Civil rights

  • October 2, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    There really are very few Supreme Court justices worth celebrating and many more who are easily forgettable.

    But Thurgood Marshall, who joined the high court 45 years ago today, was a champion of equality before he became the first African American to join, at that time, the all-male, all-white Supreme Court.

    Marshall was named to the federal appeals court by President John F. Kennedy, and later to the Supreme Court by Lyndon B. Johnson. Both were historic appointments. As John Schachter notes in this post, much of Marshall’s life included historic achievements.

    After being denied admissions to the University of Maryland’s law school, because of racism, Marshall earned a law degree from Howard University and launched what would be a trailblazing legal career bolstering and advancing equality and liberty in the country.

    In 1940 he founded the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which has become one of the nation’s leading civil liberties groups. Before reaching the federal bench, Marshall, as a highly successful attorney, took to the courts and started toppling Jim Crow era laws, tawdry efforts to continue the oppression of African Americans. As Juan Williams wrote in Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary, it was Marshall “who ended legal segregation in the United States. He won Supreme Court victories breaking down the color line in housing, transportation and voting, all of which overturned the ‘Separate-but-equal’ apartheid of American life in the first half of the century.” 

    Of course Marshall’s greatest victory before the high court came in Brown v. Board of Education, where he argued that the odious separate-but-equal principle aimed to keep African Americans “as near [slavery] as possible,” violated the Constitution.

  • September 21, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    In Sept. 1862, only days after Union forces quelled a Confederate invasion of Maryland, President Abraham Lincoln told his cabinet he was ready to issue a decree freeing slaves in the Confederacy. On Sept. 22, 1862 Lincoln issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, giving the Confederate states until January 1 to end their rebellion or slaves in the South “shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.”

    Saturday, Sept. 22 marks the 150th anniversary of the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation that, as historian Eric Foner noted in his book The Fiery Trial, Fredrick Douglass lauded as “the most important document ever issued by an American president.”

    Foner’s The Fiery Trial notes that Lincoln was, at the time of announcing the proclamation, still seriously considering asylum for freed women and men, believing that colonization could occur somewhere in West Africa or Central America.

    Nonetheless the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation is seen as a “key moment in the process that led to the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment” outlawing slavery, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) states.

    Earlier this week at an event celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation hosted by the NEH and Howard University, U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a Civil Rights hero, provided a keynote that touched upon the changes he has seen in his life and included a call for continued work toward equality.

    “Slavery was an affront to human dignity,” he said, as reported by Teria Rogers for Afro. “It was an evil, ungodly, dehumanizing system. It did not matter that it lasted over 300 years, it was bound to fail. It could never last because it violated one eternal truth. We’re one people, one family, the American family. We live in the same house, the American house, the world house.”

    Lewis, among the young women and men who traveled on buses throughout the Deep South subverting Jim Crow laws and being met with brutal violence, added that the march for equality must never be abandoned.

  • September 11, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming and Dipal Shah

    At a New York Law School symposium examining the impact the 9/11 terrorist attacks have had on civil liberties, John Yoo, former George W. Bush administration attorney who wrote memoranda supporting torture of military prisoners, declared that in the years since the devastating events “civil liberties have grown quite a bit.” Yoo, now a law professor at UC Berkeley Law School, added that civil liberties in the country had been bolstered “because government has been primarily kept out of the way.”

    It was a statement that likely left some of the panelists wondering whether Yoo was being intentionally provocative. Indeed as noted time and again by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights First, Bill of Rights Defense Committee and law professors like Georgetown’s David Cole, a much stronger argument can be made that too often efforts to advance national security have trumped protections of civil liberties and the humane and lawful treatment of military prisoners.

    The New York Law School Review’s “visual scholarship project” created a short -- less than 14 minutes -- video highlighting some of that symposium and including additional discussions with legal scholars and advocates such as ACS President Caroline Fredrickson, Fordham Law School Professor Martin Flaherty, and Ohio State University law school Professor Peter M. Shane. Watch the NYLS Law Review video here or see below. 

