Today in Supreme Court History: March 20, 1854

3/20/1854: The Republican Party is founded. President Abraham Lincoln would be elected President on the Republican ticket six years later on November 6, 1860.

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

and declare War on a peace-loving neighbors who only wanted to be left alone! The Vladimir Putin of 1860!!!!

[Queen Amalthea]

Big booster for Trump, Putin and Jeff Davis is this Frank. Who saw that coming?

[Frank Drackman]

Jeez are you friggin Yoda? And Lincoln didn't mind killing hundreds of thousands of Southern "Civilians" while allowing Slavery to continue in the Federal States of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Sleepy Joe's Delaware. Great guy.

[Queen Amalthea]

I like how Lincoln is condemned for fighting the Southern slavers but also for not fighting them.

[DaivdBehar]

Lincoln is in a class of Worst Presidents alone, an order of magnitude worse than all Carter Class Worst Presidents, like GW Bush. No one else killed 600000 Americans, like 3 million today.

[David Nieporent]

Behar is a racist.

[Dan Schiavetta]

A long, long time ago. The Party of Lincoln died in the 1960's, killed off by Nixon's "Southern Strategy".

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Yet Democrats somehow manage to soldier on, first the party of slavery, then the party of Jim Crow segregation, then the party of affirmative racism, and now the party of mandated wokism. Their track record is unblemished. They haven't met a mandate yet they didn't support.

[Sarcastr0]

I am not someone who thinks you can't be against affirmative action without being racist. Unfortunate you can't do the same in reverse.

But whenever someone says they think black people are inherently mentally inferior, I know what party they vote for.

[Michael P]

The party that says we need to throw out all the standards because having standards is a mark of white supremacy?

[Cal Cetín]

Yeah, I don't like Republicans but I'll say this - I don't think it was Republicans who described punctuality, work ethic, etc. as white characteristics.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Actually they have been saying that, for years now. One of many examples was the “welfare queen” motif.

[Michael P]

Motif? Do you think the woman who uses the name "Linda Taylor" (among many others) was not a real person?

[Frank Drackman]

can someone in this August group find me a link where Ronaldus Maximus used the term "Welfare Queen"??? don't believe it ever happened.

[David Nieporent]

Given the commenter, I don't think this is a good faith question, but I will respond anyway:

https://www.nytimes.com/1976/02/15/archives/welfare-queen-becomes-issue-in-reagan-campaign-hitting-a-nerve-now.html

[grb]

Frank Drackman: ".... Ronaldus Maximus .... "

Wouldn't that be the same Reagan who opened his '80 campaign with a speech on "states rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi, infamous for the abduction and murder of civil rights workers Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner? I doubt there was an ear in the South that didn't pick up on that dog whistle....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Chaney,_Goodman,_and_Schwerner

[Cal Cetín]

"I am not someone who thinks you can't be against affirmative action without being racist. Unfortunate you can't do the same in reverse."

You can't be for racial preferences without being for racial discrimination, and the pro-woke Merriam-Websters said racial prejudice or discrimination was racism.

So what changed, racism or the personnel of Merriam-Wokester?

[Queen Amalthea]

Of course discrimination doesn't necessarily involve racism. When the United Negro College Fund was created its purpose was to 'discriminate' by raising funds for black persons specifically, but they didn't do that because they were racist towards anyone else.

[Cal Cetín]

That may have made sense in a Jim Crow context, but I don't see what sense it makes now.

Which doesn't mean I feel entitled to take their money and give it to white people.

But if the organization announced that it would focus on needy people of all races, and cut off affluent black beneficiaries, I wouldn't complain.

[Cal Cetín]

Yeah,

"As the first executive director from the organization's start in 1944 until 1964, [William J.] Trent raised $78 million for historically Black colleges so they could become "strong citadels of learning, carriers of the American dream, seedbeds of social evolution and revolution"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNCF#History

The article says "historically black," but in the two decades they mentioned, these "historically black" institutions were (with exceptions) mostly parts of racially-segregated systems of public colleges.

