The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: February 26, 1869
2/26/1869: The 15th Amendment is submitted to the states.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Itsays, cirizens. Yet female citizens lost their case at the Supreme Court in 1880. The Court read the minds of the Congress, saying, they meant former slaves. Current lawyer rules and redistricting schemes still make this Amendment a joke.
Are all presnos cirizens? Lol.
"shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Denial or abridgment on account of sex or gender was still a-ok
Kevin, where does it say that? It says, citizens. Were females citizens or not in 1880?
It passed, and the inventive facilities of Southern racists kicked into high gear.
Yes, before you can vote, name all the judges of the county at the discretion of the poll worker. All lawyer discretion should end, and be replaced by an algorithm, that applies to everyone. All soveriegn immunity should end to bust unfair practices through the bankruptcy of government entities that are no more than organized crime gangs. Crush the stinking lawyer profession, the most toxic, failed and dangerous profession, 10 times more toxic than organized crime.
You do know that it wasn't just lawyers that came up with and enforced such Jim Crow voting practices and that a fair amount of lawyers were involved in creating the 15th and other measures that made things more fair?
No, he doesn't know. Or care. He's a moronic maniac.
I mean, he is mentally ill in so many ways, but one of his weirder quirks is confusing politicians with the legal profession.
I might add that after a few decades of quiescence, they've gotten creative again.
It's amazing how much conservatives hate Roberts when he has been pivotal in gutting precedent to give their favored party massive advantages in so many cases (Shelby, Citizens United, Janus, etc.,).
The Republican racists, conservative misogynists, superstitious gay-bashers, evangelical Muslim-haters, and right-wing xenophobes recognize that they have been defeated in America's culture war and have responded by becoming desperate and disaffected, clinging to delusions, and purifying their backwater, downscale ranks.
Chief Justice Roberts no longer makes the grade in a party of QAnon, white supremacy, birtherism, 'stolen election' frenzy, common good conservatism, Trump, NewsMax, and Fox.
The Volokh Conspiracy, though, seems to make the cut.
Important day this was, when the Magnificent Equal Sovereign Dignitude of the States was established with the overarching principle that No State Can Be Said to Have Every Been Racist or Made to Feel Discomfort Because of the Totally Distant Past!
There might have been some other stuff about race and voting in there too, not sure.
Well, here's the much-criticized CRT bill:
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/full-text-of-the-texas-law-restricting-classroom-talk-on-racism-hb-3979/2021/07
And here's the awful, racist, snowflakey part. It says the following shall NOT be taught:
"an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual ’s race or sex"
The bill also *requires* teaching about slavery, the Klan, and all sorts of uncomfortable and bad things - forget chilling effect, they *must* teach it - though to be sure they can't teach that the USA was founded on racism or that there should be guilt by association based on race.
(from Texas, which I suppose is the Ground Zero of fascism in America, so the bill must be the worst there is)
Here's an example:
The bill leaves you free to teach about Japanese atrocities in the Second World War, but it doesn't permit you to single out the Japanese-American students and berate them about how bad they are because they're of Japanese descent.
Does the distinction begin to become clear?
Of course nothing of that has anything to do with Critical Race Theory. And I would hope "singling out Japanese-American students and berating them about how bad they are" was already grounds for dismissal in Texas schools, but who knows?