organization:us supreme court

Hazel Bryan Massery (l’étudiante blanche qui insulte) Elizabeth Eckford (l’étudiante noire qui est seule ou presque au milieu d’une foule hostile).

Elizabeth Eckford assise sur un banc en attendant le bus, est rejointe par un journaliste qui lui dit « ne pleure pas, ils ne méritent pas tes larmes ».

▻https://damianogirona.wordpress.com/caucasian-2/hazel-bryan

https://damianogirona.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/fyec-hazel-bryant.jpg

was on September 4th, 1957, when the “Little Rock Nine” Crisis happened. On that day nine African American students enrolled in Little Rock Central High School, although at first the students were prevented from entering the school. This was because at the time Little Rock Central High School was originally a racially segregated school. So, as the students began to approach the school, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus stood in front of the doors and would not let the African American students in. It was not until President Dwight D. Eisenhower intervened, by placing the Arkansas National Guard under federal control and ordering them to escort and protect the students as they entered school, that they were finally allowed in. As the African American students made their way to the school white people were parading around them in protest, constantly harassing them, screaming and throwing things at the African American students.

–—

Hazel Massery - Wikipedia
▻https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_Massery

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Little_Rock_Desegregation_1957.jpg

Hazel Bryan Massery (born c. 1941) was a student at Little Rock Central High School during the Civil Rights Movement. She was depicted in an iconic photograph that showed her shouting at Elizabeth Eckford, one of the Little Rock Nine, during the school integration crisis. In her later life, she sought to make amends for her behavior, briefly becoming friends with Eckford.

–—

A Diversity Deficit in New Jersey Schools - As public school segregation increases, what are the consequences ?
▻https://www.nj7citizensforchange.org/a_diversity_deficit_in_new_jersey_schools

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nj7citizens4change/pages/378/meta_images/original/Elizabeth_Eckford-1027_720.jpg?1550341763

As public school segregation increases, what are the consequences?

According to a study published last year by the UCLA Civil Rights Project, nearly 50 percent of African-American students in New Jersey attend schools where less than 10 percent of the student body is white. And the typical white student attends a public school in which two-thirds of the population is Caucasian.

Racial segregation is not a problem that exists only in the past. Despite widely documented progress in U.S. history to limit racism, studies suggest that segregation is still an issue in today’s world. Especially right here in the schools of New Jersey.

–—

Little Rock 1957 : l’histoire d’Elizabeth Eckford, lycéenne noire dans un lycée blanc - YouTube
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHttKu8JmRU

–—

HARDtalk Elizabeth Eckford - YouTube
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNLDRZhA6s0

In September 1957, nine African American students, including Elizabeth Eckford, entered the all-white Little Rock Central High School in Arkansas, thereby breaking the racial segregation barrier in US schools for the first time. They became known as the Little Rock Nine. Two years earlier the US Supreme Court had ruled segregation in schools to be unconstitutional. The first time Elizabeth Eckford tried to enter Little Rock Central High she was turned away, and the image of her surrounded by a hostile crowd of local white people is one of the most famous photographs of the American civil rights struggle of the 1950s and 60s. Stephen Sackur is at her family home in Little Rock and asks if she regrets her central role in a famous chapter of recent American history.

–—

Elizabeth Eckford : la ségrégation, le pardon et le refus de la manipulation
▻https://www.nofi.media/2016/10/elizabeth-eckford-segregation-pardon/31105

https://www.nofi.media/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/history-283-elizabeth-eckford-little-rock_corbis.jpg

#droits_civique #états-unis #racisme

LBJ and Marshall: Film biographies deal with mid-20th century US struggle for racial equality - World Socialist Web Site
▻https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/11/25/mars-n25.html

https://www.wsws.org/asset/d9082ad5-cfc2-4f57-bdf3-915e4664ef19/image.jpg

LBJ and Marshall: Film biographies deal with mid-20th century US struggle for racial equality
By Fred Mazelis
25 November 2017

LBJ, directed by Rob Reiner, written by Joey Hartstone; Marshall, directed by Reginald Hudlin, written by Jacob Koskoff, Michael Koskoff

Two new biopics—LBJ and Marshall—dealing with figures who played a major role in American politics in the mid-20th century have been released in movie theaters over the last two months.