So as I expected, a response to Jim Crow. Made sense as long as Jim Crow lasted.

[Queen Amalthea]

So in this case the racial preferences weren't motivated by racism but to ameliorate racism. Hmmm.

[Cal Cetín]

They were motivated by the temporary *need* to accept racist premises - that is, Jim Crow schools.

Yes, they played into racism. Were they collaborators with evil, or practical do-gooders?

Your Manichaean worldview suggests that once you work with racists on a specific occasion, you have to be racist the rest of your life.

[Cal Cetín]

In short, there is a certain degree of moral compromise involved in helping Jim Crow schools. It helped segregationists who wanted to "equalize" black and white schools so they could claim that the equal part of separate but equal was being implemented.

They appeased the segregationists and bought into their system so long as the segregationists were strong enough to need appeasing.

If they had focused instead on helping students attend integrated schools, bypassing the Jim Crow system altogether, I'd have understood.

I also understand what they considered the practical need to basically reach over and clasp hands with Jim Crow in order to pursue non-Jim-Crowish ideals.

Oh, no, I can't deal with moral complications and compromises!

[Cal Cetín]

Next, let's talk about how anyone who pays to ransom kidnap victims is bound, in consistency, to support kidnapping.

[Queen Amalthea]

Boy, that's a lot of gobbledygook. The question was: was the UNCF being racist when they raised money only for black students (racial preference) to use? Not 'played into racist assumptions,' 'accepting racist premises,' or what other convoluted ways of putting it you feel the need to apply. The answer is clearly no. They were trying to ameliorate the effects of racism. And so are most who support racial preferences today. It's as silly to say all discrimination is bad and racist and therefore all racial preference must be bad as it is to say all violence is bad and therefore acts of self defense are bad.

[Cal Cetín]

If they'd believed Jim Crow schools to be a good thing, they'd have been explicitly racist. But they wanted Jim Crow to disappear, not in some indeterminate future of whiteness being erased and all bad attitudes had been purged from white people - but as soon as practicable.

I'll say they collaborated with racism by giving money to perpetuate racist schools.

If there's an "intent element" in racism, I'd distinguish between working within a system they hated and wanted to see abolished, and promoting racial discrimination in favor of one's own supporters, declaring that the discrimination will continue until [insert unlikely event like all white being cured of racist thoughts, or the attainment of pure socialism, or what have you].

[Queen Amalthea]

You keep going to some pretty weird places with this. They saw that Jim Crow and racism had generally disadvantaged blacks and so they focused their aid to blacks (a racial preference). It's not racist when you're trying to help a generally disadvantaged race. This isn't rocket science.

[Cal Cetín]

presuppositions, not preferences

[Cal Cetín]

"It's not racist when you're trying to help a generally disadvantaged race."

It most certainly can be racist. A general feeling of benevolence isn't enough, you have to something which is actually useful.

[Cal Cetín]

If you check below, you will see that some of your preferences have been knocked out from under you.

[Queen Amalthea]

You're referencing their current website, I specifically said "When the United Negro College Fund was created". HBCUs now have non-black students, yeah. But the point is that when it was created it's purpose was to help Negro students attending Negro colleges. And this wasn't because they were racist against other types of students but because they recognized black students as being particularly generally disadvantaged. They weren't being racist to anyone, because racial preferences need not involve any racism at all.

[Cal Cetín]

I said that was a necessary if awkward accommodation with racism - which we should acknowledge as such - unless we're using this as an entering wedge to say racial preferences are unobjectionable in our post-Jim-Crow world.

It's easy to find borderline cases.

What about Frederick Douglass' friends paying off his "master" so he'd be recognized as free under American positive law?

What about ransoms to the pirate-states of North Africa to redeem the slaves held there?

Do these things justify slavery? Or were they concessions made to slavers under extraordinary circumstances?

