Skip to main content

    The U.S. Supreme Court, after disemboweling the Voting Rights Act yesterday, has granted new rights to the gay community by deciding that a key portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional and that a federal court's decision, regarding the unconstitutionality of California's Proposition 8, would remain in place.  Thus, the Supreme Court continues its history of defending the rights of everyone in the USA except for African-Americans, and that disdain for the civil rights of African-Americans appears to be pathological in nature by the unelected federal judicial branch of government.  
     Let me speculate on the possible reasons for the palpable hatred of African-Americans by the unelected Supreme Court justices.  Just suppose that somewhere in the annals of this country are documents which indicate that African-Americans were among the indigenous people on the North American continent when the first colonialists arrived.  Suppose that the indigenous status of African-Americans, as members of the original people on the North American continent, would have required the unelected Supreme Court to apply, to African-Americans, the same inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as was granted to all residents of the colonies by the Declaration of Independence.  Suppose that many Native Americans shared a blood kinship with the indigenous African-Americans in the same manner as Crispus Attucks, the first man to die in the American Revolution who had both Native American and African-American blood running in his veins.  
     What the above speculation means is that the unelected Supreme Court judges might have made a calculated decision to reduce an indigenous people to slavery as part of their view of how a proper society should be constructed with white supremacists in charge of the new and fabulously wealthy North American continent.  That new society, built on the backs of African-American slaves, continued unabated with the protection of the U.S. Supreme Court until the Civil War when the powers of the Congress were increased, the powers of the slave-holding states were reduced, and the powers of the unelected Supreme Court were altered by the post-Civil War amendments.  
     Having lost their pre-Civil War plenary power to declare what the law was, particularly concerning slaves and ex-slaves, the unelected Supreme Court set out to promptly undo the post-Civil War amendments and statutes through a series of judicial fiats in the Civil Rights cases/Slaughterhouse cases of the 19th Century.  But African-Americans never gave up on their vision of equality in the USA, and fought tenaciously until the Congress passed new statutes in the mid-20th Century which bypassed the barriers imposed by the unelected Supreme Court.  The striking down of the Voting Rights Act, on June 25, 2013, by the unelected U.S. Supreme Court was merely the latest legal effort to restrict the rights of African-Americans, while elevating the rights of all other groups in the USA, in order to insure that African-Americans remain in a subservient status in the USA under all other groups.
     Thus, in the view of the unelected federal judiciary, the Civil War, which was fought to grant African-Americans equal rights, had an undesirable outcome, i.e., equality for African-Americans, which must be reversed.  What is the rational basis for the above actions by the U.S. Supreme Court against African-Americans?  Perhaps some of the readers could provide a coherent explanation for the above hatred of African-Americans by the U.S. Supreme Court.        

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you for this diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    northerntier

    I had the same exact thought when I heard today's decision.

    •  Yes. I thought that rulings might come down in (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      New Dawning

      this fashion. You know, you can't royally piss off too much of the population at the same time. Yesterday's decision renders today's decisions a bit less sweet.  Cannot forget John Lewis and Julian Bond interviews that I heard yesterday.
      It's apparent that in many states efforts to make it  difficult if not impossible for POC and the poor to vote are on the increase, in the works, and in some cases, on the books. If anything they should strengthen the VRA. We need to force a fix on this well before 2014 elections. 50th Anniversary of March On Washington is Aug. 28. A massive march and ongoing pressure on the Congress are about the only things I can think of, but I'm not thinking strategically, still sad and angry about yesterday.

  •  Well, some African Americans (5+ / 0-)

    will benefit from marriage equality -- there are, after all, African American gays and lesbians -- and yesterday's abomination will also hurt Latino populations throughout the United States.

    You have a valid argument: the primary target of yesterday's abomination was the African American community, because the trashing of the VRA benefitted primarily the ex-Confederate states, where African Americans are the feared/hated minority (and sometimes the feared/hated majority too).  But it's not just about African Americans.

    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

    by corvo on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:14:53 AM PDT

  •  Absolutely (0+ / 0-)

    yesterday's decision will hurt Latino populations as well.

    Tragic.

  •  everyone? (6+ / 0-)
    Thus, the Supreme Court continues its history of defending the rights of everyone in the USA except for African-Americans
    I feel pretty sure that latinos here in Texas would disagree that the Supreme Court was "defending their rights", when they struck down the voting rights act.        

