Today in Supreme Court History: February 26, 1869

2/26/1869: The 15th Amendment is submitted to the states.

Comments

[Commenter_XY]

Fifteenth Amendment
Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–

Section 2

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[not guilty]

See, however, Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013).

This century's Korematsu.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Section 2 might actually be an impediment here, because in Shelby the Court pointed out that Congress had failed to act in 40 years.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

They "acted." The concern was that they didn't update the law enough to address the changing times. The dissent spelled out why the law was still "appropriately" passed.

The ultimate problem (though I doubt it made Shelby correctly decided) is that the law was underinclusive. It was not politically possible to pass a fully new law covering the nation as a whole that did more to completely fulfill the amendment's mandate.

The House passed such a law, further addressing other voting rights issues (see also, the never enforced 14A, sec. 2 requirements) during the Biden years & Republicans in the Senate filibustered it.

[A Japanese Student]

I do wonder if Congress will ever pass a voting-rights legislation, again. During the last Congress, House Administration Committee reported by voice vote H.R. 6242, which would expand the coverage of UOCAVA. Despite being listed in the suspension calendar for the week starting September 23, 2024, it never received a vote. I'm not sure why.

The clock is ticking; the language-coverage rule is set to expire in 2032 absent Congressional action. (PL109-246 §7; 52 USC 10503(b)(1))

[Commenter_XY]

Sorry NG, but who was imprisoned?

Our voting rights are alive and well in 2025. What's the problem? How it is akin to Korematsu?

[SMP0328]

You think shutting down the Voting Rights Act's preclearance provisions is the same as the internment of Japanese Americans. Congratulations, you are now in first place for today's hyperbole award.

[Frank Drackman]

Secluding the Japanese-Amurican population from everyone else was the best thing that could have happened to them

[Dan Schiavetta]

Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, 589 U.S. 178 (decided February 26, 2020): 3-year statute of limitations for ERISA suit begins when plaintiff actually knew employer had improperly invested funds, not when it can be deduced from those annual reports nobody reads

United States v. Apel, 571 U.S. 359 (decided February 26, 2014): commandant’s order barring protester from Vandenberg Air Force Base applied to whole property, including publicly accessible area reserved for protesters; conviction under 18 U.S.C. §1382 (unauthorized entry) upheld

United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (decided February 26, 1997): conviction under 18 U.S.C. §1014 (making false statement to federally insured bank) does not require that false statement be material (here, lessor of office equipment which assigned proceeds to bank hid the fact that lessor and not lessees was responsible for repairs)

United States v. Maine et al., 516 U.S. 365 (decided February 26, 1996): original jurisdiction case; Court rejects Massachusetts’s argument that it extends over all of Vineyard Sound and almost all of Nantucket Sound; decree describes straight lines of demarcation (case originally involved 13 Atlantic states and ended up with almost every state limited to three miles offshore)

Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (decided February 26, 1985): established rule that defendant is entitled to state-appointed psychiatrist to evaluate insanity defense (whence the term “Ake hearing”)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Checking, I see United States v. Maine et al. is a supplement to an earlier opinion -- the lawsuit like some original actions had been going on for some time. The 1980s opinion has a reference to the Bronx. A little personal tidbit.

[Frank Drackman]

Trick Question, how many DemoKKKrat Senators/Representatives voted to Ratify the 15th Amendment?

[Krayt]

When did the Republicans take over the racist southern impetus from Democrats?

I don't know if there's a definite point, but the point the Republicans took over as traitorous lovers of the Soviet Union, wanting to reward Hitler by giving him his conquered territory, because saving Nazi troops is more important than killing them backwards, has a definite teeny start point.

By the way, thanks to Bannon a few days ago, we know the Nazi salute is deliberate. "A coincidental wave" is no longer viable. Come on, point out why this is still a wrong interpretation.

We have money to pay back the US, and Ukraine, for the aggression by Russia, the seized oligarch money. But one must lie Ukraine caused it, to remove this justification.

[not guilty]

"When did the Republicans take over the racist southern impetus from Democrats?"

That was a bit of a gradual process, but it began with Lyndon Johnson's persuading Congress to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- both of which had significant Republican support, to be fair.

George Wallace's third party presidential run 1968 appealed to ancestral Democrats who resisted racial integration. Prick Nixon's Southern Strategy was targeted to converting Wallace voters to become Republicans. Southern segregationist Democrats aged out or changed parties. Republicans who supported racial justice faded away, replaced by Republican hardliners or Democrats. The old fashioned segregationist Jerry Falwell and his allies mobilized fundamentalist "Christians" in the wake of Bob Jones University losing its tax exempt status.