Lyndon Baines Johnson, taking office as President after the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November 1963, went on to sign the major civil rights legislation of 1964 and 1965 into law. Thurgood Marshall, the longtime chief legal counsel of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense and Educational Fund, was appointed by Johnson to become the first African-American Justice of the US Supreme Court in 1967.

#cinéma #états-unis

Why It’s Impossible to Indict a Cop
►http://www.thenation.com/article/why-its-impossible-indict-cop

Chapter 563 of the Missouri Revised Statutes grants a lot of discretion to officers of the law to wield deadly force, to the horror of many observers swooping in to the Ferguson story. The statute authorizes deadly force “in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody” if the officer “reasonably believes” it is necessary in order to “to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested has committed or attempted to commit a felony…or may otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.”

But this law is not an outlier, and is fully in sync with Supreme Court #jurisprudence. The legal standard authorizing deadly force is something called “objective reasonableness.”

This standard originates in the 1985 case of Tennessee v. Garner, which appeared at first to tighten restrictions on the police use of deadly force. The case involved a Memphis cop, Elton Hymon, who shot dead one Edward Garner: 15 years old, black and unarmed. Garner had just burgled a house, grabbing a ring and ten bucks. The US Supreme Court ruled that a police officer, henceforth, could use deadly force only if he “has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” The ruling required that the use of force be “objectively reasonable.” How this reasonableness should be determined was established in a 1989 case, Graham v. Connor: severity of the crime, whether the suspect is resisting or trying to escape and above all, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others. All this appeared to restrict police violence—even if, in the end, Officer Hymon was never criminally charged for fatally shooting Edward Garner.

“Objectively reasonable”—what could be wrong with that? But in actual courtroom practice, “objective reasonableness” has become nearly impossible to tell apart from the subjective snap judgments of panic-fueled police officers. American courts universally defer to the law enforcement officer’s own personal assessment of the threat at the time.

The Graham analysis essentially prohibits any second-guessing of the officer’s decision to use deadly force: no hindsight is permitted, and wide latitude is granted to the officer’s account of the situation, even if scientific evidence proves it to be mistaken. Such was the case of Berkeley, Missouri, police officers Robert Piekutowski and Keith Kierzkowski, who in 2000 fatally shot Earl Murray and Ronald Beasley out of fear that the victims’ car was rolling towards them. Forensic investigations established that the car had not in fact lurched towards the officers at the time of the shooting—but this was still not enough for the St. Louis County grand jury to indict the two cops of anything.

Not surprisingly then, legal experts find that “there is built-in leeway for police, and the very breadth of this leeway is why criminal charges against police are so rare,” says Walter Katz, a police oversight lawyer who served on the Los Angeles County Office of Independent Review until it disbanded in July of this year. According to Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine Law School, recent Supreme Court decisions are not a path towards justice but rather a series of obstacles to holding police accountable for civil rights violations.

US Supreme Court expands immunity for killer cops - World Socialist Web Site

▻http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/11/12/pers-n12.html

Je référence surtout pour le nouvau tag.

US Supreme Court expands immunity for killer cops
12 November 2015

With the death toll from police brutality continuing to mount, the US Supreme Court on Monday issued a decision expanding the authoritarian doctrine of “qualified immunity,” which shields police officers from legal accountability.

When a civil rights case is summarily dismissed by a judge on the grounds of “qualified immunity,” the case is legally terminated. It never goes to trial before a jury and is never decided on its constitutional merits.❞

#killer_cops #policires_tueurs

Why #Obama blundered by speaking out on #LGBTQ rights in #Kenya
▻http://africasacountry.com/2015/08/why-obama-blundered-by-speaking-out-on-lgbtq-rights-in-kenya

Ahead of President Obama’s much-awaited visit to Kenya a storm started brewing over LGBTQ rights in that country. The President went to Kenya fresh off the US Supreme Court’s landmark.....

