Plessy Dissent

    Justice Harlan writes about his side, or the losing side, of the argument in hopes of convincing others in the board how poor their decision was. He wanted to show that not everyone on the board had the same thought process as the majority rule. His dissent could even spark another case to bring up the same information and reassess the given decision.

     Writing it out not only helps him remember what he thought during the trial, but also shows others his thought process. People are more likely to believe you if you have the facts to back up your opinion, which Harlan has lots of.

Personally, I think that Judge Harlan makes a good argument, but that might just be me putting my own two sense into the court. He makes the argument that the majority was incorrect in their decision, because it is not upholding the personal liberties and/or the civil rights that are supposed to be given to everyone. He states that the constitution is "colorblind", but the legislature acts differently. 

    In 1896, if others heard his argument, many of them would call him crazy and say that he is incorrect, because they are scared of letting blacks and white mingle openly together. In 2020, people would come to Justice Harlan with open arms and thank him for standing against the majority and for fighting for what is right. 

    As society has progressed, we have learned the error of our ways. Society finally realized that everyone SHOULD be treated equally no matter of race, religion, gender, etc. Most of us share a common goal of wanting to be the best versions of ourselves and making a mark in the world, and it is hard to be great if you are letting little things get in the way.

    Harlan's dissent sheds light that there was hope back then for African Americans, and that they were never alone. It shines a beacon on the fact that they would soon be closer to justice.

Bakke vs. Regents of the University of California

     For background reasons, this case talks of the California Board of Education setting up a quota system to set aside sixteen spots for minorities in the University of California Medical School at Davis to get rid of racial exclusions in the field. Allan Bakke was thirty-five year old white man who was rejected twice from the school. Bakke's claim was that he was way more qualified than any of the minorities who were allowed admission, and tried to argue that he was excluded because of his race.

    Now, while we all can see that the "basis of race" argument is completely absurd, here are some other arguments that the regents had. First off, the school wanted to have fairness for those who may not have had access to the same resources in their life. This affirmative action program would not only expand academic variety, but it would also bring more students of color into top level schools. Also, this policy was not just based on race, since it also had to do with those who struggled economically. This final question that I found interesting and that I will leave you with is "Why didn't other people who didn't get into the school sue, as well?"

    On Bakke's side his main defense was that he was a victim of "reverse discrimination", which does not exist, and that he had better qualifications, test scores and grades, than those who were actually accepted into the university. His defense states that this violated Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which deals with equal protections in schools. He also tries to state that he was discriminated against because of his age, considering he was 35 upon the time of the case. Bakke's last argument was that he was the perfect example of a well-rounded student since he had the grades, the scores, and that he served in the military, which caused his application to the university at such a late age.

    I will leave you with the facts to determine whether you support the court's decision to allow Bakke to attend the school and to rule the quota system as unconstitutional. Also, it was decided that race could be a factor that was used in the admissions process.

The Peoples Influence on Constitutional Law

     The Supreme Court has always had the first say in cases that they undertook, but several legal scholars have dove deeper in the what truly happens behind the scenes. It was found that plenty of "non-judicial actors," which could be anyone from activists to legislators, were actually big influences on interpreting the constitutional law and creating limits on the ones that we abide by everyday.

    When we think of constitutional law you think it was decided by a bunch of old white men sitting on the Supreme Court, but there was impact from those who are everyday people, such as you and I. This article illustrates that we do not spend enough time focusing on how much these "social actors" who work with the judiciary system to shape the law into what it has become today. I leave you with this hard sought after question which is whether we should change the judicial system from a strict interpretation of the constitution to a more representative interpretation. 

    Michael Gerdhart created the theory of non-judicial precedents which are essentially beliefs from the constitution that were set in the previous judicial system to control certain affairs. His proof was that these "non-judicial actors" would go around sparking conversations about what they felt strongly about. They would talk to officials with high standings and preach about how the public feels about certain issues happening in and around the court system.

    In the end, the Supreme Court system is not just made up of the opinions of those on the court, but can also be highly influenced by those who have enough of a voice to share it with others.