It seems there's a kind of legal mind which thinks once you get an extreme circumstance which tests a principle, they've relieved themselves of the necessity of dealing with ordinary circumstances.

[Queen Amalthea]

"in the two decades they mentioned, these "historically black" institutions were (with exceptions) mostly parts of racially-segregated systems of public colleges."

Also, about half of HBCU's were/are private. The UNCF wasn't clasping hands with Jim Crow or other such nonsense. They were preferring to help black people because that was the generally disadvantaged race in this country at the time. The current motivation for racial preferences works in a similar way (now, whether that motivation makes sense or is ultimately justified in the here and now is another question, and then whether even given the answer to the preceding is yes do racial preferences 'work' is yet another).

[Cal Cetín]

"They were preferring to help black people because that was the generally disadvantaged race in this country at the time."

If the black colleges they supported discriminated against nonblacks, then sure, helping them would have been racist.

If they had a fund which black students but non nonblack students could access, that would have been racist.

If they put their effort into helping the disadvantaged, and statistically that meant helping a "disproportionate" number of black people, that would *not* be racist, because statistical disparities - without more - are not in themselves proof that the institution generating the statistics is racist.

[Cal Cetín]

Ooh, I just noticed this on their FAQ page:

"Does UNCF help only African Americans?

"Not at all. UNCF’s member HBCUs admit students without reference to race or ethnicity."

https://uncf.org/pages/facts-and-questions

So perhaps a nonblack person can get a scholarship, they simply have to use it at a historically-black college.

Just like if a black student gets a scholarship to go to an historically-white school.

Not racist, just school-ist.

[Queen Amalthea]

Lol, dude, they're the United NEGRO College Fund. But preferring to focus aid on blacks because blacks were generally disadvantaged was/is not a racist thing to do, it's an attempt to ameliorate racism. It's funny that you misunderstood my point so badly as to label my position 'Manichean.' It's you that is contorting yourself because you have to live up a facile axiom like 'any preference based on race is the same and equally evil!'

Let me give you an analogy. Did you know that when we were at war with the Germans that people used to go around attacking dachshunds? They were a very unpopular breed and many an act of outright cruelty was committed against dogs of that breed. Now, let's say we've got a guy, Callous Cal, who thinks daschunds are all sneaky vile German dogs and goes out of his way to kick them or berate their owners. In response to this situation another guy, Courageous Cal decides to create an organization to raise money to help dachshunds, to get them foster homes and have their vet bills paid off. Now, Courageous Cal knows that there are dachshund dogs that have it bad. But he's focusing his efforts to help this breed because he genuinely thinks they are at a general disadvantage to other breeds. Now, are Callous Cal and Courageous Cal up to the same thing? Of COURSE NOT. I mean, a facile analysis of the situation might say, yes, both men are 'discriminating' based on the breed of a dog. But that would be pretty facile indeed. Intent matters, context matters. It's why shooting a man because you think he's ugly is wrong but shooting a man who was going to shoot another man because he thought he was ugly is not only not wrong we offer a justification defense in our law to the latter fellow.

[Cal Cetín]

1) I'd focus more on getting the daschund-abusers punished.

2) Black people aren't dogs, so your comparison doesn't really work.

[Cal Cetín]

Again, before defending this group's allegedly benevolent discrimination, let's make sure they're doing it in the first place. Can you explain this FAQ on their Web page in a racist way?

"Does UNCF help only African Americans?

"Not at all. UNCF’s member HBCUs admit students without reference to race or ethnicity."

https://uncf.org/pages/facts-and-questions

[Queen Amalthea]

" Black people aren't dogs, so your comparison doesn't really work."

Analogies, how do they work?

"I'd focus more on getting the daschund-abusers punished."

If you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a ball!

[Cal Cetín]

Are they telling the truth in their FAQs?

It may have been that it was discriminatory to promote scholarships at black colleges during Jim Crow, since many of these colleges (the state ones) couldn't admit nonblacks.