[taqmcg]

"...both of which had significant Republican support, to be fair."
Is a bit of an understatement.
In the final vote in the Senate the vote was Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%) Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%).
The final vote in the house was Democrats 152 (61%) to 96 (39%) Republicans 138 (80%) to 34 (20%).
The act was overwhelmingly supported by Republicans compared to a bit more grudging support by Democrats -- whose filibusters in prior years had kept similar legislation from passing.

[taqmcg]

Forgot to clarify that those numbers are for the Civil Rights Act. For the Voting Rights Act the numbers show an even greater level of Republican support...
House: Democrats 217–54, Republicans 111–20, and the
Senate: Democrats 49–17, Republicans 30–1

[Frank Drackman]

“Had significant Republican support”???? Civil Rights only passed BECAUSE(yes, I’m shouting) of Repubiclowns. Same way it took Ronaldus Maximus to get a Martin Lucifer King Holiday, didn’t happen with Jimmuh Cartuh, because he knew it wouldn’t play well in Peoria, (or Skokie, Cincinnati, South Boston, Grand Rapids, Milwaukee….)actually it was his shitty presidency that didn’t play well and lost 40+ States

[Malika the Maiz]

Other than being ignorant of basic English writing rules, consistently Frank is openly racist (part of his edgelord gambit). And yet he tries this “the Democrats were racist a long time ago” thing over and over.

This is MAGA. Trolls all the way down

[Dan Schiavetta]

I muted him a long time ago. You should too.

[Frank Drackman]

You’re just a fountain of conversation Ya Mute! I mean like a Geyser!

[David Nieporent]

He's actually the only one I've done that to, and candidly, it was his hate crimes against grammar and spelling that motivated me. I can handle Nazis, but not incoherence.

[tylertusta]

One of the few things I agree with you on is that Frank Drackman needs to be muted.

[Frank Drackman]

I agree! The guys a Jerk! A Homofobe! Race-ist! and worst of all he thinks Anesthesiologists are Doctors! (Any real Sawbones out there know I’m the real thing, my Doctor stories are the literary equivalent of sending you your child’s severed finger(dont call Kash, that was from a “Dexter Original Sin” episode)
But like Howard Stern before he became a P-whipped Sissy, people want to see what He/I say next

Frank

[tylertusta]

Comment hidden because this user is muted. Unmute Hide username Frank Drackman

I see that he's responding to me, but he still remains muted.

Glorious.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey man, might be late with the Rent this Friday, done lost my job, how I supposed to pay this Rent? And can you have your housekeeping come by, lot of Cobwebs in this place.

[Frank Drackman]

“A long time ago”??? Barry Hussein literally gave a Eulogy for a Klansman, and the DemoKKKrats have cornered the market on Antisemitism (that’s what we Jews are supposed to do) BH Osama didn’t even support SSM when he was immaculated in 2008, took Sleepy Joe to guilt him into it

[Syd Henderson]

I assume United States v. Maine et al. also applies to Cape Cod Bay though it's surrounded on three sides by mainland Massachusetts.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Cape Code Bay was not at issue, though there are references to points on the southern shore of "Cape Cod" (the peninsula) for "metes and bounds" purposes.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The two cases handed down today were unanimous with Kagan and Alito writing the opinions. Sotomayor added a concurrence to one. They addressed civil procedure and trademark issues.

Past entries led me to be interested in U.S. v. Shipp, where the Supreme Court had a criminal trial to address a contempt of court invovling a lynching. I'm reading Contempt of Court: The Turn Of-The-Century Lynching That Launched 100 Years of Federalism by Mark Curriden [legal writer] and Leroy Phillips [attorney] dicussing the case.

I'm about a third the way through. It's a good read so far.

[A Japanese Student]

Compulsory Education Textbook Payment Case (Grand Bench, decided February 26, 1964): "Free education" as guaranteed by the Constitution does not include free textbooks; superseded by 1963 law making textbooks free (but parents still have to pay for non-textbook expenses, such as workbooks, school lunches, field trip expenses, etc)

Noncitizen National Voting Rights Case (Second Petty Bench, decided February 26, 1993): Noncitizens do not have constitutional right to vote in national elections (no mention on whether granting such rights would be constitutional; compare February 28 case, where the dicta hinted that it would be permissible for local government)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"(but parents still have to pay for non-textbook expenses, such as workbooks, school lunches, field trip expenses, etc)"

Cram schools?

[A Japanese Student]

That's a private industry, not a public school.