The (In)Justices of the Supreme Court (part 3 of 5)

The makeup of The U. S. Supreme Court can be as crucial as the decisions that it makes. It has historically been the case that the presidents, the ones who make the nominations, try to “stack” the panel with judges who are sympathetic to their causes. Even more crucially is the fact that since justices have lifetime tenure, the choices made for the positions reach far beyond the period of time in which a president serves. A conservative justice can be chosen by a conservative president, and when that president is replaced by one who is not so conservative, the outgoing president’s choices may serve to circumvent the legislative goals of the newly elected, non-conservative president for years to come.

It is important to understand that this court is the highest in the land. When a decision has been handed down, that’s it – end of the line. If you feel that you’ve been given a raw deal, too bad. Consider the Dred Scott vs. Sanford case. This came at a time when lawmakers, politicians, ministers, and even a president or two owned slaves. In that time period, it would not be hard to fathom that those in power would fight to “stack” the bench in their favor. The Dred Scott Decision was not decided by one or two votes – it was nearly unanimous, with two dissenting justices, one who concurred with the ruling, but not with reasoning behind it. That left six (6) justices who agreed that slavery should remain in effect and that the presiding precedent of “once free, always free” should be totally disregarded. This case provides one very typical, very dangerous example of how the makeup of the court can have a profound and lasting impact on our lives.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court has justices who were chosen by four (4) different presidents. Two (2) justices were appointed by a Democrat, William Clinton. The remaining justices, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., were appointed by Republican presidents: Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and G.W. Bush. The most recent justice to step down, Sandra Day O’Connor, was also nominated by a Republican, Reagan. The last justice chosen by a Democratic president, prior to today’s bench, was back in 1967 – Thurgood Marshall, appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson. That is an extremely long period of time to have an unbalanced makeup of justices presiding over the land.

There are plans afloat, by those who which to make a change and who have taken the time to come up with some feasible suggestions, to alleviate not only the lifetime tenure, but, as well, a system that would change the makeup of the bench as an ongoing process. The changes would not be the sort that hit the headlines today and fade into obscurity tomorrow, but, instead, would impact this generation and the next in ways that most of us never imagined.

Please join me on Wednesday for Part 4, when we explore the suggestions that are in the works.

This is blackstarr saying “Vive La Renaissance!”

copyright © 2008 blackstarr

blackstarr52@gmail.com

Renaissance, New Millennium, Supreme Court, justices, injustices, tenure, Dred Scott, presidential nominations, Thurgood Marshall, Lyndon B. Johnson, impact, consequences, once free always free

The (In)Justices of the Supreme Court (part 2)

How much do you know about the decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court and the impact that those decisions have on our lives? Your first thought might be that you know very little. The reality is that most of us have heard of the decisions, but, have very little knowledge as to what they mean. The titles to the decisions are practically household names: Dred Scot vs. Stanford (1857), Brown vs. Board of Education (1954), Miranda vs. Arizona (1966), Roe vs. Wade (1973), and U.S. vs. Nixon (1974). Of extreme impact was a lesser known decision – Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896).

First, there is Dred Scot vs. Stanford, better known as the Dred Scot Decision. This was a landmark case in that it established the idea that a slave cannot be declared free, just because he/she has entered into a free state. The decision of Scot to pursue that lawsuit came from English law. The law stated that if a slave was carried into a free area, then he/she is entitled to his/her freedom. Unfortunately, that law did not prevail in this case, although it was quite common for slaves to just he same (in the U.S.) – sue their masters, and win their freedom. In the original case, Scot won, but Stanford appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case was taken before a newly installed, pro-slavery justice, who ruled in favor of Stanford. Even more irony ensued – Scot’s first owner bought freedom for Dred and his family in May of 1857, and Scot died of tuberculosis six months later.

There was one dissenting justice in Plessy vs. Ferguson (PvF) -John Marshal Harlan, who declared the Dred Scot Decision nothing less than a tribunal. PvF upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation. It contended that the races were “separate but equal”. In 1892, Homer Plessy, a Black man, boarded a train which was designated for Whites only. When told to move to a “colored car”, he refused and was arrested. He argued that his rights, under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, have been violated. The original case, Homer Adolph Plessy vs. The State of Louisiana, was presided over and decided by John Howard Ferguson, who ruled in favor of the state. Plessy then took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court under the title PvF. The dissenting justice, John M. Harlan, was a former slave owner who had “seen the light” as a result of Ku Klux Klan activity, and went on to fight for Black civil rights. Plessy lost the case, and paid his fine. “Separate but equal” remained a part of our history as law until the famed “Brown vs. The Board of Education” (BvB).

