Supreme Court holds 8-1 that 14th Amendment had nothing to do with protecting freed slaves

[docstrange]

Today, the US Supreme Court held, in an 8-1 decision, that the construction, wording, and passage of the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with protecting freed slaves from legal and extra-legal oppression by reactionary whites in the post bellum South. In particular, the eight majority Justices shrugged off any notion that the phrase, "No State

Comments

[marsgov]

This is fascinating... but I can't find it in the decision. For that matter, I don't understand how it could end up in the decision and still have the decision go the proper way (that is, the way it went).

[docstrange]

8 Justices rejected incorporation via the P&I clause. 4 of them rejected incorporation entirely. 4 accepted incorporation via Due Process, and one had a concurring opinion in the outcome, but held for incorporation via the P&I clause

[ilcylic]

So ... we won, but not in the way you wanted us to win?

<- more than slightly confused

[docstrange]

We won in a manner that permits systematic and intentional violations of the right until one can prove the violations are systematic and intentional.

Just like the rest of the "due process" incorporated rights. The Court stood on its head to avoid talking about the ridiculously-well-documented history of the 14th and ran with the - admittedly established - precedent that rights are incorporated against the states by way of one of the more tepid phrases in the Amendment.

[maradydd]

Oh for fuck's sake.

I should really read this and tear into it, but I'm already behind on reading and tearing into the anti-anonymity shit that the White House and DHS are pimping, and I really need to finish that first :(

[docstrange]

Indeed. The decision is a very nicely researched and written one... which continues the long-standing, perverse idea that only the guarantee of due process protects the other, more explicit rights in the Constitution. I really do think that, given "due process" as it stands today, that we'll only see a continued erosion of all rights as a result.

[maradydd]

And of course due process can be suspended whenever the hell the executive feels like it, if the courts don't want to object. Thanks for nothing, Lincoln.

[jordan179]

... except that, if Lincoln hadn't done that, there might not be a United States of America today. Consider his context.

[faerieburst]

It's not the ideal way we'd want it, no. But given the Court's notorious reluctance to even remember the 2nd Amendment exists, let alone make rulings in its favour? I'll take it for now.

~Aramada

[docstrange]

As the sagacious docstrange said above after you posted your entirely solid point, "Indeed. The decision is a very nicely researched and written one... which continues the long-standing, perverse idea that only the guarantee of due process protects the other, more explicit rights in the Constitution. I really do think that, given "due process" as it stands today, that we'll only see a continued erosion of all rights as a result."

;-)

[chorus]

Did you read Bloom County? If so, do you remember Oliver's reaction to learning about apartheid and the temporary blackifier (for want of a better word) he made because of it? I need someone to invent that for reals and travel to Washington with it. Oh, and Arizona, too, but they'll need a second setting for that one.

[thewronghands]

Thanks for the post. I've read a lot of commentary on this one, plus a bunch of "YEEEEEEEEEAH!" from LiveJournal. I always enjoy your thoughtful perspective on these matters. (I know I'm not anywhere near enough of a subject matter expert to offer commentary, so I'll settle for brain fodder. [grin])