Thursday, March 29, 2007
Comment on part one
By no means would I de-emphasize the physical violence that these perpetrators used against civil rights workers, blacks or other victims, and I'm not hardened to it. But sometimes what I found more shocking was the extent of efforts to keep blacks from registering to vote or voting at all, or forming or joining advocacy groups. Maybe I think of violence as the means of dumb brutes but the right to vote as a sanctity that the intelligent would revere and protect. And it's hard to understand that the justice system could essentially imprison you if you showed up to register (as was the case in Jim Middleton's jurisdiction). Withholding these rights required so much complicity through so many branches and levels of government. It required premeditation and planning. How does one consider himself an American or patriot and play the mental hopscotch required to justify these actions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Yes, that is almost incomprehensible. Those people had to devote VAST amounts of their lives to hatred and racial scheming. One of the sons says that he used to use "nigger" as almost every other word back in the day, but he uses it less now. Can you imagine a brain so malignant with hate that it can scarcely think of anything else?
Before reading this book, I was not completely aware of the sovereignty commissions and all the state machinery of racial injustice (beyond the usual Jim crow stuff you learn about in history). I think the author describes Mississippi government as a totalitarian state, and that is exactly right.
What does everybody think about "electing" judges and sheriffs (versus our appointment, then vote-for-retention system)? Does that produce a more inherently corrupt system? Can the elected be fair and impartial when they've got public favor to consider?
I don't think the judicial branch should be elected. I mean, appointments are indirectly political, but it's better than constitutional rights by popular vote.
Appointed judges could just be mouthpieces for the appointing party (like Scalia and Thomas), but sometimes there are surprises. Eisenhower picked Earl Warren because he wanted a conservative Republican, and once Warren got on the bench and was not beholden to the GOP or the electorate, he presided over the most humane and progressive court in history, achieving a 9-0 vote to dismantle separate-but-equal, not to mention any number of decisions about the Bill of Rights and police power.
A lot of places have elected judges, including Sedgwick County (Wichita) and Texas. (Even the Texas Supreme Court is elected.) When I worked for Judge Malone in Lawrence, he explained to me why electing judges is wrong. And it is. That puts direct political pressure on judicial decisions, which influences judges to make the wrong decisions.
What is the thought process behind electing sheriffs? Shouldn't that be a non-political office?
Appointed by the county commission? Sounds like a good idea. I wonder whether any jurisdictions do that.
Post a Comment