A lot of people I hear criticizing the current SCOTUS also seem to be the people criticizing the Constitution itself. What’s the solution? Change the makeup of the SCOTUS? Change the Constitution?
Post Civil War the surviving rebels devised a strategy to take control of the government. By re-electing the same good ol' white boys to office in states and federal government, through sheer longevity they became controlling chairs of almost every committee in every level of government; shaping legislation to their lethal intent to re-enslave by hook or crook all of America's
emancipated slaves. For decades they worked tirelessly to impose the Jim Crow, laws across the nation. Those were still in existence after WWII, and remained in place right through t
he 60's & '70's civil rights battles. Even today in certain pockets of the nation it is easy to find evidence of targeted criminal action against African Americans. Not too long ago residents of a particular county in a western state collaborated in attacks against the only Black Farmer in the county. Killing livestock, tearing up fencing, arson, theft - not a single resident nor a single law enforcement body made any attempt to end this reign of terror. Eventually some ringleaders were arrested but the final outcome is unknown to me because the story died in the national media.
Throughout this period, post civil war to the present, with the exception of the Warren Supreme Court, SCOTUS has never supported equal justice, or equality of life for any people of colour, indigenous, or Asian, Pacific Islanders, or people with Mediterranean origins. I grew up listening to vicious slurs aimed at everyone not anglo saxon. It is so bad, still after all these years, I can do nothing but laugh at the stupidity.
God, what a nightmare history of injustice hiding behind a cloak of objective fairness! I had read of a number of these decisions over the years, but - buying into the governmental explanation, unfortunately - reflexively believed they were unfortunate lapses. Seeing them lined up one by one with a description of their real-life effects really brought the savagery of the court’s persistent support for the privileged class into horrible focus.
The calculus of the anti-democratic movement (more of a phenomenon of unresolved class struggle than a conspiracy per se) has always had two basic components:
1. Gaslight, hijack, corrupt, ignore, and destroy the will of the people
2. Redirect the resulting frustration and anger horizontally, replace solidarity with conflict to create warring subclasses of cultural identity complicit in the authoritarian project.
Closeted authoritarians who think they are "leftists" unilaterally declare and demand "solidarity" and "unity" to police and shut down discourse on privilege in order to retain rather than transform the historical status quo of betrayal and disunity that undermines the class struggle. They are pawns of not only the class struggle but also the culture war that the elite concoct to abdicate responsibility through the projection of blame.
The defensively entitled privilege support, in other capacities, the exact same logic that the ruling elite employ to declare their authority justified: I know better than you about you. They prolong, intensify and undermine the class struggle by adopting the underlying classist pathology of divide and conquer. They work with Master's Tools to rebuild and repair His house of willful dysfunction, and claim that their projected insecurities represent pragmatism rather than cowardice and complicity.
The "founding fathers" (sic) envisioned a "limited monarchy" of centralized power to protect the "well bred" ruling elite against a democratic "tyranny of the majority." The system is working as intended. People mired in the distraction of debating technical minutiae have lost sight of the forest through the trees.
Nice job as usual QR-- I know you are busy and writing full time, podcast, etc. but this "Anti-People's History of SCOTUS" needs to be expanded a bit more into a short book like the pocket constitution that folks carry around and in the spirit of a People's History by the late Howard Zinn.
Thank you for this concise summary! For those who don’t have the time for much reading (much less scholarly investigation), I can explain the court’s white supremacy with just this article. I’ve forwarded it twice already. Happy to be a paid subscriber for another year!
Truly grateful to have your trust and your generous support, Samantha. I put a lot of time into meticulously researching and writing these pieces, and it's beyond rewarding to know my readers find value in my work and advocacy. Thank you. ❤️✊🏽
And the SC’s lack of protection for free speech that it didn’t like:
The Reverend Davis was jailed in 1894 for speaking against slavery in a public park, and his fine confirmed by the Supreme Court
Abrams v. United States (1919) concerned prosecution of anarchist pamphleteers, most of whom were sentenced to 20 years’ jail for opposing American intervention in Russia. The pamphlets were interpreted as opposing war with Germany, which was regarded as sedition, and the First Amendment was held not to apply in cases of sedition.
Until 1925 the United States Supreme Court regarded the First Amendment as inapplicable to State statutes, limiting only the Federal Congress. The 1931 case of Stromberg v. California (1931) was one of the first Supreme Court decisions striking down a state regulation of speech. And yet amazing levels of State censorship of books in schools and libraries continues to this day, effectively supported by the Supreme Court.
the Declaration of Independence forwards adding Amendments to move towards a more perfect union, yet it was compromised to hold the 13 colonies together. injustice was built into the founding… 😨
Great article QR. Throughout its existence, the SC has held America back. It continues to this day. The current Republican appointed judges are not serious attorneys/judges. They ARE politicians seeking a free dollar. Some of the biggest hypocrites in the history of this country. When the people regain control of this country, the Court must be reformed. The current SC system makes a joke of the Law & the Constitution. Then they laugh in the face of the people who pay their sorry asses! This cannot stand!
Term limits and/or expanding the court are terrible ideas. They would only lead to more corruption of our government.
A lot of people I hear criticizing the current SCOTUS also seem to be the people criticizing the Constitution itself. What’s the solution? Change the makeup of the SCOTUS? Change the Constitution?
