Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T08:59:14.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Appealing to an Unlikely Branch

Minority Political Protest and the Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2013

Daniel Q. Gillion
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access

Summary

We couldn’t get anything through Congress… Nothing. We couldn’t even get the anti-lynching bill through. So you had to go to the courts. That was the only place that was a possibility. And we go and look at that and say, “Good God, that ain’t no chance either.” And so some of us said, “Let’s bang it in there and bang it in there, bang it in there, bang it in there.” And now where you going now? You know you can go to the courts if you want to know where we is now. That’s where we is now.

– Thurgood Marshall, interview with Juan Williams, 1989

Can the information stemming from minority protest garner a response from the Supreme Court? More specifically, does the Court respond to political behavior that expresses a racial or ethnic minority grievance? Justice Thurgood Marshall was at times indecisive about the answer to this question. When asked directly whether it was useless for minorities to appeal to the Supreme Court, he responded, “I can’t say that, but you see what the record shows” (Williams 1998). This response – neither confirming nor denying the possibility – reveals Justice Marshall’s uncertainty about the effectiveness of minority appeals to the Supreme Court. He was even less certain whether these appeals for government action should be made in the form of political protest.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Political Power of Protest
Minority Activism and Shifts in Public Policy
, pp. 117 - 146
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×