Oliver L. Brown, a Black parent, voiced his concerns about “separate but equal” to attorney William Glenn, Sr, who, in turn, convinced Brown to join in a lawsuit against Topeka, Kansas schools, which eventually became Brown vs. the Board of Education (BvB). It seems that Brown’s daughter had to walk twenty-one (21) blocks to her school bus stop to ride to her elementary school (Monroe Elementary, a Black segregated school), although Sumner Elementary School (a white school) was only seven (7) blocks from her home. The case was lead by a group of lawyers from the NAACP, with their chief counsel being a lawyer by the name of Thurgood Marshall. The parents involved tried enrolling their children in closer White schools, and their applications were denied. Upon reaching court, “separate but equal” was cited per PvF, and ruled in favor of Topeka Schools. The case was then taken to the U.S. Supreme Court with the case combining five other cases of the same nature. The court ruled that segregated schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment in 1954. The ruling was re-argued to determine the “fix”, and the outcome was that schools should be de-segregated.

Ernesto Miranda was a Mexican immigrant arrested and charged with kidnap and rape. When the case went to court, Miranda vs. Arizona, it was determined that Miranda was never advised of his rights such as the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and all of the things that we are all so familiar with when it comes to being arrested and or prosecuted. It was argued that when Miranda was arrested, he was intimidated by the surroundings (police station, police environment, and being “out of his element”). This violated his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. As a result of the Miranda Decision, all suspects must be advised (in no particular order) that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they said can, and will be used against them in a court of law, that they have the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and that if an attorney cannot be afforded, the court will provide a lawyer for the suspect (together known as the Miranda Statement). Ernesto Miranda was released. A new trial convicted him by use of witnesses, as opposed to his own self-incrimination. He was convicted, served time, and released. Miranda was killed in a knife fight. At the time of his death, he had several copies of the Miranda Statement on his person.

We can all name at least one landmark case that has been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, and can give at least some small details as to the impact of the decision. The ones that we know of as “household” words are just a drop in the bucket compared to all of the other cases with which we are not familiar. They are all equally as important as the next – a variation on the “separate but equal” theme, if you will. It is important to know who makes these decisions and what impact they have on our lives today and tomorrow. Join us later for more of the (In)Justices of the Supreme Court.

This is blackstarr saying “Vive La Renaissance!”

copyright © 2008 blackstarr

Blackstarr52@gmail.com

Renaissance, New Millennium, Supreme Court, justices, Miranda, Brown vs Wade, Dred Scot, Brown vs Board of Education, Plessy vs Ferguson

Homegrown Terrorism

This is footage from a local Philadelphia news station, in which Philadelphia policemen are shown dragging three suspects from a car, on Monday, May 5th, 2008. The suspects were then kicked and beaten with batons, while the suspects were already on the ground. No weapons were ever recovered. In a different video (apparently copyrighted and not recordable), after it's all over, police are seen turning suspects over like sacks of potatoes to search their pockets.

Philadelphia Police Commissioner Ramsey, as well as Philadelphia Mayor Nutter, tried to pawn it off as police being stressed out over a policeman being killed a few days earlier. There is no excuse for beating a suspect no matter what the alleged crime happens to be. There is an investigation going on, but, there is little faith that justice will prevail. These are the very same injustices that are perpetrated in every urban city in which people of color dwell. It is no longer safe to walk, drive, or ride "while being Black". Something has to be done before our race no longer exists.

Philadelphia police shot and killed two unarmed citizens, just to cite two. One was killed on New Year's Eve, Dec. 31, 2006, and the other on New Year's Eve, Dec. 31, 2007. The supposed investigation into those shootings is still not being publicized, and there is no information as to the results. It follows that the results of this investigation will never be known, as well. If it does become known, it is doubtful that justice will be served.

This is blackstarr saying "Vive La Renaissance!"

copyright © 2008 blackstarr

blackstarr52@gmail.com

Renaissance, New Millennium, police brutality, police beatings, police shootings, terrorism, racism.

The (in)Justices of the Supreme Court (part 1)

When United States Supreme Court justices are sworn into office, they are sworn in for life.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is eighty-eight (88) years old. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is seventy-five (75) years old. Justice Antonin Scalia is seventy-two (72) years old, followed by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is seventy-one (71) years old. The remainder of the court’s justices’ ages does not get much better. Another thought to ponder is that when Justice Ginsburg was appointed to the Supreme Court, she was already sixty-years old. Does anybody see where I’m going with this? In case you don’t, lifetime tenure for justices has outlived its usefulness. To further state the case for a change in a justice’s tenure, some justices have already outlived their states of health. Justice William H. Rehnquist was still in office, yet hospitalized, and was eighty (80) years old when illness took his life in 2005.

