The Spirit of Brown

Author(s):  
Roy L. Brooks

This chapter lays the foundation for an understanding of the socio-legal race problem and possible solutions. It begins with the Supreme Court’s inglorious racial history in which the Court, from Dred Scott up to Brown v. Board of Education, engaged in a pattern and practice of sabotaging black equality granted by Congress. Racial oppression, including the torture and murder of blacks without trial, was part of a national narrative largely written by the Supreme Court. Brown was a conscious attempt by the Court to reverse its inglorious racial past. Brown had a profound effect on racial progress, changing the legal status of blacks which in turn greatly improved their socioeconomic and socio-cultural position in our society. But the Court, in the years following this landmark decision, did not remain faithful to the spirit of Brown. It began to impede black progress through its civil rights rulings by suppressing the black equality interest litigated in those cases. This is juridical subordination, which can be resolved if the Supreme Court remains faithful to the spirit of Brown. This is good social policy.

Author(s):  
Roy L. Brooks

This chapter focuses on the socio-legal race problem; namely juridical subordination. The Supreme Court engages in this form of racial subordination when its rulings freeze or impede racial progress for the sake of pursuing a nonracist, competing interest. Juridical subordination most often occurs today in the name of racial progress; in other words, when the Court’s vindication of a black equality norm (such as racial omission or racial integration) in reality inhibits black advancement. Since the end of Jim Crow, the black equality interest has been defined in ways that compete not only with the civil-rights-era norms but with other legitimate norms. Focusing on cases involving antidiscrimination law and racial preference (or affirmative action) law, this chapter illustrates how the Court can avoid juridical subordination in its civil rights cases.


2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 987-1009
Author(s):  
George M. Sullivan

In two consecutive national elections a conservative, Ronald Reagan, was elected President of the United States. When Justice Lewis Powell announced his retirement during the late months of the Reagan administration, it was apparent that the President's last appointment could shift the ideology of the Court to conservatism for the first time since the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. President Reagan's prior appointments, Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia, had joined William Rehnquist, an appointee of President Nixon and Bryon White, an appointee of President Kennedy to comprise a vociferous minority of four in many instances, especially cases involving civil rights. The unexpected opportunity for the appointment of a conservative jurist caused great anxiety in the media and in the U.S. Senate, the later having confirmation power over presidential appointments to the Supreme Court. This article examines the consequences of the Senate's confirmation of Justice Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court. The impact, which was immediate and dramatic, indicates that conservative ideology will predominate on major civil rights issues for the remainder of this century.


2020 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 250-257
Author(s):  
V. V. Chumak

The role and place of higher specialized courts in the judicial system of Ukraine have been studied and determined. The author has studied such main categories as “judicial system of Ukraine”, “judiciary”, “judicial system” and “judicial power”. The judicial system of Ukraine has been established. The normative and legal base of functioning of highest specialized courts of Ukraine has been characterized. The author has provided own definition of the categories “judicial system of Ukraine” and “judicial power of Ukraine”. The author has offered to understand the category of “judicial system of Ukraine” as the totality of all hierarchically structured elements of the system (courts), which are endowed with exclusive competence to administer justice, built on the principles of territoriality and specialization, are defined by law and united by general principles of their organization and activity. In turn, the concept of “judicial power of Ukraine” is defined as the activity of courts (judicial system) to administer justice and to perform their professional duties within the limits and in the manner prescribed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine in accordance with international and legal documents. It has been determined that highest specialized courts in the judicial system of Ukraine are the Supreme Court on Intellectual Property Issues and the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court. It has been concluded that highest specialized courts in the judicial system of Ukraine play an important role in the holistic mechanism of the entire judicial system, since they are endowed with exclusive competence to consider and decide cases on the merits of certain categories, and their activities are determined at the level of a separate regulatory act, which determines their legal status, and hence their place in the judicial system of Ukraine.


2020 ◽  
pp. 117-152
Author(s):  
Donald G. Nieman

This chapter argues that segregation generated organized opposition from African Americans and a small group of whites that challenged the system. Segregation was rigid, capricious, and designed to demonstrate white power. While it kept most blacks in menial positions, a small black middle class emerged that produced leaders who attacked Jim Crow. The organization leading the charge was the NAACP, which developed publicity, lobbying, and litigation campaigns. The effort gained steam in the 1930s, as a cadre of black lawyers challenged segregated education, the CIO and the Communist party championed civil rights, and the New Deal gave blacks a voice in federal policy. It further accelerated during World War II as the federal government challenged workplace discrimination, membership in civil rights organizations swelled, black veterans demanded their rights, and the Supreme Court became more aggressive on civil rights.


1993 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Ann Farr

The criminalization of abortion in the United States began in the early 1800s and was nearly universal by the late 1800s. It was not until the middle of the 1900s that abortion reform gained momentum, culminating in 1973 in the Roe v. Wade decision that protected women's right to abortion. In this article it is argued that since Roe, litigation has been increasingly used to shape abortion policy. The rise of such litigation, as well as the kinds of issues and concerns raised by litigants, are described. The role played by the Supreme Court in changing the legal status of abortion is examined.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document