BlackState.com's Department of Justice & Defense
The Department of Justice and Defense is the legal and defense agency of the BlackState.
This department features news and interest stories relating to legal and
justice issues involving the black world. Including racial profiling,
racism in the criminal justice system and methods and means in offensively
combatting racism in the world. Defense of the BlackState also comes under
this department's jurisdiction.
Trayvon Martin, 17 years old a young black male on the way back home from the store during the NBA all star game,
in his own neighborhood when he was followed, questioned and summarily killed by a George Zimmerman a white male claiming to be the
neighborhood patrol. George Zimmerman according to media reports pursued Trayvon despite being told by the police not to.
He ignored police orders and murdered a kid. Yet almost a month since the crime. Zimmerman remains a free man. No arrest. Inexplicably, no charges were deemed necessary to file by the Sanford
Florida police. Really? Is pre-meditated muder no longer a crime in that town or is it not a crime to murder a black male
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in his short reign as head of the only unelected branch of the federal government has done more in a short time to move constitutional jurisprudence and the country to the right than anyone could have imagined. His Supreme Court is willing to overturn 100 years of precedent limiting corporations from participating in the political system, has equated laws prohibiting discrimination as discrimination itself, and considered overturning the historic Voting Rights Act. His court is not merely calling balls and strikes. He is making his court the entire game. His court's ruling has the potential of eliminating the Congress or the Presidency from being elected by the American people to one directly elected and selected by corporations.
How a state created registered and chartered institution can then be given the rights of human beings is moronic, it belies logic, and was previously unthinkable. The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is not only morally wrong it also is not based soundly in law. In overturning a ban in direct corporate advocacy of a candidate in place since 1907 the Supreme Court has opened the door for corporate conglomerates foreign and domestic to spend an unlimited amount of money directly supporting or against a candidate for election. It allows corporations from Wall Street to Dubai to China to directly thank their sponsors in Congress by running ads, and spending an unlimited amount of money in direct support of a candidate over another.
The Supreme Court in Ricci v. DeStafano furthered the conservative activist agenda toward a seemingly laudable post-racial, race neutral view of the law. A view not based on legal precedent or the real world. The facts of Ricci were essentially that white firefighters sued the city of New Haven for reverse discrimination because it through out a firefighter tests in which no African Americans and only a few Latinos passed, making the city possibly liable for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits disparate impact discrimination, such as tests that have the effect of discriminating. The court in a 5-4 ruling, took the side of the white firefighters, stating that the city had no fear of a disparate impact suit because the test was fair and that when disparate impact and disparate treatment (of the white firefighters) collide disparate treatment trumps. If a test has the effect of discriminating against minorities to the benefit of white test takers the city could not throw out the results of the racist test, because it would then result in racial bias toward the white test takers who passed.
This blindfolded doctrine best articulated by Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and now Kennedy is a dangerous notion. It's a doctrine that equates and characterizes race based remedies for racial discrimination as discriminatory toward the wrongdoer...
What is the right wing Republican view of a proper judge? Judges in the mode of Scalia, Thomas or Alito? Judges who are so-called strict constructionist? Judges who are pro-life? Whatever their definition may be Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor does not fit their bill.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a Princeton and Yale Law graduate, a distinguished prosecutor, advocate, and judge is
undoubtedly qualified to sit on the nation's highest court. Her critics, the most vocal of whom reside on AM radio,
contend that she is out of step with mainstream America...
The California Supreme Court held that a majority of people can take away fundamental rights, in the Prop 8 case marriage, of a minority group through the state ballot initiative process. This decision was not made in 1809 but in 2009. The California State Supreme Court ruling is not only wrong and illogical its decision violates the U.S. Constitution on the basis of equal protection and the fundamental right to marry and should be challenged in federal court. The Court states, “neither the language of the relevant constitutional provisions, nor our past cases, support the proposition that any of these rights is totally exempt from modification by a constitutional amendment adopted by a majority of the voters through the initiative process.” Unbelievable.
The far-reaching implications of such a holding is mind boggling. The rights of minority groups are not protected in the “liberal” California.
Where Is The Love? It's been an auspicious start to 2009. A month where we celebrate the principles of non-violence advocated by Martin Luther King, Jr. has started with violence.