When the Constitution was formulated, it provided that justices “shall hold their offices during good behavior”. That means “for as long as he/she shall live". They have the option of resigning or retiring, but, it is not mandatory. Lifetime tenure was given to keep the courts independent of the political branches. In effect, the founding fathers wanted them to have absolute power and independence so that influence was not a factor. Their salaries are not revocable ($214,000 per year), so that neither Congress nor the Senate would be able to threaten them with loss of salary due to unpopular decisions by the justices. – giving them the freedom to vote as they will without fear. That “untouchability” is at the root of the current drive to change all of that. There is but one course of action to have a justice removed: impeachment. No justice has ever been removed through impeachment. What was once a good idea has become an hindrance.

Consider my mother, who is eighty-five (85) years old. She is just about as sharp as ever. Even so, I do not believe she has the soundness of mind to run things all on her own. Things have changed, technology has become more challenging, and even the language of the day is not what she once knew. The justices of the Supreme Court are no different. Do we really need someone who is eighty-eight (88) years old determining Constitutional wording, meaning, and scope? If the mind is still in good shape, what, then, of the body? Justice William Douglass served for nearly thirty-seven (37) years. During the last ten (10) months of his service, after a stroke in 1975. His colleagues decided (unofficially) to make null and void any decisions in which his was the deciding vote. In 2005, Justice William H. Rehnquist was barely able to make it to the podium to swear in President George W. Bush for Bush’s second term. Health concerns aside, it is a bit more troubling to know that a justice in his/her eighties is making the decisions that shape the country for centuries to come. It is time that the “injustices” of the Supreme Court to lose their tenure.

Please join us on Sunday as we delve further into the “Injustices Of The Supreme Court”.

This is blackstarr saying “Vive La Renaissance!”

copyright © 2008 blackstarr

blackstarr52@gmail.com

Renaissance, New Millennium, Supreme Court, justices, tenure, age, impeachment, lifetime, Chief Justices, founding fathers, Rehnquist, Berger, Marshall, Alito, O'Connor, Scalia, Ginsburg

Symphony for Sin in Seven Parts

a soul as old as the sands of time
owner of a house without reason or rhyme
only infidels are invited in
to partake all the delights of sin

thus the doors are opened wide
welcome to the darker side

Livia, Delilah and Jezebel
grin as they greet you at the gates of hell
keepers of the eternal fires
grantors of your darkest desires

thus the doors are opened wide
celebrate the darker side

a room full of mirrors crack’d and stained
sad souls dance before them ‘til they’re drained
down vanity’s slope these souls did slide
into the valley known as Pride

thus the doors are opened wide
take a look at the darker side

for those who Envy there’s a special hoard
of lovely things they could never afford
items they wish they could’ve bought
baubles for which they bitterly fought

thus the doors are opened wide
rejoice in the darker side

there’s a massive kitchen for Gluttony
in here you can eat everything you can see
smack your lips and watch your belly swell
then waddle thru the halls of hell

thus the doors are opened wide
drink deep of the darker side

the cellar holds a diabolical jury
for those who spent their lives in fury
follow a steep and spirally path
to cavort with the demon Wrath

thus the doors are opened wide
gambol in the darker side

we’ve not left out a room for Greed
so satisfy your every need
money and sex, or jewels and power
you’ll never have an idle hour

thus the doors are opened wide
delight in the darker side

lazy souls can pledge their troth
to the slovenly spirit Sloth
a simpering and mindless jerk
with him you’ll never have to work

thus the doors are opened wide
all hail the darker side

our favourite room was saved ‘til last
for boasters of their sexual past
the attic holds the incubus Lust
come copulate amidst the dust

thus the doors are opened wide
learn to love your darker side

copyright © 2007 KPMCL

Renaissance, New Millennium, darkness, poetry, sin, deadly sins, Hell, the darker side

Aphrodite’s child revisited

thoughts both beautiful & obscure
a heart as dark as it is pure
the sum of everything she’s sown
is Aphrodite’s child full-grown

lost lovers like so much debris
the strong gnarled arms of her family tree
the reflection of tiny lines on her face
as she grows old in another place

without & within the doors are open
a little wiser & well used to copin’
at childhood’s demise she will not mope
yet loves & writes with childlike hope

she works / she cleans / she cooks / she eats
then dreams at night on crisp linen sheets
unspoken wishes in a brain that’s yearning
dark desires that keep her stomach churning

a woman alone without a womb
at peace in Eden’s grey & green room
where angels look down from the walls
& memory dwells in hallowed halls

she lives with the voices of the ages
& with the Magi regularly engages
no matter that her arteries harden
there is joy amongst the words in her garden

what care she for the grey in her hair –
she, who’s endured the black dog’s glare?
she’s happy with the witch doctor’s pills
& the damp embrace of the Scottish hills

there’s no fear in the mistakes she accepts
just anger & grief & ashen regrets
yet she will fight a wee bit longer
& every battle will make her stronger

rejecting the role, rejoicing in the place
her duelling done with style & grace
demons & tricksters & stealers of hearts
felled at her feet with poison-pen darts

no matter that her waist grows thick
her breasts remain firm & her mind is quick
immune to anybody’s taunts
serenely meeting her needs & wants

barely free, torn between two homes
inside her head she endlessly roams
divided mind with heart still wild
is aging Aphrodite’s child

copyright © 2008 KPMCL

We Are Not Alone!!