#FRONT_PAGE #Editorial #Uhuru_Kenyatta #William_Ruto

Rainbow of misunderstanding, by Heidi Morrison
▻http://mondediplo.com/blogs/rainbow-of-misunderstanding

The US Supreme Court’s recent decision on marriage equality led to celebrations around the world. A strong, loud message of support came from Palestinian artist Khaled Jarrar, who painted large rainbow stripes on the Israeli separation wall at the Qalandiya checkpoint. He titled the work Through the Spectrum, intending the rainbow — an icon of freedom, love and humanity — to juxtapose the oppression represented by the wall. Graffiti art, including works by Banksy, cover the 700-km wall that has turned the West Bank into an open-air prison. [#st]

▻http://zinc.mondediplo.net/messages/4669 via Le Monde diplomatique

OJ Simpson Obsession Distracts from Codified Toxic Impunity | Weapons of Mass Distraction
▻http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/oj-simpson-obsession-distracts-from-codified-toxic-impunity-weapons-

Abby Martin calls out the corporate media for their rehashing of the OJ Simpson trial, whilst ignoring a recent US Supreme Court’s decision to side with CTS, a North Carolina company responsible...

US Supreme Court decides gay marriage cases - World Socialist Web Site

▻http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/06/27/gaym-j27.html

US Supreme Court decides gay marriage cases
By Don Knowland
27 June 2013

The US Supreme Court Wednesday decided two cases on the right of gay couples to marry.

In U.S. v. Windsor, the court ruled that couples who are married in states that recognize gay marriage cannot be denied federal benefits that are otherwise available to heterosexual spouses. The court struck down as a violation of the constitutional right to equal liberty the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage under federal law as heterosexual union.

#états-unis #marriage_gay #marriage_pour_tous

The Novartis Decision: A Tale Of Developing Countries, IP, And The Role Of The Judiciary | Intellectual Property Watch
▻http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/04/15/the-novartis-decision-a-tale-of-developing-countries-ip-and-the-role-of-th

The worldwide attention received by the Indian SC ruling and its global implications could represent a turning point. For decades, scholars and students from all over the world spent a considerable time studying decisions by judicial authorities in industrialised countries, in particular those of the US Supreme Court. Several of these decisions marked the emergence of new trends and approaches to intellectual property that, in some cases, would be subsequently incorporated into international agreements and would also heavily influence intellectual property legislations in developing countries.

The Novartis decision might be spearheading a world where judicial decisions from countries such as China, India and Brazil have an increasing global reach and contribute to shaping global approaches to intellectual property. It is also more generally reflective of the growing assertiveness of developing countries, particularly emerging economies, in the current global intellectual property landscape. In the past two years, opposition from these countries was an important factor in the broader mobilization that led to the de facto demise of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

DOMA lawyer uses 1885 case to support the law | Gay Star News
►http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/doma-lawyer-uses-1885-case-support-law290912

DOMA lawyer uses 1885 case to support the law
DOMA support rests on 19th century polygamy statute
29 September 2012 | By James Withers
Paul D. Clement.jpg

The lawyer defending the Defense of Marriage Act is using an 1885 polygamy case as one of the reasons why the US federal government cannot honor gay marriages.

Paul Clement was in a New York court this week supporting DOMA’s language. The law was passed in 1996 and prohibits the US government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even in states where such unions are legal.

According to Buzzfeed, the lawyer pointed to an 1885 US Supreme Court case involving polygamy in the then Utah territory. The court wrote that the traditional definition of marriage, one man and woman, is ’"the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.’

Clement’s clients are the Republican leaders of the US House of Representatives. They have defended DOMA cases ever since 2011 when President Barack Obama informed the Justice Department not to argue for the constitutionality of DOMA. The House may support laws, in courts, if the president refuses to do so.

In this Second Circuit Court of Appeals case, a Edith Windsor maintains DOMA is unconstitional. The widow is suing because she was required to pay a $350,000 federal estate tax bill. The government does not recognize her marriage to a woman.

Peine de mort Etats-Unis

Texas executes mentally disabled death row prisoner
►http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/aug2012/wils-a08.shtml

By Kate Randall
8 August 2012

The barbarity of the US death penalty system was on display last night when the state of Texas executed the second mentally disabled death row prisoner in less than three weeks. Marvin Wilson, 54, was sent to his death after the US Supreme Court failed to grant him a stay of execution, ruling less than two hours before his lethal injection was set to begin.