     

    •  well, and let's just not get started on (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DFWmom

      the subject of treaty rights, right?

      I was wondering how long it would take for the first divide-and- conquer diary to appear on this subject.

      Record time!

      Ah, the battle of the most-martyred minority: gotta love it, eh?

    •  DFWmom - the SCOTUS did not strike down (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erush1345

      the Voting Rights Act. That wasn't even an issue in the case. While the current Section 4 map was vacated the rest of the Act remains in full force and effect. As Eric Holder said yesterday the VRA will continue to be vigorously enforced.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:04:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's as Disingenuous an Argument (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wu ming, Kickemout

        As the actual decision yesterday.

        Section 5 of the VRA, on its face, applies ONLY to those jurisdictions covered by Section 4.  

        What stood after yesterday was Section 2 - the authority to, after the fact, challenge an asserted impingement on voting rights.  If you know anything about the long, long, LONG line of SCOTUS and other cases making clear that if a voting challenge is not shown to have changed the actual outcome of an election (with the burden of proof on the complaining parties, not the government) it cannot succeed except to the degree that future elections are impacted.

        When a Section 2 action finally after years reaches adjudication, ultimately it doesn't matter.  A voter is not entitled to damages.  Only injunctive relief against the specific practice at issue.  Thus, each and every election cycle a jurisdiction can pass yet another cute version of a voter suppression statute taking into account what was said the last time a Section 2 case finally got adjudicated, and if they do that after each and every federal election cycle there is absolutely nothing that, as a practical matter, will ever be done about it.  Legally.

        So what matters if we really care about folks being able to vote is that one's vote is being denied a priori in this election no matter what (assuming folks are stupid enough to repeat a practice struck down after getting a ruling) happens to the law after the fact.  That's not rocket science.

        Well, speaking for myself:  I would much rather a straightforward fucking than the sly and indirect one served up yesterday by SCOTUS--no matter what Mr. Holder has to say about the fact about DOJ's intent to vigorously do the only thing left to it--bring years' long litigation under Section 2.

        •  shanikka - as Adam B noted in several comments (0+ / 0-)

          yesterday there is no requirement under Section 2 to be only an after the fact remedy. The DoJ can challenge new voting rights restrictions before an election.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:22:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I Appreciate That (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            But I disagree with Adam on this.  The test in Section 2 subsection a is not whether a practice can or even willresult in a violation of voting rights, but whether it "resulted in a denial or abridgment" of voting rights.  Again, that's the plain language of the first sentence of the statute; there is no ambiguity in it.  Since by definition, you can't tell whether something resulted in a particular outcome until the act has actually occurred, principles of statutory construction caution against Adam's interpretation.  While it is true that subsection (b) of Section 2 does not contain express after-the-fact lawsuit language and does speak to the possibility of a finding that the electoral process is not "equally open" to everyone, you must reconcile subsection (b) with the limitations contained in subsection (a).  You cannot read subsection (a)'s clear statement of "resulted in" out of the statute.

      •  You are correct (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        They made a very critical section of it unenforceable for the moment.   Forgive my hyperbole.

    •  And Natives. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mole333, grumpelstillchen

      "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

      by zenbassoon on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:12:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Correction (6+ / 0-)
    The U.S. Supreme Court, after disemboweling the Voting Rights Act yesterday, has granted new rights to the gay community
    The SCOTUS did not "grant" rights to the gay community. The rights were always theirs as human beings. The court merely finally acknowledged them.

    Black Holes Suck.

    by Pi Li on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:19:35 AM PDT

    •  and only in those states (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dream weaver, wu ming

      where marriage equality already prevails, although I suppose the marriage-inequality states might find it difficult to continue not recognizing same-sex marriages contracted in marriage-equality states.

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:35:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  corvo - I think that is the next interesting (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pi Li

        question. Does the state of Indiana recognize a same sex couple married in California? My guess is that they won't and that will turn into a case that will make it's way to the SCOTUS.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:41:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yup, it's time to put the (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, shanikka, wu ming

          "full faith and credit" clause to the test.  That will definitely split 5-4, and I have no idea how Kennedy would rule on that.

          Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

          by corvo on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:47:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Same sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states.. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wu ming, andalusi

        ...within the next in five years.

        Black Holes Suck.

        by Pi Li on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:38:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  from your lips to FSM's ears! (0+ / 0-)

          Won't happen without a few necessary and advantageous SCOTUS replacements, however.

          Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

          by corvo on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:46:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  My summary of the recent SC decisions: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grumpelstillchen, sunbro

    Jim Crow can now marry Uncle Sam.

    FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. NYC's Progressive/Reform Blog

    by mole333 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:26:27 AM PDT

    •  Now if only it distracted two of them (0+ / 0-)

      from many of their less appealing hobbies, that might not be such a bad thing.

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:36:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not now (5+ / 0-)

    That many in the gay community were aghast at the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act.  

    As an African American, I was insulted by it.  However, today is NOT the day to write about this.  

    First it gets lost in the elation and celebration of today's SCOTUS rulings.

    Secondly, gays in this country have had a tough slog.  They - and those who are allies (of which I am one) - deserve time to enjoy these rulings.

    We don't fix the VRA until we fix Congress.  THAT is the reality.

    When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion. - Abraham Lincoln

    by EntrWriter on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:28:23 AM PDT

  •  I Disagree with the Premise of Your Diary (7+ / 0-)

    That the gay community was granted anything "new".  The rights it already had under our Constitution were merely affirmed by the SCOTUS as applying to gay people (albeit by the thinnest of margins.)  I say this as a lawyer.  Having now read these decisions and knowing the law, there is really nothing remarkable about either decision handed down today (one punted on the question of equality, the other admitted that the federal government had no business meddling in the first place in a state matter--marriage.)

    That being said, as a Black woman who is writing a diary for this Sunday's front page about yesterday's VRA, the precursor of it in the 2007 decision gutting Brown v. Board of Ed, as well as other cases gutting the right to bring employment discrimination litigation (the majority of which is brought by Black plaintiffs, most of who regularly lose thanks in no small part to SCOTUS precedent) , I agree with your larger point:  SCOTUS has made crystal clear that the rights of the Black community are, once again, no longer something that any white man need respect.

    •  the problem with this diary, as I see it, (0+ / 0-)

      is here:

      while elevating the rights of all other group
      s in the USA
      As I said above, "battle of the most martyred minority"--just gets old, leads nowhere, is boring, and inaccurate. Comparative victimology is useless and counterproductive.
      •  I Hear You (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grumpelstillchen

        And I understand you.  Up to a point.  I believe that one of the problems Black people currently face in this country is the living breathing existence of what Derrick Bell and Richard Delgado called the "Interest Convergence" principle:

        Nobody gives a shit about us independently anymore and will not raise hell about what is happening to us legally unless they can see it will benefit the folks they REALLY care about.  You can't even talk about just Black people anymore without someone trying to insist that the experience of someone else is exactly the same, such that the solutions should not worry about the UNIQUE experience we are facing in the US right now.  Thus, while I agree that it is false that SCOTUS is "elevating the rights of all other group [sic], it is not 100% playing the "martyred minority game" either to point out the unique impact on Black people and our rights, particularly given the history.

        •  I had a long comment lined up here.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shanikka

          in the spirit of "WWRCG-do?" decided to abandon it. Hope you are well, and have recovered from the illness.

          Here, you touch on a very important point I have been trying to make for decades, and one that Vine Deloria in "The Red and the Black" (1969) already made:

           

          You can't even talk about just Black people anymore without someone trying to insist that the experience of someone else is exactly the same, such that the solutions should not worry about the UNIQUE experience we are facing in the US right now.
          We need to break down the unique experiences of oppressed groups--quit pretending we all suffer in the same way and in the same degree.

          It's a point I tried to make a while back in this diary, but wasn't all too successful.

  •  shanikka (0+ / 0-)

    Your last sentence hit me in the gut.

    Difficult to swallow that Supreme Court justices could sit there and say this isn't the same country any longer when it comes to voting rights.

    How stupid do they think we are?

