Lopez & Olivas

Lopez & Olivas - L '. Shh; Mam 1r ban» CHM-.30!...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: L '. Shh; Mam 1r ban» CHM-.30! alibi» 23:34 .. _______________—-———- [an Heme}...r Lepez- at Michael A. Olives Jim Grew, Mexieen Americans, and the Anti— Suberdinefien Cenetitutien: The Stery ef Hernandez v. Texas Introduction. Brown. e. Home! rgf'Edueetrion has. been “e‘ivflelj,r celebrated as the first rleeieien in which the Supreme Cean nele unified under the leadership {g5 of Chief Juetiee Earl 'lr‘llerree1 eet eut te dismantle Jim l{Irenar segrega— tien.L Hut it was net. T'het :lletinetien helengs te an elmnet entirely 5‘3 Fergetten jury exelueien ear-3e derided twe weeke earlier: Hernandez e. hener nf being reeegeized the llret Teacsz Hernandez deeervee the t.“ It is else the first Supreme civil rights; deeieien eF Llle Warren Cner —,—-—'— ‘Eren L'ne metieulnue btiehnrd Kluger describes ETflwi'i‘ ee "Warren's first majer new efErewn v. Beere epielen ee GhjeFJuetjee." Riel-lard Kluger. Si.r.r.r_e."e Jeetiee: 'I'J'm Hie el' Education am! Filed: Arrren'ee's Struggle fer Equality TUE Wintege Beaks 1.9772 (1.9753. 3 3-1 '1‘ LIE. 4T5 Ill Elf-:4}. 7' See "Calm-ed Men” emf “Harriers-e P.qu ".' Hernandez 1:. 'l‘exee end the Emete’ewre ej' .Mé‘xr'crtn—r’tmerierm Lawyer-fag {Michael A. Dli‘.‘ee ed. eeeee; lar- Heney Lepez, Here eee‘ Bela-trimmers utter Hernandez em! Brown. :55 {lllleenu- Letiee l.-. Tier. E51 [2W5] [hereineil ewe}: Len F'. Haney Lem-e, Here. Ethnlriiy, Erasure: The Salient-e of 11'!- I'litlll'T'l. See also Symposium. flJmmemeretieg like 593.71 fiJuti::eree@ e," Hernandez v. 'l'exee, 2:3: Chicane—Latina L. Rev. 1 feeeeh; Sympoei- A 50:}; A.1.-tt':mree:-'y {.‘el'eeretiee, ll. Tex. l-Liep. J.J_.-. 5'; l’el'z.r 11 Mexican :LfieriL-erte and the Perm-[ex ell” [er Hernandez earn! Br Rece- .Le Tm'Cr-ii The-em, 35 Gel. L. HEN. Ll“ 11m, Hernandez v Texas,- {fllflfi-l; Clare Sheridan, ".-"1reJ.t.’.~er 'r‘r'hite Rene": White-nesa in My Seleefz'en, 21 Law & l-liet. Rev. 1119 [20(13): Geerge A. Martinez. Leger" inderea'JnErrecy, Judicial Uieereiien and the Mexrmrt Ameriren Lirlger'ien Experienee: 133:1?— E’NANDEZ t'. TEJGLS .e speak Spanislaf‘” iding nn bias on the. effered in a eeneur- {Jenner theught lL 'iselyr with Hispanic: -.tines. Because the aeial terms, J ustiee al interventlnn. The dust-iee O‘Cenner tier h.er eta-ser tied a peremptory strike aetien Clause unless ll]'|tJl:"_1 T'Htlli' [lflflfl 1101: .e utters that term. rd: Say it, and race a talismanie i'ernial- :enneetien te sneial e fern-Is tl'le earner- treatment in l'E-LtLiI-ll the fie-urth narrow 1 at mere physical :hy er hlstery, then ysieal difference er Raee beeernes the at result; otherwise, at seeial life. But in that etiristltntienal entienal diseriuiina- purposeful raeisn'l d that “it taxes eur :eneluding that the it was a censuieus :irier.””"' {Lani-let. we say that the racial . ft'nrtl mere shat-lee? =hites are sentenced leteti nf murdering 5n; .Hrrt'ei uyr'i’ere.'.l.'lnte.lj'.' 132' {emphasis in seeend _-.-:'».'r-;s.