clause of the 14th amendment? YES (9-0) Did the Virginia law banning interracial marriage violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment? YES (9-0)
16. Loving v. Virginia (1967) HOLDING: It is a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment for a state to prohibit interracial marriages.
17. Loving v. Virginia (1967) REASONING: Virginia argued that there was no equal protection violation because the state was treating both races equally. Neither whites nor blacks were allowed to marry someone of the other race. What was the Supreme Court’s response to this argument?
18. Loving v. Virginia (1967) REASONING: Court rules that marriage is a basic civil right and therefore cannot be denied on the basis of racial criteria. It’s not a matter of discriminating against one race over another. It is unconstitutional to use race as the criteria for determining who can marry.
19. Palmore v. Sidoti (1984) Your text doesn’t treat it as a “featured case,” but it does spend pp. 686-687 discussing Palmore v. Sidoti and it does reprint a segment of the decision. Compare and contrast Loving v. Virginia with Palmore v. Sidoti.
20. Palmore v. Sidoti (1984) FACTS: Whereas Loving involved the use of race as a criteria for marriage, Palmore uses race of spouse/partner as a criteria for child custody. Divorced husband (white) sought to have wife's (also white) custody of their children revoked because she was living with a black man. Despite the fact that she subsequently married the man she was living with, the trial judge awarded custody to the father on the basis that it was not in the children’s best interests to be living in mixed race home.
21. Palmore v. Sidoti (1984) HOLDING: Consistent with its decision in Loving, the Supreme Court ruled that: It is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment for a state to remove a child from its parent on the basis of a racial classification.
22. Palmore v. Sidoti (1984) REASONING: The trial judge had ruled in the father’s favor based upon the conclusion that children living in this mixed race home would be more vulnerable to peer pressures and suffer social stigmatization. What was the Supreme Court’s response to this argument?
23. Palmore v. Sidoti (1984) REASONING: Supreme Court wrote: “It would ignore reality to suggest that racial and ethnic prejudices have been eliminated.” “The Constitution cannot control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly give them effect.”
24. Transition to the State Action Requirement In 1865, 13th amendment abolished slavery. In 1868, 14th amendment declared that former slaves would have equal protection of the laws. In 1870, 15th amendment stated that the right to vote could not be denied on the basis of race. In 1875, Congress passed the first of many Civil Rights Acts. What did this statute do?
25. Civil Rights Act of 1875 This federal statute made it a federal crime for owners and operators of any public accommodation (schools, churches, cemeteries, hotels, places of amusement and common carriers) to deny services or otherwise discriminate on the basis of race or religion.
26. Challenge to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 However opponents challenged the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 in the courts. In 1883, the Supreme Court ruled on their challenge in what are now known as The Civil Rights Cases.
27. The Civil Rights Cases (1883) ISSUE #1 : Is the Civil Rights Act of 1875 authorized by the 14th amendment? NO (8-1) REASONING The 14th amendment only prohibits state action and does not apply to the invasion of rights by individuals. The statute in question is directed at acts of individuals rather than those of the state governments. Therefore it is not authorized by the 14th amendment.
28. The Civil Rights Cases (1883) ISSUE #2 : Is the Civil Rights Act of 1875 authorized by the 13th amendment? NO (8-1) REASONING The 13th does apply directly to private individuals, but it only protects them from slavery or involuntary servitude. The type of discriminatory behavior covered by the statute does not amount to being slavery or involuntary servitude. Mere discrimination on account of race or color is not a badge of slavery.
29. The Civil Rights Cases (1883) ISSUE #3 : Is the Civil Rights Act of 1875 in violation of the 10th amendment? YES (8-1) REASONING It is a violation of the tenth amendment for the federal government to exercise powers that were not delegated to it in the constitution.
30. The Civil Rights Cases (1883) DISSENT: Justice Harlan: The 14th amendment does authorize the Civil Rights Act. The right to nondiscrimination in public accommodations is part of the privileges and immunities of citizenship protected by the 14th While social rights are not protected by the constitution, the rights to use accommodations of a public highway, etc. are civil rights rather than social ones.
31. The Civil Rights Cases (1883) DISSENT: Justice Harlan: 13th amendment was intended to not only abolish the institution of slavery, it was also suppose to establish civil freedom throughout the United States. Since the institution of slavery rested on the idea of an inferior race, its abolishment necessarily involves immunity from and protection against discrimination against them.
32. State Action Requirement Based on the Supreme Court’s decision in The Civil Rights Cases, the 14th amendment has been consistently interpreted through the years as only protecting people from discrimination by state and local governments – not from discrimination by private individuals or corporations. However, the line between governmental and non-governmental acts isn’t always clear. Shelley v. Kraemer, Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, and Moose Lodge v. Irvis illustrate this point.