Wilson was killed by a lethal dose of the sedative pentobarbital injected into his veins by prison authorities at about 6 p.m. local time. Death row prisoner Yokamon Hearn was put to death on July 19, the first Texas prisoner to be executed utilizing the new one-drug protocol.

Arizona v. United States

Supreme Court unanimously upholds antidemocratic attack on immigrant workers

►http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jun2012/ariz-j26.shtml

By Kevin Kearney
26 June 2012

Issuing its decision Monday on Arizona v. United States, the US Supreme Court unanimously upheld the core provision of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law—SB 1070—that requires police officers to check the immigration status of anyone they stop for questioning or detention if there is a “reasonable suspicion” the individual is an illegal alien.

The law effectively grants police wide discretion to stop and seek the deportation of anyone who “appears to be” an illegal immigrant and is not carrying state-issued identification. It is an open invitation to racial profiling and the systematic harassment of Hispanic, Asian and other immigrant groups.

What if democracy is just an illusion? - Opinion - Al Jazeera English
►http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/03/2012311123627435712.html

It’s hard to imagine a better illustration of Marx’s theory of the ruling class than Citizens United, the 2010 case brought before the US Supreme Court in which the majority decided that political action committees (or PACs) cannot be subject to campaign finance laws. PACs do not formally represent candidates and instead, express their own political views. So the money they spend is more like free speech. Therefore, political money is speech protected by the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

In theory, this is an egalitarian ruling. Any citizen can spend any amount of money to promote or attack any issue they want. But we don’t live in an egalitarian society. As Gore Vidal has said, America is a very good place to live if you have money and property. Not so much if you don’t.

Now we have 364 so-called super PACs dominating the national political dialogue as candidates compete for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. These organisations can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money as long as they don’t explicitly endorse or challenge a specific candidate. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, they have raised more than $130m in 2012 and spent almost $75m on attack advertisements carried over broadcast, cable and radio. Of that total amount, 25 per cent comes from just five people.

What these ads say is less important than their results, one of which is the curious political phenomenon of the zombie candidate. Without a billionaire casino tycoon who keeps obligingly writing checks to a super PAC, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich would have quit a long time ago. Then there are candidates like Mitt Romney who need not be especially good at being candidates. Romney is preternaturally unable to ignite the party’s base, yet he continues winning primaries because his backer, a super PAC called Restore Our Future, has spent $37m in two and a half months, more than any sum spent on any candidate in any election ever.

Some super PACs don’t even support candidates, but instead attack incumbents. The Campaign for Primary Accountability is spending millions to oust representatives who’d otherwise be safe. Political activity, moreover, isn’t restricted to super PACs. Americans for Prosperity, officially a “non-profit advocacy group”, has supported Tea Party candidates and has launched propaganda campaigns in Wisconsin that touted Governor Scott Walker’s austerity measures and newly passed anti-union laws. Americans for Prosperity is funded by libertarians Charles and David Koch, brothers whose combined worth is estimated to be about $50bn. Instead of targeting politicians vying for public office, the Kochs are taking aim at ordinary middle-class workers who might otherwise have reason to believe in the American Dream.

Columnist EJ Dionne of the Washington Post summed it up when he wrote:

Oh, yes, it works nicely for the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country, especially if they want to shroud their efforts to influence politics behind shell corporations. It just doesn’t happen to work if you think we are a democracy and not a plutocracy.

And perhaps there’s the real problem. If you believe the US is a democracy, if you believe in the rule of the many and not the rule of the few, then the Citizens United ruling could not be more troubling. But what if this is not a democracy? What if this, as Dionne suggests, is an oligarchy of billionaire capitalists? More horrible to ponder, what if democracy is yet more intellectual cover, another one of those illusions, for the exploitation of American workers?

Then the theory of the ruling class fits perfectly. Citizens United and the United States were made for each other.

The Supreme Court’s Video Game Ruling: Yes to Violence, No to Sex
►http://www.thenation.com/article/161741/supreme-courts-video-game-ruling-yes-violence-no-sex

This American life of ours has long been pro-violence and anti-sex, unless the two can be merged so that violence is the dominant theme. The US Supreme Court reaffirmed that historical record on Monday in declaring California’s ban on the sale of violent video games to minors unconstitutional while continuing to deny constitutional protection to purely prurient sexual material for either minors or adults.