Thursday, September 26, 2019

Standards for Supreme Court Justices and Hugo Black

Hugo Black was a leftist liberal from the South appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR. Later it came out that he had been a member of the KKK, which lead to controversy surrounding his appointment. This brought up an interesting question, should Hugo's past have defined his future? Should his KKK membership have been enough to prevent him from being in the Supreme Court? 
In modern times, I think the answer would definitely be a yes. Even actors and comedians are held to a high standard of conduct, and racism, sexism, and homophobia are often career enders. Recently, SNL hired a writer who they later found out made offensive comments about Asian Americans, and he was immediately fired. Kevin Hart and Dave Chappelle faced backlash over comments/tweets about the LBGT community, and Scarlett Johansson has been in hot water for a long time over racial (and now transphobic) insensitivity. If the president tried to appoint an actual KKK member (even if he wasn't a member anymore) to the Supreme Court, there would be massive opposition. We don't live in a society where bigotry is allowed in any form, and hopefully a Supreme Court justice would be held to a higher standard than our entertainers. 
That said, our president has made comments that would have ended most people's careers. Elizabeth Warren listed herself as Native American when applying for college (and defended that choice multiple times), and Justin Trudeau has been outed for wearing blackface. Despite the backlash, all seem to be doing okay. Maybe this shows that our standards for politicians are actually lower than they are for other careers. Now that I'm thinking about, I'm not sure I could say Hugo wouldn't have been appointed to the Supreme Court in modern times. After all, the outrage over Brett Kavanaugh's appointment didn't actually stop him from becoming a justice. 

1 comment:

  1. While there certainly are issues with many people in politics, we tend to be more forgiving of politician's past actions. Looking at Elizabeth Warren, we can see she had a large scandal when Trump called her "Pocahontas" and she took a DNA test to prove her Native American heritage (and was then called out by Native American tribe leaders who said that blood isn't everything). https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-native-american.html However, Warren is still one of the top Democratic candidates for the 2020 election. One of the major things that saved her career is that her actions have proven that she has learned: not only meeting with and apologizing to Native American leaders, but also spending lots of money to further the protection of tribes and wellfare within them. I think one reason that we are more likely to forgive politician of their past action is that their actions speak much louder than their words: what are they currently doing to help the people? As long as this does not align with past issues, we are often likely to forgive, such as in the case of Elizabeth Warren.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

How Fast Fashion is Destroying the Environment and Exploits Workers

Fast fashion is cheap clothing that is mass-produced in order to be trendy and more fashionable. This clothing is essentially disposable as ...