    •  And sadly that's a quote from the Supreme Court (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shanikka, New Dawning

      Shannika is paraphrasing an actual Supreme Court opinion, Dred Scott:

      They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior race, and altogether unfit to associate with the white races, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.
      Another interesting fact about the Dred Scott case is its name. Notice that unlike most cases, it is not referred to as Scott v. Sandford. The court used Scott's first name, Dred Scott v. Sandford. Court cases don't use first names in captioning and referring to other cases.

      Some historians have said that the reason was to announce that Scott was a slave and not a man who had gained freedom by being moved into free territory.

      The only time federal cases routinely use first names is when the name is the name of a ship and the case is in rem, ie against property, as in US v. The Mary Jane.

      So the court was saying that Scott was like a ship, a thing.

      •  It is written that the Dred Scott decision (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HamdenRice

        was what brought Abraham Lincoln to the White House.

        From Dred Scott to Jim Crow to Plessy v Ferguson to Kansas v Board of Education to Voting Rights legislation.

        Still so much work to do.

        Great post HamdenRice. Thank you for the reminder of where we were and where we still are.

  •  A Courth that doesn't remember history (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    northerntier, New Dawning
    Heather Gerken (Slate): Goodbye to the Crown Jewel of the Civil Rights Movement – People died to pass Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but that didn’t save it at the Supreme Court.

    …. To understand why Section 5 was special, you have to know a bit about its history. The brutal attacks on civil rights marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge provided the push needed to pass the Voting Rights Act. When the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, almost no African-Americans were registered to vote in the Deep South due to brutal repression and sickening legal chicanery.

    Civil rights litigators and the Department of Justice were doing their best to help. They filed lawsuit after lawsuit to make it possible for blacks to register. But every time a court deemed one discriminatory practice illegal, local officials would switch to another. Literacy tests, poll taxes, burdensome registration requirements – these techniques were all used to prevent African-Americans from voting. Southern voting registrars would even resign from their positions as soon as a lawsuit was on the cusp of succeeding, thereby sending the case back to square one. The Voting Rights Act aimed to change all of this.

    Section 5 was the most important and imaginative provision in the law….

    http://www.slate.com/...

    "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights." (From "You Said a Mouthful" by Bishop Desmond Tutu - South African bishop & activist, b.1931)

    by FiredUpInCA on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:41:34 AM PDT

  •  It wasn't only their hate for black people (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    New Dawning, sunbro, shanikka

    at play here. Factor in their love for the GOP. Gutting the VRA very efficiently kills 2 birds with one stone.

    Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

    by JoanMar on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:50:19 AM PDT

    •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JoanMar, New Dawning

      But the beginning of the game where these legal rollbacks are concerned was our people.  Hatred and disrespect of Black folks and our demands for equality in the country we largely built for free.  We as a people would be foolish not to recognize that as fundamental truth, just because we're afraid about how our coalition brothers and sisters might react saying it plain.  The fact that the right is able to ALSO suppress Latinos, Native Americans and young people is a bonus factor in the long game they've been playing ever since Bakke.

  •  If I would have read the dissent, I would have (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    New Dawning

    called out Thomas by name and mocked him for going along with the decision to disenfranchise himself.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:11:46 AM PDT

  •  The motive for the ruling is much simpler: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    New Dawning

    Minorities generally vote Democratic, and the GOP faces demographic irrelevance if the Court does not allow them to suppress minority voting.  They're trying to decide the 2014 election in advance the same way Citizens United was calculated to decide 2010.  That's why the decision is an abuse of power, it should be rejected as a legally invalid assault on the Constitution, and the Justices responsible should be impeached.  See the petition in my sig line.

    Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

    by Troubadour on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:19:38 AM PDT

  •  there are gay and lesbian african-americans (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shanikka

    these are overlapping categories here, not exclusive ones. the only way we're ever going to roll this crap back is by standing in solidarity with one another.

  •  For the record, African Americans aren't the... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grumpelstillchen

    ...only Americans that may be hurt by the Court's decision on the VRA. Other people of color are also covered by the act.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:26:02 PM PDT

    •  How about ALL Americans are/have been (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades

      hurt by the Court's decision on the VRA. It is a frontal assault on the democratic principles of voting rights, period.

      It is the self-interest, the idea that "well, if it doesn't affect me directly, I am not harmed by it" that is the problem.

      We are ALL hurt by yesterday's decision. Just as we should ALL be elated over today's decision.

  •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 08:34:10 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site