    Shane, for instance said, he has knocked the Bush administration “for always saying that if anyone kind of pushed back against harsh interrogation techniques or rendition they would always say ‘well you want just want the law enforcement paradigm.’ And there’s this kind of attempt always to sort of cast people who are asking questions about particular policies as if they were somehow soft on terrorism, at best, and unpatriotic at worst.”

    Although President Obama, very early in his term, signed an order banning torture of military prisoners, many civil liberties groups blast his administration for following too much of his predecessor’s actions in this area. For instance, the Obama administration has invoked the so-called state secrets privilege to shut down actions brought by prisoners challenging their imprisonment, and has failed to close Guantánamo Bay, where prisoners are still indefinitely held. (Recently another prisoner died there; he was the ninth to do so. The Center for Constitutional Rights in a Sept. 10 press statement called on the administration to “conduct a full and impartial investigation, and treat the body and the family with all proper respect, none of which, regrettably, has consistently occurred in the past.”) Attorney General Eric Holder has also been criticized for failing to prosecute any of the CIA or military officials allegedly involved in torture of military prisoners.

    Shane, in his interview with the NYLS Law Review, said Americans, and possibly people in general, “are often too quick to accept that there is a tradeoff between these two things [national security and civil liberties]; that somehow to be more secure is to be less free.”

    Fredrickson, again for NYLS Law Review, said, “Many would argue that civil liberties are actually a core part of the national security that we give our nation, and that only when we have protections for what we believe are our vital rights as Americans are we actually able to keep ourselves safe.”

  • September 6, 2012

    by John Schachter

    As issues tinged (or perhaps overwrought) with racial overtones – voting rights, immigration, affirmative action and more – remain atop the political and legal agendas comes a new biography of a historical figure. Emory University professor Joseph Crispino has written “Strom Thurmond’s America,” a book about one of the last century’s longest-serving senators and key players in the racial politics of the 20th century.

    If you don’t have time to read the book, peruse The Washington Post’s review by longtime book critic Jonathan Yardley. Yardley has been the Post’s book critic since 1981 (when Thurmond was a spry 78) and has won the Pulitzer Prize for Distinguished Criticism. His decades of service have earned him the right to forgo any temptation to mince words or thoughts.

    Lest anyone wonder where Yardley is coming from, he notes up front that Thurmond (pictured) was “known primarily during his long career for racism, cynicism, opportunism, hypocrisy and ruthlessness.” And he soon calls him “one of the most perfervid racists of the 20th century.” But Yardley’s review is more than mere description as he provides evidence of his assertions.

    “Contrary to the warm and fuzzy views of Thurmond that emerged toward the end of his very long life…,” notes Yardley, “there is little that sheds any credit on him. What now seems fairly certain is that he will be remembered as a dour segregationist who, while in his early 20s, impregnated a 16-year-old [African American] girl employed in his family’s household.”

    “No doubt an assiduous researcher could uncover an even more blatant instance of hypocrisy in American politics,” Yardley continues, “but it is difficult to imagine what that might be.”

  • August 30, 2012

    by John Schachter

    Forty-five years ago today, the U.S. Senate voted 69-11 to confirm Thurgood Marshall as the 96th Justice of the Supreme Court. That historic vote made Marshall the nation’s first African American justice and helped blaze a trail for others to follow.

    When President Lyndon Johnson nominated Marshall to the high court, he understood the historic importance, not just for the future of the court itself but for the broader issue of civil rights. Said Johnson, “I believe it's the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man, and the right place.”

    Times sure have changed; only one of those 11 votes against confirmation came from the Republican side of the aisle. But Johnson did get some 20 other southern senators to abstain from the vote; they faced the choice of alienating portions of their constituencies who couldn’t stomach an African American on the highest court or voting against the president and his historic choice.

    Marshall’s background is well known, from his more than two decades with the NAACP to his myriad arguments before the Supreme Court, culminating in the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case that rejected the “separate but equal” doctrine in public education. President John F. Kennedy put Marshall on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and then Johnson made him solicitor general before the final promotion.