In Oakland the year began with the shooting in the back of an unarmed young black male. The young man named, Oscar Grant III, was lying faced down on a train platform when executed by a transit cop. The murder was witnessed by many and was caught on video that has gone viral. The viral video illustrates what is known throughout the black world that in the culture of policing the life of black people is simply not valued. The people of Oakland, of all backgrounds, races, and ethnicities rightfully decided to have a protests or two.
Another day, another judge acquits officers of the shooting of an unarmed black man in New York City. Although two of the cops involved in the Sean Bell case were black here is where the mainstream media misses the racism. If the three young men were all white males in there early twenties leaving a bachelor party at a strip club, not
a single shot would have been fired by those undercover police officers acquitted in New York. Is there anyone who really believes that the police would have fired on three young white men?
In the constant acquittals of police officers for shooting unarmed black men its clear that one holding of the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott still stands,
that the black man has no rights that are bound to be respected by the white man. This courtroom truism seems to specifically apply to police
departments across America regardless of the race of the cop who uses there weapons against black men. CONTINUE
Race and Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts
There are many unanswered questions about Geroge W. Bush’s nominee to the United States Supreme Court. The slow release of memos and papers by John Roberts leaves the impression that the White House is hiding things that could dirty John Roberts’ conservative but otherwise clean image. Roberts’ stand on affirmative action and protecting the voting rights of African Americans is on the extreme right…Roberts a Harvard law graduate the guy who will smile you in the face and take away your right to vote behind your back?
Roberts wrote memos while working for the Reagan white house advocating ways in which the White House could weaken the enforcement of the landmark voting rights act. He has also argued against affirmative action and advised Bush on legal tactics to steal the 2000 election wherein thousands of African Americans were disenfranchised by being criminally purged from voter rolls by Bush’s brother. Is this the Republican Party that wants to increase its number of black supporters?
His record on the protection of civil liberties is just as dubious, ruling against the rights of prisoners in Guantanamo and against a teenager who was searched and seized by the D.C. metro police for eating a French fry. Roberts is clearly pro-police, pro-corporate cleptocracy, pro-life and pro-white.
Clarence Thomas Cast The Only Vote Against Black Defendant
In two cases involving racial discrimination in jury selection Clarence Thomas voted against black defendants. In one case Johnson v. California, he was the sole dissenting member of the Court. In that case the justices ruled 8-1 that California courts had made it too hard for defendants to claim racial bias in jury selection. Clarence Thomas the only black member of the Supreme Court was the sole dissenter. Not even Scalia dissented in this matter. His dissent and rationale is like a Dave Chappelle skit. (See Clayton Bixby).
Thomas said it should be up to the individual states to decide how to prohibit racial discrimination in jury selection. What? it should be left up to individual states, like say Alabama or Mississippi or Texas to decide how to prohibit racial discrimination. Let me tell you how that would look. It would look like black defendants being judged by all white juries. Do you know how I know this would be the outcome? Because that is the way it was before the Supreme Court prohibited racial discrimination in jury selection. What kind of "Justice" is Thomas? Does he know American history at all? Which legal precedent does he rely the Supreme Court of the Confederacy?
How Prop 54 Could Create White’s Only California
(But You Would Never Know)
In addition to voting for Governor again on October 7th the voters of California will be asked to vote on a measure entitled Proposition 54 which will eliminate all state racial classifications. While on the surface the measure seems positive and a step further in eliminating the need for race, upon further investigation the measure actually does more harm than good. In fact if passed the measure could result in the re-segregation of the state of California.
First ending racial classifications will prevent doctors from studying issues that affect particular groups like the rate of cancer and hypertension amongst of African Americans, Hispanic Americans and white Americans.
The collection of data based on race of this type will be eliminated. Data
on race is also used in determining employment discrimination. If Prop 54 passes
due to the lack of data it wil be difficult to show disparate patterns of whites only hiring.
By eliminating classifications based on race you also eliminate the basis upon
which one can sue for other forms of discrimination. For instance, how can one know if UCLA or UC Berkeley has admitted a 100% white student class without data on racial admissions. Ah ha. Perhaps that’s it. The same group behind this is the same group that eliminated affirmative action in California. But if memory serves correct the Supreme Court arbiters of the Supreme law of the land just upheld the use of affirmative action. Perhaps this too, just like the recall which is an effort to overturn a valid election 10 months ago, Proposition 54 and the mis-educated Tom’s and their racist financiers is an effort to overturn now settled law.