=...,. ' ' a : new Haeer Leena a, MICHAEL a. etwas set blaelts, this result hespealts diseriminatien, whether er nnt we can identify a partieular biased aeter? fines is net merely a ward er a skin pigment, but a seeial identity deeply eenneeted te histnry and pewer, privilege and disadvantage. It makes a travesty at the Feurteenth Amendment tn refuse in see Metlleskey’s ease as rented in the eentext at a Geergia penal system steeped in raeial nppressien. It" the Ceurt’s pinbhed eeneeptien of race lends supper-L te an intent test, it alse allews the Ceurt to equate raee-eenseieus remedies with raeisrn. Under a eelerhlind standard, nethiner differentiates raeisin frern affirmative aetien, Ji n1 Crew frern raeial rernediatien. Witness J ust-iee Ularenee Themas’s deelaratien that “there is a ‘mersl Landl eenstitutien- al equivalenee’ between laws designed te subjugate a raee and these that distribute benefits en the basis of lane in nrder in faster seme eurrent netien ef equality.”mu Hew can affirmative aetien be the equivalent ef the segregated juries, seheels, restaurants, and bathreeins in Jaeltsen Lleunty, Texas? The answer again lies in the eeler‘nlind Court‘s artifieial- ly emptyr eeneeptien nf raee. 1|Ether: the (leurt abstracts rat-e f rem seeial eentexi and greup eent'liet, iL reduees the harm nf racism te a vielatien of liberal net-ms. Under this eeneeptien, te treat semenne differently en the basis of rate aineunts in favering er disfiivering individuals en the basis eF eriteria ever ivhieh they have little er ne eentrel. This ie be sure, a potential issue with affirmative aetien, as it is with a wide range of distinetinns eur seeietv eemmenly makes—meet eemmnnly, these asseei— ated with wealth. But a mere inipeverished understanding ef the harms ef Jini Crew ean seareely' be eenjured. The lawyers fer Hernandez spent heurs en the read every .rnnrning traveling tn the Jaeksen C-eunty' seat in argue the ease; they left every evening, fer leek ef aeenrnniedatiens available te Mexican Amerieans and beeause they feared fer their safety- sheuld they remain.”' As Hernandez etnpl‘iatieallj.r demnnstrates, the prineipal harm ef raeism invnlves vielent suberdinatien. net the trans— gression ef ineritneratie nemns. Today’s fleurt gets raeisni backwards. The Justiees deny that raeism eperatesl ne matter haw stark the impaet, if as state aeter speeitiealiy invekes rate, even theugh meet raeisin new eeeurs threugh institutional- ized praetiees.‘22 At the same time, under striet serutiny the CUIJTL eeneludes that virtuallyr any explicit use at raee ameunts tn raeisni. In faet, iheughI efferts te enunieraet raeial eppressien’s extensive harms 1?" r‘idarand Constructive, Inc. v. Pena. 515 H.5- Enn, 34'] H.995] “110111115. Ju “WERN- ring] teitatinn emitted]. [31 Gamia, supra: nnte 1280:! genernfi'ir' Ien F. Entity Lit-pee. institute-aunt Rat-ism: Jitrtr'cinf Col-‘dt't‘f find a New Theerjv sf Reefer: Dist'r'r'rrurrttitfifl. Wt? Yale Lal— ljt'? iii—lug} HUSH-2335113 l'l'I-‘E “Pi-imam! ni'inatltutiund; raeisiu in the judicial assure}. 