Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Supreme Court ruling takes on new relevance with Tennessee expulsions
The Tennessee expulsions were illegal.
Link to tweet
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/black-tennessee-lawmakers-expulsions-supreme-court-rcna78712?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma&taid=6431c0beb2f24c000136b565&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Are the racist expulsions of Democratic lawmakers Justin Jones and Justin Pearson from the Tennessee House of Representatives legal? According to a Supreme Court case from 1966, they might not be.
That case, Bond v. Floyd, bears some similarity to the crushing of dissent we’ve seen unfold in Tennessee. After Jones and Pearson joined a gun control protest following the school shooting in Nashville, they were expelled from their elected roles by Republicans, who chose to subvert the voters’ will instead of trying to protect those voters from even more gun violence.
In that Supreme Court case from 1966, the Georgia House of Representatives had refused to seat Julian Bond, a newly elected member — and like Pearson and Jones, a Black man — after statements he made that were critical of the Vietnam War. Siding with Bond, the Supreme Court ruled that a state can’t apply a stricter speech standard to legislators than its residents. For more on the Bond case, see this thread from Joyce Vance, a columnist and legal analyst for MSNBC:
Certainly, Jones and Pearson would want to cite Bond in any court challenge that ensues. No doubt, the principle underlying the ruling should keep them in their elected seats. On the other hand, a court might seek to distinguish Bond from the situation in Tennessee, on the grounds that the 1966 case involved failing to seat a member rather than expulsion. An appeals court has already made that distinction, reasoning in 1997 that the Bond case “did not even address the power of legislatures to discipline members, but rather involved a question of whether the Georgia legislature could refuse to seat members-elect in the first place.”
That case, Bond v. Floyd, bears some similarity to the crushing of dissent we’ve seen unfold in Tennessee. After Jones and Pearson joined a gun control protest following the school shooting in Nashville, they were expelled from their elected roles by Republicans, who chose to subvert the voters’ will instead of trying to protect those voters from even more gun violence.
In that Supreme Court case from 1966, the Georgia House of Representatives had refused to seat Julian Bond, a newly elected member — and like Pearson and Jones, a Black man — after statements he made that were critical of the Vietnam War. Siding with Bond, the Supreme Court ruled that a state can’t apply a stricter speech standard to legislators than its residents. For more on the Bond case, see this thread from Joyce Vance, a columnist and legal analyst for MSNBC:
Link to tweet
Certainly, Jones and Pearson would want to cite Bond in any court challenge that ensues. No doubt, the principle underlying the ruling should keep them in their elected seats. On the other hand, a court might seek to distinguish Bond from the situation in Tennessee, on the grounds that the 1966 case involved failing to seat a member rather than expulsion. An appeals court has already made that distinction, reasoning in 1997 that the Bond case “did not even address the power of legislatures to discipline members, but rather involved a question of whether the Georgia legislature could refuse to seat members-elect in the first place.”
15 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
