Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump Administration Cites Segregation-Era Ruling To Defend Its Travel Ban
WASHINGTON ― In a brief defending its ban on citizens from six Muslim-majority countries, President Donald Trumps Justice Department approvingly cited a segregation-era Supreme Court decision that allowed Jackson, Mississippi, to close public pools rather than integrate them.
In the early 1960s, courts ordered Jackson to desegregate its public parks, which included five swimming pools. Instead, the city decided to close the pools. Black residents of Jackson sued. But in 1971, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, decided that closing the pools rather than integrating them was just fine.
The dissents, even at the time, were furious. May a State in order to avoid integration of the races abolish all of its public schools? Justice William O. Douglas asked in his dissent.
I had thought official policies forbidding or discouraging joint use of public facilities by Negroes and whites were at war with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Byron White wrote in another dissent. Our cases make it unquestionably clear, as all of us agree, that a city or State may not enforce such a policy by maintaining officially separate facilities for the two races. It is also my view, but apparently not that of the majority, that a State may not have an official stance against desegregating public facilities and implement it by closing those facilities in response to a desegregation order.
snip
When it is absolutely clear that an official acted for unconstitutional purposes [the courts] should be willing to strike down that decision because, even though the decision might have been reached legitimately, a public official violates the constitution when he or she acts for unconstitutional reasons, Brest said. Its as simple as that. Race discrimination is the best example of where courts are quite willing to take peoples motivations into account or religious discrimination.
More: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&stop=1
See bolding. Is this not exactly what Yates was talking about today?
Oh and Beauregard...FU!
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 2851 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (13)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump Administration Cites Segregation-Era Ruling To Defend Its Travel Ban (Original Post)
sheshe2
May 2017
OP
brer cat
(24,401 posts)1. She made a similar point.
That picture is terrifying. He is one angry boy that he is not getting his way, and his elf looks petrified. I will be so glad when these people are gone by whatever means it takes.
sheshe2
(83,341 posts)2. T has dead eyes, nothing there.
B looks like a dear caught in the headlights. Both so far out of their league.
spanone
(135,635 posts)3. i'm sure jeffrey beauregard sesstions III is well schooled in that era of politics
sheshe2
(83,341 posts)4. Well schooled.
He wrote many chapters in that book.