Plessy V. Ferguson

I was again reminded today of how hateful the republican party was being by questioning the ability of Judge Sotomayor to be an effective arbitrator of constitutional law. It was again wrongly asserted that race was the deciding factor in the Republicans dislike of President Obama's nominee. Race has become an impermeable layer between rational thought provocative conversation and issue orientated debate.

The moment one does not allow for an individual to exercise their ability to freely speak by prejudicing and undermining their every breath with accusatory tones of racial malice being the sole deciding factor of their motives, lends to the accuser not allowing for an intellectually honest conversation.

If one wants to limit the ability to learn from a persons intellectually diversity and keep a mind closed to the possibility that the content of ones character is truly more important than the ethnicity of the person, so be it. Sad, but it is reality.

In this intellectually closed conversation I asserted that the integrity of the Constitution was by far more important than Sotomayor's Latina heritage and her assertion as follows:

“our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.” and “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Plessy V. Ferguson established the separate but equal doctrine and was considered to be one of the supreme court's less fine and more infamous moments. In this decision that basically established that the separation of races was not inherently unequal there was only one dissenting opinion.

Justice John Marshall Harlan had firmly supported slavery and opposed the emancipation proclamation. His background has more depth but establishes his history and life experience. It was not till he joined the Republican party in 1868 that he turned his back on slavery and was quoted as naming slavery, "the most perfect despotism that ever existed on this earth."

However in his dissent Justice Harlan asserted his belief in the superiority of the white race by saying, "The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty."

While this statement is derisive and is contextually blatant racism he follows with this, "But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved".

Justice Harlan "experiences" were of no matter in that the Constitution was to prevail. If shaped by his experience alone and with out a strong understanding of the framers belief in equality their may not have been any dissent in the ruling of Plessy V. Ferguson.

Will Sotomayer have the same ability to separate her personal belief's as Harlan did? This truly is the heart of this debate. And it is an issue that needs to be out there blind to the races of the debaters.

God Bless