Was Brown v. Board of Education rotten?
And were Dred Scott v. Sandford or Plessy v. Ferguson good decisions?
Because the later parts of it were so badly written and so badly thought out that activist Judges could drive a truck through it. They could enact their own personal opinions, and claim it was justified because of the incorporation doctrine of the 14th.
The right answer to why we got the 14th Amendment and why it became so important is "segregation," but the judges would settle for "lynching."
I do not normally contemplate Brown v. Board of Education. My recollection from what I have read is that the legal reasoning behind it is pretty terrible, and it's pleading by Thurgood Marshall was won on emotion only.
Given what an idiot he turned out to be on later court decisions, I can believe his arguments in Brown were not very well thought out.
But emotion often wins minds where reason cannot.
And were Dred Scott v. Sandford or Plessy v. Ferguson good decisions?
Of the two, only Plessy v. Ferguson was after the 14th amendment, and it set up the ridiculous "separate but equal" doctrine. Dred Scott v. Sandford was essentially correct for the law at that time, but was erroneous in stating that blacks could not be citizens. That part was clearly wrong.
The right answer to why we got the 14th Amendment and why it became so important is "segregation," but the judges would settle for "lynching."
I think most of that had to do with this group of people constantly voting to keep Republicans in power, and most of the people in the South at that time saw them (the Republicans) as the people who were responsible for killing about 28% of their friends, relatives and acquaintances, and who were at that time keeping their foot on everyone's necks.
I have become cynical. I don't think either the Republicans or the Democrats gave a sh*t about black folk, they just used them as weapons in their ongoing war.