Today in Supreme Court History: June 12, 1967

6/12/1967: Loving v. Virginia decided.

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (decided June 12, 1967): striking down on Due Process and Equal Protection gounds state prohibitions on interracial marriage (a good decision for me personally)

Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 582 U.S. --- (decided June 12, 2017): striking down requirement that foreign-born child seeking citizenship needed a U.S. citizen father who had been in the country for at least ten years before birth while for a U.S. citizen mother needed only one year

Munaf v. Geren, 533 U.S. 674 (decided June 12, 2008): American citizens held by the post-Iraq-invasion Multi-National Force (allegation was helping al Qaeda, kidnapping) can petition for habeas corpus (the MNF was about to transfer them to a local criminal court for trial), but petition denied here because Iraq had sovereign right to try crimes committed on its soil (our regard for Iraq's sovereignty is truly touching /s/)

Adarand Constr. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (decided June 12, 1995): use of race-based presumptions in approving economically disadvantaged subcontractors on federal projects viewed under "strict scrutiny", not a more lenient standard

Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (decided June 12, 1972): right to have counsel provided (Gideon) applies to all criminal prosecutions not just to those to which the right to trial by attaches (which is maximum sentence six months or more)

House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (decided June 12, 2006): habeas after rape/murder conviction may go forward based on chain of custody problems (not heard by the jury) as to the incriminating blood and possible confession of victim's husband; no proof of "actual innocence" but enough to show that some jurors might have reasonable doubt

New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (decided June 12, 1984): statement by handcuffed defendant in supermarket as to nearby location of gun admitted into evidence under "public safety" exception to Miranda

New York et rel. Kennedy v. Becker, 241 U.S. 556 (decided June 12, 1916): Seneca tribe bound by state fish and game laws despite what was promised to them by a 1797 treaty because land in question was not on a Reservation

[Brett Bellmore]

For me, too.

Of course, Loving would never have been necessary if not for the Court's malfeasance in Pace v Virginia. The Court gets way too much credit for their half-assed efforts in the 20th century to partially undo the damage they did in the 18th deliberately spiking the 14th amendment.

Perhaps it would help if they could bring themselves to admit the evil the Court did back then, and that those cases need to be OVERTURNED, not just worked around?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I think you mean Pace v. Alabama, 1883.

Interracial marriage was not demonized in 1967 but still frowned upon, even where I was living in the North. (Seeing a white woman with a black man parked next to us, my mother assumed they were involved and said, "My, she certainly seems . . . open minded!")

And the prohibitions in the South had real teeth: the Lovings had been given the choice of either jail, or leaving the state for 25 years (i.e., until Mildred passed childbearing age).

Warren's opinion reads: "Pace represents a limited view of the Equal Protection Clause which has not withstood analysis in the subsequent decisions of this Court." Which is saying, "We're overruling it."

[Brett Bellmore]

At least I remembered the Pace part. 😉

14th amendment jurisprudence is still distorted by the Court's actions after the Civil war, such as the Slaughterhouse cases. Thomas gets a lot of flack over insisting on P&I, not 'substantive' due process, but that's just one example of the distortions. Selective incorporation is another.

Really, the Court SHOULD just come right out and confess the evil that their institution did back then, and that none of the cases they decided back then can be considered good law, or even respectable.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Really, the Court SHOULD just come right out and confess the evil that their institution did back then, and that none of the cases they decided back then can be considered good law, or even respectable."

Much easier said than done. Just how would they go about this?

[Brett Bellmore]

You ever heard of "dictum"?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd add that Warren's opinion preserves Pace, essentially, because it preserves the pretense that this was an EP issue. Which it was only because the Court had reduced the P&I clause to insignificance.

Laws against interracial marriage violated the P&I clause, as it was understood before the Court struck.

So Loving was one of those distorting work-arounds I was talking about.

[bernard11]

And the prohibitions in the South had real teeth: the Lovings had been given the choice of either jail, or leaving the state for 25 years (i.e., until Mildred passed childbearing age).

Yes.

Recall that the "mongrelization of the white race" was a major concern of the segregationists.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and eugenicists like Margret Sanger and Woodrow Wilson.

[Dan Schiavetta]

. . . both of whom would fit rather comfortably into today's Republican Party. Tucker Carlson would have them as guests on his show.

[Mr. Bumble]

citation

[Sarcastr0]

Check out the Volokh threads on the Great Replacement, and see who thinks it's real.

[Brett Bellmore]

A third of young Democrats, apparently.

[Sarcastr0]

Not under any normal definition.

You think the Bell Curve is right, so you and Wilson would have some common areas of conversation at the very least.

[Brett Bellmore]

Come on, Sarcastr0, we had an essay here posting the survey at the SPLC that showed that, just a couple days ago. Isn't it a bit early to memory hole that?

[Brett Bellmore]

Also, I expect your hostility to the Bell Curve mostly derives from understanding it from hostile reviews rather than having read it.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm memory holing nothing - the question is which party is at home to such theories about white replacement. The fact that Dems are not a monolith is irrelevant to the GOP becoming the party of white grievance and concerns about purity.