Post Civil War the surviving rebels devised a strategy to take control of the government. By re-electing the same good ol' white boys to office in states and federal government, through sheer longevity they became controlling chairs of almost every committee in every level of government; shaping legislation to their lethal intent to re-enslave by hook or crook all of America's
emancipated slaves. For decades they worked tirelessly to impose the Jim Crow, laws across the nation. Those were still in existence after WWII, and remained in place right through t
he 60's & '70's civil rights battles. Even today in certain pockets of the nation it is easy to find evidence of targeted criminal action against African Americans. Not too long ago residents of a particular county in a western state collaborated in attacks against the only Black Farmer in the county. Killing livestock, tearing up fencing, arson, theft - not a single resident nor a single law enforcement body made any attempt to end this reign of terror. Eventually some ringleaders were arrested but the final outcome is unknown to me because the story died in the national media.
Throughout this period, post civil war to the present, with the exception of the Warren Supreme Court, SCOTUS has never supported equal justice, or equality of life for any people of colour, indigenous, or Asian, Pacific Islanders, or people with Mediterranean origins. I grew up listening to vicious slurs aimed at everyone not anglo saxon. It is so bad, still after all these years, I can do nothing but laugh at the stupidity.
Thank you for posting this, Mr. Rashid.
God, what a nightmare history of injustice hiding behind a cloak of objective fairness! I had read of a number of these decisions over the years, but - buying into the governmental explanation, unfortunately - reflexively believed they were unfortunate lapses. Seeing them lined up one by one with a description of their real-life effects really brought the savagery of the court’s persistent support for the privileged class into horrible focus.
The calculus of the anti-democratic movement (more of a phenomenon of unresolved class struggle than a conspiracy per se) has always had two basic components:
1. Gaslight, hijack, corrupt, ignore, and destroy the will of the people
2. Redirect the resulting frustration and anger horizontally, replace solidarity with conflict to create warring subclasses of cultural identity complicit in the authoritarian project.
White people wrt to BIPOC
Men wrt to women
Straight cis wrt to queer
Wealthy wrt to working class
Etc
Closeted authoritarians who think they are "leftists" unilaterally declare and demand "solidarity" and "unity" to police and shut down discourse on privilege in order to retain rather than transform the historical status quo of betrayal and disunity that undermines the class struggle. They are pawns of not only the class struggle but also the culture war that the elite concoct to abdicate responsibility through the projection of blame.
The defensively entitled privilege support, in other capacities, the exact same logic that the ruling elite employ to declare their authority justified: I know better than you about you. They prolong, intensify and undermine the class struggle by adopting the underlying classist pathology of divide and conquer. They work with Master's Tools to rebuild and repair His house of willful dysfunction, and claim that their projected insecurities represent pragmatism rather than cowardice and complicity.
The "founding fathers" (sic) envisioned a "limited monarchy" of centralized power to protect the "well bred" ruling elite against a democratic "tyranny of the majority." The system is working as intended. People mired in the distraction of debating technical minutiae have lost sight of the forest through the trees.
Nice job as usual QR-- I know you are busy and writing full time, podcast, etc. but this "Anti-People's History of SCOTUS" needs to be expanded a bit more into a short book like the pocket constitution that folks carry around and in the spirit of a People's History by the late Howard Zinn.
I feel like trump is just warming up with SCOTUS. I wonder if they realize that?
Thank you for this concise summary! For those who don’t have the time for much reading (much less scholarly investigation), I can explain the court’s white supremacy with just this article. I’ve forwarded it twice already. Happy to be a paid subscriber for another year!
Truly grateful to have your trust and your generous support, Samantha. I put a lot of time into meticulously researching and writing these pieces, and it's beyond rewarding to know my readers find value in my work and advocacy. Thank you. ❤️✊🏽
This is a brilliant article and needs to be seen by all Americans
Thank you
What an informative article! Thank you for this mini-history lesson!
Qasim has a way with condensing the main points of a book into a few pages. It really helps people understand how we got to the place we are today.
I love your work. I'd like to suggest a proofreader if you can get one--there were several instances where your meaning was compromised by a typo.
Yeah...I know you're right. Every time we make a typo the errorists win.
And the SC’s lack of protection for free speech that it didn’t like:
The Reverend Davis was jailed in 1894 for speaking against slavery in a public park, and his fine confirmed by the Supreme Court
Abrams v. United States (1919) concerned prosecution of anarchist pamphleteers, most of whom were sentenced to 20 years’ jail for opposing American intervention in Russia. The pamphlets were interpreted as opposing war with Germany, which was regarded as sedition, and the First Amendment was held not to apply in cases of sedition.
Until 1925 the United States Supreme Court regarded the First Amendment as inapplicable to State statutes, limiting only the Federal Congress. The 1931 case of Stromberg v. California (1931) was one of the first Supreme Court decisions striking down a state regulation of speech. And yet amazing levels of State censorship of books in schools and libraries continues to this day, effectively supported by the Supreme Court.
the Declaration of Independence forwards adding Amendments to move towards a more perfect union, yet it was compromised to hold the 13 colonies together. injustice was built into the founding… 😨
A MUST READ !!!
(and thanks qasim.)
Thank you
Great article QR. Throughout its existence, the SC has held America back. It continues to this day. The current Republican appointed judges are not serious attorneys/judges. They ARE politicians seeking a free dollar. Some of the biggest hypocrites in the history of this country. When the people regain control of this country, the Court must be reformed. The current SC system makes a joke of the Law & the Constitution. Then they laugh in the face of the people who pay their sorry asses! This cannot stand!
Yep well said Michael.
I love you even more for saying, “Don’t call me Shirley.” Lol. Yay!
Lyb! lol glad someone caught that reference.
Lol