The United States has a long history of the using the legal system to enforce Jim Crow laws… but really, most of the injustice is just persistent bias at every stage of the judicial process–from being stopped by police, to being arrested by police, to be tried in court, to being sentenced. Black people are just stopped more, arrested more, tried more, convicted more, and sentenced to harsher punishments. There’s no need to EXPLICITLY spell it out. Everyone just knows to do their job to enforce white supremacy within the letter of the law.
That said, there are definitely some laws to help along the police state oppression: civil forfeiture, qualified immunity, lower civil rights protections in “high crime areas” (read: black neighborhoods).
The way you ask your question, though, it makes it sound like you’re asking when the justice system gives its EXPLCIT BLESSING to injustice, as opposed to just ALLOWING it to happen. I think that’s much rarer.
I think you are misunderstanding me. I agree with you, but i’m differentiating between the justice system explicitly legalizing criminality and the justice procedurally ignoring it. Dredd Scott is an example of the former, Epstein is an example of the latter.
Injustice remains injustice, even if those in power declare it to be just. However, if they ignore the law and no one holds them accountable, there can be no hope for improvement, because that is only possible in a state where the law no longer matters.
What interests me is when this happened. It was apparently a gradual transition, unlike in Nazi Germany, where the law was explicitly changed to justify inhumanity.
The U.S. Nazis thus seem to be pursuing a different strategy to seize absolute power—a strategy that U.S. citizens are evidently enabling them to carry out because what they do is blatantly illegal, but the law is not enforced.
At the point that it does.
For the United States: somewhere around 1857–charitably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott
That was a long time ago—here in Germany, it was 1933 when Hitler enacted the so-called Enabling Act.
Nazi Germany was defeated in World War II, but U.S. billionaires made sure that their counterparts were never held accountable for their crimes.
That is why, in light of recent events, I ask
The United States has a long history of the using the legal system to enforce Jim Crow laws… but really, most of the injustice is just persistent bias at every stage of the judicial process–from being stopped by police, to being arrested by police, to be tried in court, to being sentenced. Black people are just stopped more, arrested more, tried more, convicted more, and sentenced to harsher punishments. There’s no need to EXPLICITLY spell it out. Everyone just knows to do their job to enforce white supremacy within the letter of the law.
That said, there are definitely some laws to help along the police state oppression: civil forfeiture, qualified immunity, lower civil rights protections in “high crime areas” (read: black neighborhoods).
The way you ask your question, though, it makes it sound like you’re asking when the justice system gives its EXPLCIT BLESSING to injustice, as opposed to just ALLOWING it to happen. I think that’s much rarer.
I can’t understand how you can still believe you’re living in a functioning constitutional state.
Everything you say is completely refuted by the Epstein case alone.
I can’t understand how anyone can be so blind.
As I said, in Germany, massive violence was necessary to bring about Nazi rule.
In the U.S., that doesn’t even seem to be necessary, because its citizens apparently view blatant injustice as the norm.
The point at which the U.S. legal system endorses absolute injustice has long since been reached. Even the Supreme Court agrees.
I think you are misunderstanding me. I agree with you, but i’m differentiating between the justice system explicitly legalizing criminality and the justice procedurally ignoring it. Dredd Scott is an example of the former, Epstein is an example of the latter.
I know exactly where my passport is.
Does it make a difference?
Injustice remains injustice, even if those in power declare it to be just. However, if they ignore the law and no one holds them accountable, there can be no hope for improvement, because that is only possible in a state where the law no longer matters.
What interests me is when this happened. It was apparently a gradual transition, unlike in Nazi Germany, where the law was explicitly changed to justify inhumanity.
The U.S. Nazis thus seem to be pursuing a different strategy to seize absolute power—a strategy that U.S. citizens are evidently enabling them to carry out because what they do is blatantly illegal, but the law is not enforced.