Out of the gate, Strawbridge: "racial classifications are wrong" and violate the 14th A. This is precisely what the framers of the amendment did not believe. A distortion of history. #affirmativeaction
Let no one be taken in by this totally ahistorical claim. These folks know history is not on their side. That's why the Meese brief flat-out misrepresented the Civil Rights Act of 1866. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2…
Prelogar: Powerful evidence of laws, at time of 14A, that took race into account to bring African Americans to a point of equality. Petitioner has come forward with ESSENTIALLY NO HISTORY to support "colorblind" idea of the Constitution. Thank you.
Jackson: OK, even if we concede the history is ambiguous on whether race-consciousness is ok, the historians' brief says we need clearer evidence to overcome stare decisis. Right? Prelogar: Yes.
Hi. The Civil Rights Act (1866) is not "colorblind"! It explicitly recognizes that whites have particularly rights and says people of all colors should have the same rights as white people.
After the 14A was ratified, Congress repassed a similar color-conscious statute -- Civil Rights Act of 1870 -- once again acknowledging that all people should have the same rights as whites enjoyed.
SFFA attorney now saying the Freedmen's Bureau did not draw any racial classifications. That is not true. Many bureau policies benefited all Black people regardless of ex-slave status.
This is an argument about "race" vs "status" that the right likes to pursue and is not supported by evidence from the late 1860s.
Yes, they were very concerned about racial classifications at the state level, and that is why they passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1870, which clearly identified that whites enjoyed rights that people of color did not.
Yes, thank you! there was consciousness of race in those statutes.
OK they are really digging into the material in our brief now. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