Over the weekend, I checked out a friend’s friend, and then, one of their friends, and before I got around to checking the GPS, I ended up taking a blog walk through cyberspace – far outside the realm of Windows Live Spaces. It was an incredible journey, and as Scully was so fond of saying, as he desperately tried to win Mulder over, “We are not alone!” I found the humorous bloggers, the informants, the ramblers, the political/social commenters, and of course, the loonies (Oh, Beam me up, Scotty!). Not surprisingly, I found that just about 9 out of 10 that I stumbled upon were blogging about Obama and Clinton, or some odd offspring of the two. As if you don’t already have enough to do, as it is, here is my brief summary of a few of the more interesting sites that I’ve hit upon.

I started with the chocl8t diaries, a veritable African-American Aphrodite. I suppose that one would say that she specializes in “social commentary”, especially those things which are “African-American relative”, though not limited to the same. She has apparently been blogging for quite some time, as have most of the bloggers that I encountered over the past few days. She is involved with a network of bloggers who have a weekly “game” of “Old School Friday”. One particular week, each person in the network had to “name a vocalist you wanted to be like and state the reason why”. I didn’t quite get the part about “wanting to be like”. Nevertheless, it seemed to be an interesting game. Overall, the site is well worth a second, third, and fourth look.

From her page, I visited Mind Of Marcus (by Marcus Langford). Mr. Langford is a young, enterprising African-American out of Washington, D. C. He speaks on politics, business and humor, and has the ability to bring them all together, often in the same sentence.

I somehow found myself engrossed in an article at BlackPerspective.net, by D. Yobachi Boswell. Mr. Boswell’s self-description pretty much says it all: “Discussing the Diaspora as seen through an internal Black lens”. Since the political process has really intrigued me more than it has in any other year, I was at the site for quite a while. I did not bother to leave any comments, as he and I would surely be at odds for quite some time, and time just wasn’t on my side. He’s rather outspoken about his stance on politics, but, at the same time, amazingly open to others who venture by. Therefore, it is a foregone conclusion that “I’ll be back!”

Over Analyze It is a social/political/humorous blog by AJ, “a brother of color” as he puts it. He seems to center around news articles that are of particular relevance to people of color, and he does a great job with information dissemination, coupled with his own commentary. Of particular interest to me was a post entitled “Caption This”. It presented a photo of a sunglasses-sporting Barack Obama stepping out of his silver SUV. Folks dropped by with some very delightful captions. The two that struck me most were “Let me go show these fools in DC how it’s gone be” and “Dayum, you look good.”

Although the list from my journey is very long, I’ll end today with a woman who is very well-known in the Windows Live Spaces realm, Being Tru. Her non-Windows Live spot is entitled TruScapes, which is a photoblog. Although there are a few (very few) photos that decry her self-assessment of “I am a work in progress”, you may find that hard to believe, as most of her work is professional grade. She has a way of capturing “life in the raw” – a site that should not be missed.

There is a virtually infinite number of bloggers out there, some of whom will tickle your fancy, while others may succeed in “getting your dander up”. There are also a few that I intentionally left out. Why? Let me give you a political analogy: Although I know better, McCain is a “non-entity” to me. He represents all that I despise and for me to even acknowledge him grates my nerves. I should, at the very least, be aware of what he’s saying. By the same token, I came across a few bloggers who are way out there, lost in space, as it were. I don’t meant the usual “whacky” stuff – I’m speaking about those whose pages border on hate, and if not hate, then, at least so far to one side that they are not worth acknowledgement. However, like McCain, they should be read just so that you know what morons are lurking in the background, planting seeds of ill-will to the unsuspecting. E-mail me and I will get you a link or two, if you want. Now, go back and click a link to cyberspace that sounds interesting and I assure you that you will soon discover that “We are not alone!”

This is blackstarr saying “Vive La Renaissance!”

copyright © 2008 blackstarr

blackstarr52@gmail.com

Renaissance, New Millennium, blogs, chocl8t diaries, Mind Of Marcus, BlackPerspective.net, Over Analyze It, TruScapes, Scully, Mulder, We Are Not Alone