3%: 'THE E'ffl'R‘r’ OF HERNfiNDEE a. TE.an must refer to race and sheuld net be presumptivelv suspect. This misunderstanding ef racism is anchered by a narrevv ceneeptien ef race. It is raee-as-a—werd—that—rnust-he-uttered-fer—itshsexist, rat-.e-as-skin—cel- rir-discennected-fruni-seeial—praetiee-er—natiena1-histnry, which under— glrds eelerbliudness. We can best: eppese this understanding ni' race, and the perverse censtifutienal results it justifies, by insisting en the deep ennnectien between race and seeial inequality. Herein lies the single Inc-st impertant insight ef Hernandez L'. Texas. The care issue is net whether effieers ef the state direct-l}r invelied race, as the current. fleurt weuld require. In eensidering whether equal pretectaen eernrnands the Court's lnterventlen, Chief Justice Warren clearly stated in Hernmtriea that the he}P censtitutienal questions centered on whether "a distinct class" suffered “different treatrnent”—whieh is te say. whether the greup seeking pretectien was treated as inferier bv eernrnunit}r practices. and whether the challenged practice farmed part of that larger web at" suberdinatien. The F‘eurteenth Amendment eannet be returned tn the test: ef racial emancipatien until the Supreme fleurt reeeg'nises that Hernandez a. Texas raised the eerrect eeneerus and begins asking these questiens anew. Epilogue Just as the iinpertsnt lessens a‘f Hernandez have been largel‘vtP fergetten. se tea has the fate ef the defendant Pete Hernandez. Uri L‘s-lay 'r'. 1354, feur days after the Supreme Lleurt issued its decisien, the Texas Department ef l[Earreetiens netit'ied the Jackson Gaunt}; Sheriff that. Hernandez, prisener number 124I4T, was te be remanded tn :lacltsen fleuntv Fer retrial.“ Becau he suffered frem a severely clubbed feet. T-lernander. had never been handed ever in a state priseu er put intn the general pepulatlen; instead, he. had been sequestered in the Jackeim County jail during the entire appeal precess. On September 28. 195:4, Hernandez was re-indieted, and en Octeher IE, Gus Garcia filed a metien fer a change at venue. When he prevailed, the new trial was moved Le Ret'ugie flaunts. near Cerpus lShristi.124 On Nevereber L5, 1954, the seeenti trial was held. with Gar-eta arguing the case.” Despite the 13* Pe'e Hernandez r's He—fnrflci'sfi Hy Jury, Edna Herald, 23, 195-4. at 1. On June |. m. 1953;. the case was fern-rally remanded Le the Texas Ceurt nf Criminal Appeals. and fear days Later the remanded case was filed Lhere. lei. 12* _-'t-.'.; Garcia was! .43}.- .Ian Wears Change in Pete Hernandez Trait. Edna Herald. May 2?, 1.954, at 1. The article lists. at] the indicfiiiems handed riewn by that grand j'.11":.'. which included twelve persens. twe ef them with Hispanic names {Ysabel Tiarrun and Seal—iris Hedi-trams]. See Elf-ND Murder Trial Me; Be Nee. if}, "Edna Herald. Get. 21. was, at ]. Flaf'ugiu County is near Corpus Christi. anti has 3 lflnl—L EliSEUJ'J' 0:" flnLi-Mfifll‘a‘m PEI-“Ell”?!- See grru’rf-Ulfjt' Tint-art Husnn, Refugio: It {:DrfiJ'JJ‘itflfi'flsiLié‘ Hisrem' re" Hefirgin (lean!)- ,r'i'nin Aboriginal Times 5:;- i'r'ifiil [1953 d: It’ll-id). 1‘35 Heme-en's: Dae Par-rise, La Prensa [San Anteatie'l. June 1:1, lEIEU. at 'l. ...
View Full Document

Page1 / 3

Lopez & Olivas - L '. Shh; Mam 1r ban» CHM-.30!...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online