WASHINGTON--The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of race as a factor in
university admissions. But it also said that race cannot be the only factor.
Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger involved admissions to the University
of Michigan's undergraduate school and law school. The Supreme Court reversed the
undergradutate's school policy of affirmative action for relying to much on the applicants race
but upheld the law schools use of race as a factor among many.
White Privilege The Real Affirmative Action
The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear two cases challenging the use of race as a factor (amongst many) in college and law school admissions. It is undoubtedly the position of Blackstate.com that the court upholds these provisions.
White privilege and white superiority is in the undertone of the affirmative action
debate. Listen carefully. The opponents of affirmative action do not believe
that any minority regardless of whether that minority
is more qualified than the white applicant should take the place of a
single qualified white person. It is the subconscious mindset of white
supremacy (racism) where some whites cannot imagine a person of color being more intelligent, being
All things being equal (test scores and grades) a white person and black person absent affirmative action the universities
would choose the white applicant. How do I know? Because that’s the
way it was before the white schools were forced to integrate.
Also evident is the fact that minorities make up less than 10% of the big state schools and graduate schools. So the battle over affirmative action and diversity is the battle to consider race as a positive background for less than 10% of non-white persons. Therefore, it seems that the opponents of affirmative action propose that a university such as Michigan which is overwhelmingly white become even more white.
Which begs the question what about the 90% white student body. Can we really argue that amongst that 90% they are all more qualified than an African American student that did not get in because of a white student is a son of an alumni or because he is admitted simply because he is white. Isn’t it more evidence that the white students get in school more because of their race than African American or Hispanic students? Look at the numbers.
The goal of affirmative action seeks to overcome the overwhelming yet subconscious assumption of white privilege and superiority. It is ironic that one of the plaintiffs challenging the Michigan policy is a white woman. White women have been the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action more than any other class of persons but are now amongst the least likely to support it, despite strong support by African American women. Proving that race often trumps gender.
Citizens v. Washington Area Snipers, (Blackstate.com Department of Tribal-Justice & Defense)
Per curiam. The consensus around the nation and in the various
communities black and non-black is that the Washington area sniper
suspects John Allen Muhammad, 41 and John Lee Malvo, 17 should be tried
and subsequently sentenced to death for 14 killings in various states
and for terrorizing the Washington, D.C. area for the better part of a month.
The victims were of diverse backgrounds, ages and sexes.
This case presents several unique problems concerning
application of the death penalty and the views of some
African Americans toward the death penalty.
First, many African Americans as a general policy are against the death penalty
(except of course victims families & friends). The discriminatory way
in which the death penalty is dished out is the primary concern.
Black men are more likely to be sentenced to death than a white man
for a similar crime. This rate goes up even higher if the victim was white.
Is there an exception for these two making them more susceptible for death?
Sure. The nature of the killings create aggravating factors that certainly
justify the death penalty, which we deem state sponsored death for conduct
no longer deserving of life on this planet.
One little problem is that if the goal is for these guys to suffer for what they have done maybe we should not sentence them to death, no one is certain what death is like. What if its great for everyone? At least here we know they can be punished.
Secondly, some want death for the sniper’s because of the way in which they terrorized and paralyzed the Washington, D.C. area, which begs the question, what about the gangs and drug crews that terrorize neighborhoods in cities across America daily? Causing death havoc and yes terror. During the first week of the sniper killings 13 people were killed as a result of co called “traditional” homicides—robbery, drug related, domestic. In all there have been over 300 traditional homicides in the Washington, D.C. area this year. Yet, most people are not exhibiting the same sort of FEAR that they had while the snipers were on the loose. Should the perpetrators of those crimes be put to death also? What is the difference? Could it be that CNN and FOX News carried every news conference and talked about the case 24/7 for the better part of three weeks creating hysteria in areas of the country not at all affected by the sniper.
We find it likely that the Washington Area Snipers will be tried, convicted and sentenced to death for the killing of 14 innocent people and shooting 7 others including an African American junior-high school student but mostly for terrorizing a nation already in fear of everything.