There are lots of things that science shows I don't like. But the Bell Curve is not one of them. It is bad science; it's been shown to be bad science many different ways. I have explained a number of them to you, and linked to further sources.
You still like it without addressing the issues in it's methodology for reasons I won't speculate over.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure, the Great replacement is just more Republican disinformation. Dems are fortifying the population and besides we need to make up for all of the geezers killed by WuFlu thanks to the likes of Cuomo, Murphy, Whitmer et al.
Those hundreds of thousands illegals streaming across the border and flown allover the US are a figment of your imagination.
By the way, why is it that the number of illegals in the US is always cited as 11.6 million, year after year?

[Sarcastr0]

If you want to argue the GOP is not the party of Wilson's racism, maybe lay off the immigrant hordes arguments.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you captidiot. Should we include KKK member Robert Byrd?

[bernard11]

Another for the mute button.

[Sarcastr0]

Byrd changed his views, apologized, made recompense, and was forgiven. He was never super woke or anything, but he decisively left his KKK days behind him.

You don't seem to be into going that rout.

[Mr. Bumble]

Rewriting history one page at a time.

[Mr. Bumble]

So let me get this straight: all of the Democrats who supported segregation were actually closet Republicans and all of the Republicans who helped pass the Civil Rights Act , were actually closet Democrats?

[Sarcastr0]

This is nothing like what I said.

if you have an issue with what I said was the deal with Byrd, please make your case.

[DaivdBehar]

Cappie. Ironic. The past Democrat Party was pretty devastating to blacks. Today's party is associated with a 4000 excess murders a year, and with 20 million black babies killed. It took the KKK, the Al Aqsa Brigade of the Democrat Party 100 years to lynch 4000 blacks. Today's Democrat Party 2.0 is 100 times more deadly to blacks than the past one.

[DaivdBehar]

God bless and protect the Brother for taking the fat, disturbed white women off our hands.

[DaivdBehar]

Some may be dudes. If that ever happens to a Bro it may be rape by deception.

[John F. Carr]

I know a white Canadian woman who spent some time in the South in the 1970s. Not being up on American racial customs she let word get out that she liked a particular black guy. He was terrified for what might happen. With or without _Loving_, you might want to choose which state to be openly interracial in.

[John F. Carr]

Race-based preferences made a comeback in recent years when some cities wanted to give preference to certain races in handing out licenses to grow or sell marijuana. Other cities only cared if the check cashed. In Massachusetts we have legal extortion of marijuana businesses. But it has to be extortion by the city, not the mayor personally, as one defendant learned (https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/former-fall-river-mayor-convicted-extorting-marijuana-vendors-and-defrauding-investors).

[DaivdBehar]

While the Civil Rights Act is illegal, the Jim Crow laws were a denial of reality, illegal, and highly toxic.

Best course for the vile, toxic lawyer profession? Just STFU. You are vile, toxic idiots.

[DaivdBehar]

Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 582 U.S. --- (decided June 12, 2017)

Promotes anchor babies, which is immigration fraud. The lawyer is too stupid to solve this tax sucking problem, or it likes it because we are importing huge families of Democrats.

[DaivdBehar]

House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (decided June 12, 2006): habeas after rape/murder conviction may go forward based on chain of custody problems (not heard by the jury) as to the incriminating blood and possible confession of victim's husband; no proof of "actual innocence" but enough to show that some jurors might have reasonable doubt

The doctrine that appellate courts only review errors of law, and not of evidence is idiotic. You lawyer assholes are crazy and stupid. In 25% of exonerations, the defendant had falsely confessed, using insider information fed by the police, agents of the prosecutor, implanting a false memory. You people stink.

[Frank Drackman]

What? No "Reverend AK" comments yet ??? Over/Under on "Klinger/Betters/White/Male" mentions??
I'll set it at "4" and take the "over"

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Sunday morning. Busy leading services.

[DaivdBehar]

The Rev expresses the sincere but unstated views of the lawyer profession about ordinary people. He is also a denier. There is no talking to deniers. Only one remedy applies to deniers.

[mydisplayname]

"The name changes but the love remains" -- and the symbolism is perhaps not by accident. https://www.voanews.com/a/rebranded-mcdonalds-restaurants-reopen-in-russia-/6614268.html (or more biased, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUyIgqreGK8 ).

[Mr. Bumble]

Sarcastr0
June.12.2022 at 2:12 pm
Flag Comment Mute User

This is nothing like what I said.

if you have an issue with what I said was the deal with Byrd, please make your case.
Hard to do when you mute me.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't mute you (yet).

Believe it or not bernard11 and I are different commenters.

[Frank Drackman]

Not a Lawyer (thank god, I had other options)
but always suspicious of the name of this case,
Really??, "Loving v Virginia (the 'State for Lovers" according to their license plates) "??? and how could anyone be against "Loving" vs Anybody ???)
So in 1967 did they sit down and say " OK, what's on the anti-miscegenation docket?" (a mere 8 years after the incident at issue, Yay! Speedy Trials)
Lets, see, Bernstein vs Surpreme Court of Japan, Khama v Surpreme Court of UK , Harry Markle v (in the future, and out of jurisdiction),
And wow, did you know that the first Amurican "Interracial" Marriage was "Pochahantas (the Real one, not 1/1024th Lizzy Warren version) and John Rolfe in 1614?? (case still hasn't made it to the Surpremes)
Let's see, "Loving v Vagina"???? (you know Earl Warrens Japanese-Interning pointy ears perked up at that)

Frank