But now that HBCUs will let in any race, a scholarship at one of those places wouldn't be any more discriminatory than a scholarship to a historically white institution like, say, Princeton.

[DaivdBehar]

Cal, Baby. Problem solved. White people should say, I identify as black. Get all the diverse privileges, forbearances, and money. If someone questions, their lily white skin, reply, you do not get to define me. I am filing a Title Vi complaint with the Biden Office of Civil Rights at the Education Department.

Come with the complaint filled out. Whip it out if a diverse so much as says a word about race. Add that you are not proficient in English. The woke still have to admit you and give a lot of money for a scholarship.

https://ocrcas.ed.gov/content/ocr-electronic-appeals-form

[DaivdBehar]

A girl I know had very pale skin. She identified as African American. She joined the African American Student Association. The school gave her a ride for 2 years, worth $130000. Cool.

[Queen Amalthea]

Sure thing lunatic, sure.

[Frank Drackman]

So she was an Albino? Still could be Afro-Amurican, Senator Poke-a-Hontas has her beat, 1/1024th Injun, and got a Professorship out of it.

[DaivdBehar]

We all came out of Africa, even you, Frank. Did you know you were a diverse?

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, seeing as how I'm a MOTT, about as long as realized I was Circumscribed. What's your excuse?

[DaivdBehar]

Is a MOTT a British prostitute? You can still be a diverse for privileges and preferential funding purposes.

[Michael P]

Just ask Ibram Kendi. Everything is either racist or antiracist, and the only way to balance out past racism is racism today, and the only way to handle racism today is racism in the future. Pretending to be "not racist" is just a way to hide being racist, so one way or another, you have to apply racism.

No, wait, he equivocates between racism and discrimination in there somewhere because reasons.

[DaivdBehar]

Ibram, isn't that name cultural appropriation of Hebrew and Arabic culture? And, what is with the name, Kendi, from Zulu or some such? The dude needs to provide the mitochondrial DNA or get a British or Scot names, like Bob.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Whenever any white person claims to speak for blacks, I know which party they bow to.

[DaivdBehar]

Hey, Cap. Democrat policies and jurisdictions cause 4000 extra murders of young black males a year, today. They are 100 times more lethal to blacks than the Klan that took 100 years to lynch 4000 people. So go reform bail and decarcerate the thugs. Surge murders another 30% over that excess. Bust some records, genocidal maniac.

[Frank Drackman]

it was really LBJ's "Southern Strategy", everyone loves the idea of Intergrated Schools until it's your kids getting Intergrated.

[Queen Amalthea]

Keep saying those quiet parts out loud Frank.

[Frank Drackman]

like the Intergrated Pubic Schools Barry Hussein Obama sent his kids to? Not sure about Sleepy, Hunter seems he could be a Pubic Graduate.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are there no right-wing scholars able and willing to help this blog develop a Today In Supreme Court History series that (1) is accurate and (2) involves points of Supreme Court history?

[Dan Schiavetta]

One could discuss Calder v. Jones, decided on this day in 1984, wherein a unanimous Court (in an opinion written by Rehnquist) held that per International Shoe, wide circulation of an out-of-state magazine created enough of a "minimum contact" so that a resident of that state (in that case, California) could sue for libel.

One could also point out the interesting fact that the long-arm statutes of some states (such as New York, though not California) specifically do not apply to defamation claims, and why that is.

And one could point out that Calder has in effect been abrogated by Daimler AG v. Bauman, 2014, which took everyone by surprise by reducing the whole "minimum contacts" rule, in force for 70 years, to a mere shell.

But . . . engaging in such discussion would involve treating Josh's "Today in Supreme Court History" series seriously, which he himself does not.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It rarely requires more than five minutes and a Google-compatible device to identify a genuine point of Supreme Court history with respect to a particular day.

This is just laziness, ineptitude, and recognition that the target audience is downscale. Perhaps some disdain for elitism, credentials, professional standards, and mainstream education is in the mix.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I timed my research + comment writing at 3 minutes, 42 seconds. Consequently the same length as the studio version of “Good Vibrations”. Coincidence? Or maybe something deeper is going on here?

