| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="OldPapers" |
|---|
-- This is a revision of the first paper by ErandiZamora?
-- SoeJungKim - 19 Apr 2009 | | | Things should be judged by what they do. Cohen advocates that in making decisions, the courts should consider the effects that they will have. Whose interests would formal equality uphold? The effects of de jure racial segregation are still prominent. As the courts prohibit our schools from taking this into account, however, they are only insuring the preservation of the status quo. The effects of racism continue to be a problem, but instead of dealing with them in real terms, the courts have turned to a ridiculous conception of equality that fools only those who choose to remain blind to the crude reality. | |
<
< | As noted by Steven Shapiro, National Director of the ACLU, the Roberts court has demonstrated insensitivity to issues of race and a grave detachment from real life experiences. Such detachment was made painfully clear during the oral argument for Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. _ (2008). Crawford was a voting rights case addressing a restrictive Indiana voter ID law, which could exclude upwards of 300,000 voters from the polls. As the counsel for Crawford attempted to explain, one of the obstacles was that the voters had to travel approximately seventeen miles to request an ID, a burden that would disproportionately affect impoverished people of color. To this, Chief Justice Roberts responded: “seventeen miles are seventeen miles regardless of whether you are rich or poor.” This seemingly straightforward factual statement by Roberts lacks as much truth as if one said that winter is winter whether it is in Michigan or in California. | >
> | As noted by Steven Shapiro, National Director of the ACLU, the Roberts court has demonstrated insensitivity to issues of race and a grave detachment from real life experiences. Such detachment was made painfully clear during the oral argument for Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. Trash._ (2008). Crawford was a voting rights case addressing a restrictive Indiana voter ID law, which could exclude upwards of 300,000 voters from the polls. As the counsel for Crawford attempted to explain, one of the obstacles was that the voters had to travel approximately seventeen miles to request an ID, a burden that would disproportionately affect impoverished people of color. To this, Chief Justice Roberts responded: “seventeen miles are seventeen miles regardless of whether you are rich or poor.” This seemingly straightforward factual statement by Roberts lacks as much truth as if one said that winter is winter whether it is in Michigan or in California. | | | | | | Things should be judged by what they do. Cohen advocates that in making decisions, the courts should consider the effects that they will have. Who’s interests would formal equality uphold? As we know, the effects of de jure racial segregation are still prominent, however, as the courts prohibit our schools from taking this into account they are only insuring the preservation of the status quo. The effects of racism continue to be a problem, but instead of dealing with them in real terms the courts have turned to a ridiculous conception of equality that fools only those who choose to remain blind to the crude reality. | |
<
< | As students, and most importantly, future lawyers, it is crucial that we avoid the traps set up by the façade of logic and make reality central to our practice of law. As noted by Steven Shapiro, National Director of the ACLU, the Roberts court has demonstrated insensitivity to issues of race and a grave detachment from real life experiences. Such detachment was made painfully clear during the oral argument for Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. _ (2008). Crawford was a voting rights case addressing a restrictive Indiana voter ID law, which could exclude upwards of 300,000 voters from the polls. As the counsel for Crawford attempted to explain, one of the obstacles was that the voters had to travel approximately seventeen miles to request an ID, a burden that would disproportionately affect impoverished people of color. To this, Chief Justice Roberts responded: “seventeen miles are seventeen miles regardless of whether you are rich or poor.” This seemingly straightforward factual statement by Roberts lacks as much truth as if one said that winter is winter whether it is in Michigan or in California. | >
> | As students, and most importantly, future lawyers, it is crucial that we avoid the traps set up by the façade of logic and make reality central to our practice of law. As noted by Steven Shapiro, National Director of the ACLU, the Roberts court has demonstrated insensitivity to issues of race and a grave detachment from real life experiences. Such detachment was made painfully clear during the oral argument for Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. _Trash. (2008). Crawford was a voting rights case addressing a restrictive Indiana voter ID law, which could exclude upwards of 300,000 voters from the polls. As the counsel for Crawford attempted to explain, one of the obstacles was that the voters had to travel approximately seventeen miles to request an ID, a burden that would disproportionately affect impoverished people of color. To this, Chief Justice Roberts responded: “seventeen miles are seventeen miles regardless of whether you are rich or poor.” This seemingly straightforward factual statement by Roberts lacks as much truth as if one said that winter is winter whether it is in Michigan or in California. | | | Although not an easy task, as future lawyers we can contribute to change in our society. In “The Path of the Law,” Holmes says that the law is about making predictions. We gather cases and in the mysterious compilation of opinions we find a stream of logic that will predict the outcome of our case. To really become agents of change, however, we need to identify the real motives behind the logic spewed by the courts and openly address the issues. It is crucial that we retain a true sense of reality and a profound understanding of our clients’ situation, a task that simply cannot be completed if we choose to deal with our clients in abstract and alienating legal terms. We need to be aware of the reality faced by the various sectors of our society, which could perhaps be accomplished through meaningful participation in clinical programs and the study of social phenomena. |
|