Dans la memoire de . . .

This is blackstarr saying "Vive La Renaissance!"

photo by viper1955 at photobucket.

blackstarr52@gmail.com

Renaissance, New Millennium, Memorial Day, Vets, Loved Ones

The (In)justices of the Supreme Court (part 5 of 5)

The founding fathers had in mind to insure that the justices of the Supreme Court would be able to operate free of reprimand or fear of removal by wayward politicians, so they decided that Supreme Court justices would be endowed with lifetime tenure. That was a good practice considering the fact that the American Revolution was fought because the citizens had no say in how they were governed, and by allowing justices to serve for life, and having supreme rule, they thought that the people would never again be locked in by an unsympathetic government. Now, it seems that they have inadvertently accomplished the same, by way of having justices subject the nation to a body of lawmakers who maintain supreme rule. To make matters worse, they are virtually unstoppable.

The proposed changes in the lifetime tenure hopes to put an end to that situation. Although we have laws that prohibit discrimination based on age, one must consider the consequences of having octogenarians and the like discerning the scope of our inalienable rights. Whether it concerns persons in the public eye or a very private citizen, the idea that advanced years contribute to the loss of the ability to see things as clearly as one did in younger years must be looked upon with particular scrutiny. Now, that idea has come to the Supreme Court.

The following is a further breakdown of the proposed changes in the way in which the Supreme Court justices are appointed and the way in which they will serve.

Every two years, a new justice will be appointed, bumping a current and most senior justice to the position of "senior justice", a basically idle position will little to no power. That leaves one new justice, 8 old justices. As one justice is appointed, another is "bumped" to senior justice, every two years for 18 years. The proposal is unclear as to what duties the bumped justices will serve and as to how long they will continue to serve after being bumped.

By the time all of the old justices have been replaced (18 years), the Court will consist of the following:

1 new justice
1 who has served 2 years
1 who has served 4 years
1 who has served 6 years
1 who has served 8 years
1 who has served 10 years
1 who has served 12 years
1 who has served 14 years and
1 who has served 16 years -
for a total of 9 justices.

It would take a total of 18 years to completely remove all of the old judges (1 every two years) and have the new system completely in place.

Unfortunately, it cannot end there and the beginning will be traveled upon a very bumpy road. The first hurdle is to find a way in which to present the idea in a non-threatening manner to current justices - not an easy task. Who wants to see their power taken away? After that obstacle is surpassed, there must be diligence on our part as citizens to see that the proper justices are appointed. That can only be done by taking an active role in the politics of this nation. We must be cognizant of the backgrounds of those nominated for office. If they do not "fit the bill", it is up to us to contact our congressmen and senators, en masse, to let them know that the needs of the people are not being served. The entire process must be given our full attention and our subsequent actions must be swift.

The time has comes to transform the "injustices of the Supreme Court" into justices of the Supreme Court, with liberty and justice for all.

This is blackstarr saying "Vive La Renaissance!"

copyright © 2008 blackstarr

Blackstarr52@gmail.com

Renaissance, New Millennium, Supreme Court Justices, lifetime tenure, Carrington and Crampton

Near-life Experience

I had a near-life experience
I was thinking today
And while busy reflecting
on the way
My lifestyle obsession
That “must-have” possession
Still left me feeling
empty inside
And try as might
of that I can’t lie
And now filled with rage,
In my sad gilded cage
Miscarriages of justice
Are downright abhorrent
Please tell me where
is the Federal Government?
They stepped in with Vick
And they interceded
I guess with my people
They feel it’s not needed
We watch as all charges
Are acquitted or dropped
You know at some point
This has got to stop
Depression is here
And our Holocaust now
We must each make a difference
We see that now
Deep seated rejection
By America “The Great”
And it all stems from
A history of hate.
Like the Phoenix I’ll rise
Try this on for size
Teach one, reach one
And they’ll lift you up too
We all can be great
Both me and you
For crimes against us
there is always ablution
Unite and be one
Is a solution
No use in sitting idle
Thinking I’m on the fringe
We can be our own heroes
And be slavery’s revenge
I know that God
Did not mean this our due
If we make but one step
He will make two
You may not get it now
But maybe soon hence
You’ll wake up and see
Our near life experience

copyright © 2008 Missy

myeishaspeaks@gmail.com

Renaissance, New Millennium, life experience, ablution, justice, Federal Government, lifestyle obsession

The (In)Justices of the Supreme Court (part 4 of 5)

While I was brought up to believe that it is OK to bring forth constructive criticism and to point out the error of one’s ways, I was also taught that it is much better to do so with a solution in hand. Those who practice, teach, and dispense the law have both complained and criticized the U.S. Supreme Court, in particular, regarding the subject of tenure. Most have argued the point with good reasoning and with overwhelming evidence. Few have come with a viable solution in hand. A very good exception to that lack of any solution comes from a group of more than forty (40) prominent legal scholars. Among those leading the charge are Paul Carrington and Roger Crampton. They are not only professors and former deans of highly respected universities, but they put the icing on the cake of bipartisanship – one is a Democrat, and the other a Republican.

*Among the many complaints of most scholars is the thought that with lifetime tenure come both physical and mental health problems. With justices serving well into their late eighties (80’s) and beyond, are we being properly served by those who claim to still have the mental capacity to discern the intricacies of law?

*Lifetime tenure itself is a testament to the inequality of the court system. If justices, chosen by presidents, may “hold their offices during good behavior” (or ‘til death do we depart), some presidents have no opportunity to appoint justices to the court. Appointments are only made when there is a vacancy. Presidents, particularly Republicans, tend to nominate potential appointees by virtue of their age, or lack thereof. With a justice starting out young and serving till it is no longer feasible (and even longer), the makeup of the court becomes extremely one-sided.

*Another problem brought on by lifetime tenure is the time in which it takes for the confirmation of a candidate. This goes hand in hand with the lopsidedness of the current system. If presidents make it their business to choose very young candidates who will have lifetime tenure, the opposition may tend to draw out the nomination process in an attempt to prevent the prevailing president from “stacking the odds”. One candidate after the other can be tossed aside, delaying the process of confirmation, possibly for years.

It has been argued that a person’s age should not be considered as a factor of employment or continued employment, in this case – laws have been passed prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, basic civil rights laws. One argument that I disagree with is the idea that Oliver Wendell Holmes, who served for twenty-eight (28) years up to the age of ninety, was still in full mental capacity during the length of his tenure. There are tales of witty remarks that are said to have come from his lips, supposedly giving credibility to the retained sanity and mindfulness of an aged human being. I say that wit and memories of years past do not validate the idea that a person in his or her later years is still capable of discerning law and its intricacies.

The proposal, entitled “The Supreme Court Renewal Act”, brought forth by this “group of forty”, is to limit the number of years that each justice will serve to eighteen (18) years, and to appoint a new justice every two years. The plan is both complicated and hard to fathom. It is hard to fathom as there are many proponents of continued lifetime tenure. Who do you think would be the ones most in favor of maintaining the status quo? The justices themselves. Is it unreasonable to expect them to not want to usurp their own power? It will be a tough war to win, but, the “group of forty”, including Paul Carrington and Roger Crampton are prepared to do battle.

Paul Carrington and Roger Crampton have co-authored a book entitled “Reforming the Court”. For more details of the proposal and reasons that is should be instituted, please see Life Tenure Is Too Long . . .

This is blackstarr saying “Vive La Renaissance!”

copyright © 2008 blackstarr

blackstarr52@gmail.com

Renaissance, New Millennium, Supreme Court Justices, lifetime tenure, Carrington and Crampton

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.