[Frank Drackman]

you left out "Pretentious Pricks"

[Bob from Ohio]

"which he himself does not"

Its mainly a way to promote his ConLaw tapes/book.

Its amazing that 2 1/4 years of your whining hasn't made him care.

You should consider whining harder.

[David Nieporent]

I don't see how Calder — a case about specific jurisdiction — could be said to be abrogated by Daimler — a case about general jurisdiction.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You’re right. Sorry!

[DaivdBehar]

Hi, Artie. You need to STFU until you resign and interview your diverse replacement. Just STFU you vile, old, white, male supremacist.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

My offer of a case of very good beer to any lawyer who can demonstrate direct responsibility for this guy's hatred toward lawyers stands.

[DaivdBehar]

Artie. Every self stated goal of every law subject is in failure. Yet, this failed profession gets to make the rules, and to fun our failed government. When can we expect the resignation, Artie?

[DaivdBehar]

Artie, for the record, I love the lawyer. There is no greater love than the love great enough to correct.

[Queen Amalthea]

Note this lunatic is a big Trump fan.

[DaivdBehar]

Hi, Queenie. And I love you. I want to help you. What is your race? I want to emphasize your diversity in my letter of recommendation. You are so smart, you deserve a better job.

[Queen Amalthea]

David Behar, putting the dis into dissociative disorder! Note this lunatic is a big Trump fan.

[DaivdBehar]

Come, Queenie, Dude. What is your race, for the letter?

[Frank Drackman]

Just realized, WTF does Lincoln have to do with the Surpreme Court???

[Frank Drackman]

answered my own question....
In 1861, Chief Justice Taney (in the capacity of a Circuit Court) ruled that President Abraham Lincoln had unconstitutionally suspended the right to the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War. The court ruled only Congress has that power. Lincoln and the army defied the order. Their argument was hilariously reminiscent of Trump, stating that Taney had not actually ordered them to release Merryman. Of course, they didn’t stop there as several newspaper owners and editors were also detained by the federal government, as well as eventually the Baltimore police chief, the Baltimore mayor, and even 30 members of the state legislature! A Maryland state judge was not only arrested, but beaten unconscious by federal troops, and then held without being charged for six months.

[Queen Amalthea]

It was really only a matter of time before he got around to praising Taney...

[DaivdBehar]

I have credited Lincoln with pistol whipping a judge. Good idea. He also issued an arrest warrant for Taney, to hang him for treason. Some lawyer dipshit persuaded Lincoln to take the warrant back from the hands of the Federal marshall in the room.

[Syd Henderson]

The Republican party was founded a couple of weeks after the Senate passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act (by a 37-14 margin) but a couple of days before the House passed it (113-100). I hadn't realized how close it was in the House.

[Cal Cetín]

They just wanted to return the slavery issue to the states and territories, thus defusing this controversial issue so the country could move onto other subjects.

And slavery was never an issue in national politics again, the end.

[grb]

Strange how people forget the direct cause of Southern secession wasn't "state's rights", but violent opposition to the same. The pre-war Democrats held power with a coalition of north & south wings of the party. Stephen A. Douglas split that apart by endorsing the Freeport Doctrine - that each state or new territory should settle the issue of slavery themselves.

That so enraged Southerners they broke from the Democratic convention in Charleston and created a splinter party backing John Breckinridge as a rival candidate. From that split vote, Lincoln was elected. By the time he took office the South had already seized federal territories thru military force & fired on United States ships.

Of course the South's "states rights" claptrap was always the grossest hypocrisy. After all, no one was more in favor of raw central power than the South, at least when it came to enforcing the right to own people as property. Whether it was demanding country-wide censorship of anti-slavery literature in the mails, or expansive police powers across state borders to seize former slaves without due-process, or denying the right of new states to settle slavery themselves, the South held "states rights" only as the most transient of conveniences.