“The Redeemers who overthrew Reconstruction and established `Home Rule’ in the Southern States conducted their campaign in the name of white supremacy.”, The Strange Career of Jim Crow,C. Vann Woodward, 1974.
On February 26, 2010, the LEGAL BISNOW Washington newsletter reported on the American Constitution Society (ACS) meeting of preeminent election law practitioners under the headline, "THE GUILTIEST OF PLEASURES", declaring, "One guilty pleasure we can’t resist: sweating the implications of SCOTUS’s controversial 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC." The newsletter hi-lights and saves for the last word a "provocative point" of "legal Darwinism" raised by "THE CONTRARIAN."
http://www.bisnow.com/dc-legal/the-guiltiest-of-pleasures/
"For the final word, we circle back to Asa Gordon, exec. dir. of the Douglass Institute for Government, who we thought raised a provocative point in ACS panel Q&A. What led today’s conservative-leaning Supreme Court to make such an activist decision in Citizens United? If you understand the Court’s philosophical embrace of legal Darwinism, which Asa describes as valuing the voice of the corporate individual as the most highly-evolved expression of citizenly virtue, then it’s easier to grasp why the Court overturned 100 years of legal precedent to protect the corporate individual/entity’s voice from being eclipsed by that of the uneducated masses.”
Actually, the expression I used as The Contrarian was "inferior masses." QUESTIONS FOR A NEO-CONFEDERATE JUSTICE? An Exposé of Legal Darwinism and Neo-Redemptionist Federalism _
http://greenpapers.net/32/
The SCOTUS conservative majority is a throwback to the 19th century Legal Darwinists who believed that the judiciary should limit itself to the role of arbiters (referees) to insure that the nation’s superior beings, especially its newly exalted “corporate persons,” should not be unduly constrained by the collective will of the inferior masses. The government must therefore be constrained from providing unnatural support to inferior social classes that undermine the evolutionary progress of American society.
The Legal Darwinists seek to codify the “Social Darwinism” of the Victorian biologist Herbert Spencer, who declared, “I am simply carrying out the views of Mr. Darwin in their application to the human race.” Alito's appointment to the Supreme Court established a neo-Legal Darwinist and Redemptionist Federalist conservative majority that would “meet the needs of a changing society” by addressing the nation's changing racial demographics and effecting the Social Darwinism of the conservative intellectual icon William F. Buckley. Buckley‘s National Review editorial, "Why the South Must Prevail,"_(Aug. 24, 1957) provides the Darwinian context for SCOTUS' neo-redemptionist ruling in Shelby County v. Holder. Buckley wrote:
"The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes-the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. . . . It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority."
In Shelby County v. Holder, SCOTUS inaugurated a eugenics based voting rights jurisprudence. SCOTUS neo-eugenic jurisprudence allows states to adopt voter ID sterilization laws to mitigate the polluting of American democracy by the participation of non-white populations in the electoral process. Surreptitiously adopting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes reasoning in Buck v. Bell, upholding the 1924 eugenics law by declaring "Society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind ... Three generations of imbeciles are enough.", the conservative majority has decided that nearly two generations of imbecilic voting by blacks is enough.
.
The SCOTUS conservative majority's Legal Darwinist rulings in Shelby County v. Holder, Citizens United v. FEC , and McCutcheon v. FEC provide the supreme judicial trifecta for Electoral Darwinism.
= new reply since forum marked as read
