Today in Supreme Court History: November 5, 1917

11/5/1917: Buchanan v. Warley decided.

The White Court (1916-1921)

Comments

[Commenter_XY]

Election Day is finally here. Now we speak. Go vote!

Something I told myself a lot lately: Remember, we are all Americans.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Remember, we are all Americans."
Well, excluding the 20-30 million who are in the country illegally.

[David Nieporent]

Why not 50 million, if you're just going to pull numbers out of your ass anyway?

[Mr. Bumble]

Why not, since no one really knows.

[Dan Schiavetta]

XY:

Well and simply put!

[Krayt]

In the 30th century, the era of the Legion of Superheroes, they have supercomputers pick a leader for their next 4 years or whatevs. Not the supergroup, but Earth. Skipping potential funny business, I still thought that pie-eyed view a bit naive.

Looking at today's choices, I might give it a roll just once.

[Syd Henderson]

Thus Skynet rules the world.

[David Nieporent]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)

[SRG2]

"No matter who you vote for, the government always gets in"

[Dan Schiavetta]

Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (decided November 5, 1917): striking down on Equal Protection grounds ordinance prohibiting sale to black people of house on majority-white block (the Court was holding in favor of a white man who wanted to enforce the contract of sale to a black man) (distinguished Plessy on the grounds that in that case black people had to ride in separate car, but were not denied access to train)

Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12 (decided November 5, 2013): federal court can’t reexamine state court finding of fact so long as it’s “reasonable” (here, as to claim of ineffective assistance of counsel causing missed chance at plea bargain)

Lefemine v. Wideman, 568 U.S. 1 (decided November 5, 2012): plaintiff who won no monetary damages but obtained permanent injunction in §1983 case was “prevailing party” and therefore entitled to fees under §1988 (injunction was against the police and allowed plaintiff to exercise his First Amendment rights by displaying photos of aborted fetuses in front of clinic)

[apedad]

" . . . striking down on Equal Protection grounds . . . . "

cc - is that correct?

(From the decision) "The case presented does not deal with an attempt to prohibit the amalgamation of the races. The right which the ordinance annulled was the civil right of a white man to dispose of his property if he saw fit to do so to a person of color and of a colored person to make such disposition to a white person."

"While the Supreme Court’s decision was a success for the NAACP, it came about under less-than-ideal circumstances for Black activists. The Supreme Court overturned the law not because the zoning ordinance violated Black people’s civil rights (which was one argument made by NAACP lawyers Clayton B. Blakey and Moorfield Storey), but because it interfered with the rights of property owners. The Court stated that a person had the right to sell his property to anyone, and that government involvement would deprive a person of property without due process of law, according to the 14th amendment. To overturn the zoning ordinance, the NAACP had to collaborate with a white man (Buchanan) to successfully sue a Black man (Warley) on the premise that the law was unfair to the white homeowner. The racial injustice of the law was essentially ignored by the Supreme Court."

https://www.governing.com/context/how-the-defeat-of-a-zoning-law-reshaped-racial-segregation#:~:text=In%201914%2C%20the%20city%20of%20Louisville%2C%20Ky.%2C%20passed,people%20in%20a%20majority-white%20neighborhood%2C%20and%20vice%20versa.

Seems like the Court only addressed Due Process and not Equal Protection.

[Krayt]

To overturn the zoning ordinance, the NAACP had to collaborate with a white man (Buchanan) to successfully sue a Black man (Warley) on the premise that the law was unfair to the white homeowner.

Ginsburg argued 6 cases before the SC before becoming a justice. At least 5 were sex differences and all 5 were tackled as disfavoring the male, not the female. Taxes, SS benefits, one case where chicks were kept off his jury, and, dammit, he had that honor to have ’em!

[SMP0328]

It was what had to done back then: disguise an EPC claim as being one regarding Substantive Due Process. Same as incorporating the Bill of Rights was done via Substantive Due Process to get around the Slaughter House Cases gutting the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

[Dan Schiavetta]

apedad:

You’re correct. Though EP is mentioned throughout, the decision was made on DP grounds. Will correct. Thanks!

[loki13]

CommenterXY-

"Something I told myself a lot lately: Remember, we are all Americans."

True. We have very good family friends. So good that we vacation together. The wife is a Harris supporter. But the husband has gone down a dark youtube wormhole- he now thinks that they are shipping guns (?) into America for the undocumented immigrants to use, and plans to vote for Trump.

Anyway, it's hard to understand this, because this is the same guy that helped me with an issue involving a (legal) kid who had (undocumented) parents here, and who is otherwise a great guy. But we are still friends, and we talk about everything except politics.

Kinda like (some!) of the commenters here. I don't understand what The Publius is talking about most of the time, but he seems like the kind of person I could get a beer and some BBQ with so long as we don't talk politics.

I think that when we view people as people, and not as "the enemy" we have a better view of others. I just don't understand the craziness.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Well said.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I understand. I do. For me, synagogue is tough at times, which bothers me.

[SRG2]

TBH I think most of the posters here are beerable were we to stay away from a hot-button item or two - certainly judging by literary tastes!

[Ridgeway]

Also, I think you'd find that many people's views are a lot more nuanced than comes through on comment posts.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

(Lee surrenders to Grant)

When Robert E. Lee first saw a Native American wearing an officer's uniform inside the house, he wore a puzzled look as he examined the man’s dark features, then extended his hand and remarked, “I am glad to see one real American here.”

In the afternoon of April 9, 1865—about 150 years ago—at the McLean House in Appomattox County, Virginia, General Lee greeted Ely S. Parker, a Tonawanda Seneca who served as General Ulysses S. Grant’s military secretary since 1863. Parker replied: “We are all Americans.”