The three liberal justices state their agreement with those criticisms in their dissents in recent cases.
(Those theories offer explanations for the court's recent ruling that Alabama's new voter maps discriminated against Black residents: in Bridges' view, the blatant racial gerrymandering alleged in the case parallels the overt racism seen in the days of Jim Crow.)īy contrast, scholars have documented the court's historical zealousness about protecting white Americans against supposed race discrimination. Board of Education cannot be understood without considering the decision's "economic and political" value to the country, including that abandoning segregation would win credibility in international relations and conflicts.Īnd Khiara Bridges, a sociologist and professor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, wrote an analysis of the 2022 term positing that the current majority's theory of racism only considers injuries alleged by non-whites to be valid if they look like “old school” racism – the sort of overt discrimination seen in the pre-civil rights eras. For example, Bell argued that the Supreme Court's break with its long-held position on segregation in Brown v. Practitioners and academics have highlighted how the court moves the goal posts and changes the rules of the game to reach its desired outcomes – as Sotomayor put it – in cases concerning minority group rights.įormer Harvard Law School professor Derrick Bell made a seminal argument in 1980 that the court rules in favor of minority civil rights only when those interests incidentally align with the white majority’s.
0 kommentar(er)
