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
No comments:
Post a Comment