Writing the Majority Opinion

Today I began writing the majority opinion for the case of Plessy v. Ferguson. I do not think I have ever enjoyed myself more writing an opinion. It makes me giddy when I think of writing the exact opposite of what Justice Harlan complained to the other justices and I last week. In the last few hours, I have already disproved Tourgée and Plessy legally, making their Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment points seem completely invalid. Now I must prepare to go on a tirade about how social rights cannot be granted by the government, only the people, and that we have already made all races as equal as possible. Ha! I love my profession.

Justice Harlan has said that what I write in my decision will shape our country for the next century, or possibly forever. If this is so, then the outstanding level of effort I have put in to my opinion is more than satisfactory.

I, the Great Justice Henry Billings Brown

Here is an excerpt of what I have written so far:

"The object of the Fourteenth Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power..."

We Rule in Favor of... Ferguson!

Earlier today, my colleagues and I discussed the Plessy v. Ferguson case. We went over every detail, we re-examined the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and it is utterly clear to us that Ferguson is correct- The Louisiana Separate Car Act is completely constitutional. It does not violate any amendments (unless you interpret these by their "intention", which we did not), and is further reinforced by our decision to allow the separate but equal doctrine in Roberts v. City of Boston (1948). All of us agreed on this very quickly, that is, except for that whiner Justice Harlan. He practically repeated Tourgée's oral argument, ranting about how our decision does not take into consideration he true meaning of the Constitution, and that it is not fair to the people. I do not care if it is just; I care if it is constitutional. Then he said something about how the rest of us justices were Northerners and he was the only one from the South and he had experienced... I practically fell asleep from all these boring speeches. Luckily, Harlan did not win anyone over so it ended up being a 7-1 decision, Justice Brewer not participating. I have been assigned the majority opinion. I think I will enjoy writing this one; after all, I find this case so utterly simple. Harlan, of course, will write a "persuading" dissent longer than the Constitution itself that he says "will change the course of history." Yes, of course. As if his writings will be influential in any way other than teaching judges how not to write a legal opinion.

Justice Harlan, the Whiner

Plessy v. Ferguson Oral Arguments

Today we heard oral arguments in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, and I am honestly annoyed that we are devoting such precious time to an issue that has already been practically decided. Tourgée, Plessy's lawyer, argued similar points as those in his brief. Unconstitutional under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments... That moron also had the courage (and foolishness) to tell us that our job as justices is to decide what is morally correct and would best apply to the country. Really? He is trying to tell me, a Supreme Court Justice, what I should do? Ethics are no part of my job; law is. If the Founding Fathers had intended for us to judge based upon our sense of fairness, they would have made that very clear in the Constitution. Anyway, all Plessy is saying is a bunch of nonsense so he can be "white" and sit with us superior. people in the superior train car. I barely had to ask questions in this case, as Ferguson was able to do all the work for me. Bringing up every doubt that was already in my mind, his superb arguing skills reinforced my already strong decision.

Plessy v. Ferguson Briefs Received

Today, the lawyers on both sides of Plessy v. Ferguson, that new case we recently accepted, submitted their briefs for our consideration.

Plessy's lawyer, Albion Tourgée, (and his other lawyer, Samuel Phillips) argued that the Louisiana Separate Car Act, which made his client's actions illegal, was unconstitutional under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment. He wrote eloquently, but his argument was relatively weak. He said that the "spirit" of the Thirteenth Amendment was to give freedom, and forcing them to separate would make them unequal and therefore obstruct this law. While the intention of a law may have been different from its actual text, my job as a Justice is not to interpret feeling but the actual words of a law. The word freedom is nowhere to be seen in the Thirteenth Amendment, so there is no reason for me to believe that this is the goal of this amendment. In addition, Tourgée stated that the Fourteenth Amendment made all blacks equal, and the separate cars were not at all fair. Yes, this amendment accomplished equality, but only in public places. The Fourteenth Amendment states that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"; however it does not say anything about private companies. The East Louisiana Railroad does not belong to the government, so it does not have to follow this amendment. It can easily discriminate against its customers; as we ruled in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, "the Fourteenth Amendment applies to State, not private, [individuals]..."

Albion Tourgée

Ferguson, who was appointed the defendant in the case because he ruled against Plessy in the New Orleans Criminal District Court, argued the law was completely constitutional- all claims Plessy made saying that it violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were false with reasoning similar to mine. He also added that if the black and white cars were separate and had the same resources, there would really be no reason to complain. The only doubt in my mind about this case, referring to a point Tourgée brought up, is that if we cannot be together on traisn, we cannot be together in the country. Yet, again, we will never be completely united, so what is the point?

I feel I am going into this case with my mind already made up. As you can see, I already have a strong opinion.

New Separate but Equal Case

Today one of my clerks, Jerome Thompson, advised me about a very interesting Writ of Certiorari that could become a major case. Much like Roberts v. City of Boston (1948), this inquiry deals with a one-eighth black an who boarded the all-white a train traveling in Louisiana. The train's conductor arrested the man, as he broke the Louisiana Separate Car Act of 1890, which states that blacks cannot go into the white cars. Backed by the famous lawyer Albion W. Tourgée, he is claiming that this law is unconstitutional under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. He lost in the Louisiana Supreme Court, so I think he is hoping that my colleagues and I will change tradition so he can sit in a different place.

Homer Plessy

Honestly, I do not think he is going to accomplish anything. That man should just stick to what the government says and sits in the colored car. There is no difference in that one from the white car, so why does he care so much? He needs to learn to respect the law, because he is not going to get anything in this Court. The only luck he has is in that goddamn Justice Harlan, trying to be a saint and save all those Negroes. Reconstruction is over, and they're already equal. None of the justices have any respect for those colored complainers, so he needs to have a very good argument to win us over. I am going to accept the case though, just so I can strike down this annoying man.