The Legal System as a Tool of Oppression

This is part two in an ongoing series detailing how past injustices affect the Black Community today:

The primary mechanism of oppression within the United States is the legal system. Powerful entities, encompassing various ideological groups, employ legal language, codes, and statutes to create an illusion of equality. This facade of fairness masks the reality that true equality remains elusive. To grasp the current predicament of Black America, one must scrutinize the Judicial System, particularly the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

The Role of the Supreme Court

Contrary to popular belief, the role of SCOTUS is not to dispense justice, but to safeguard the established system. The nine Justices act as the final arbiters and gatekeepers, ensuring that the status quo is maintained and that the beneficiaries of the system continue to prosper. This setup operates like an unqualified caste system, where power and influence are determined more by lineage than by race alone.

Upholding or Violating the Constitution?

While some may argue that the Supreme Court's duty is to uphold the Constitution, historical examples reveal a readiness to disregard constitutional principles. An illustrative case is Executive Order 9066, which mandated the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. This action violated the Fifth Amendment and should have been struck down as unconstitutional, yet it was upheld in the landmark case of Korematsu v. United States. The Court employed "Strict Scrutiny" to justify this glaring injustice. Though the decision was later recognized as a mistake. The rub is that it didn't just become wrong. It was wrong back then; and they did it regardless.

To understand the current plight of Black Americans, one must analyze key Supreme Court rulings that have shaped their status and rights. Three landmark cases are particularly instructive:

Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
Plessey v. Ferguson (1896)

We will examine these cases in the next part.