<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Convictions : racial discrimination</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/racial+discrimination/default.aspx</link><description>Tags: racial discrimination</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.2)</generator><item><title>Recusal Quiz Answered</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/05/31/recusal-quiz-answered.aspx</link><pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2008 20:47:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">b38b617e-fbf1-4816-b2a6-f11ec83af8cb:3024</guid><dc:creator>Diane Marie Amann</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/comments/3024.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/commentrss.aspx?PostID=3024</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;P&gt;Can't let the month of May end without answering the &lt;A href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/05/13/recusal-quiz.aspx"&gt;Recusal Quiz&lt;/A&gt; question. As readers will recall, the quiz was occasioned by &lt;A href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/washington/13scotus.html?_r=2&amp;amp;scp=10&amp;amp;sq=supreme+court&amp;amp;st=nyt&amp;amp;oref=slogin&amp;amp;oref=slogin"&gt;Linda Greenhouse's report that the Supreme Court had&amp;nbsp;affirmed&lt;/A&gt; a lower court decision. The reason? Four&amp;nbsp;justices recused themselves on account of "&lt;A href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/washington/13scotus.html?_r=1&amp;amp;scp=10&amp;amp;sq=supreme+court&amp;amp;st=nyt&amp;amp;oref=slogin"&gt;[f]inancial and personal conflicts of interest&lt;/A&gt;" in&amp;nbsp;the case, in which victims of the apartheid&amp;nbsp;era seek damages from&amp;nbsp;myriad corporations that did business in South Africa during that time. Over at &lt;EM&gt;Opinio Juris&lt;/EM&gt;, &lt;A href="http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1210952827.shtml"&gt;Roger&amp;nbsp;Alford wondered whether "anything like this" had occurred "in such an important case&lt;/A&gt;." Convictions' Recusal Quiz posed that question more pointedly:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;In what case decided 60 years ago this month did three justices recuse themselves because they had a financial stake in the outcome of the issue at bar?&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The answer:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1947/1947_72/"&gt;&lt;EM&gt;Shelley v. Kraemer&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/A&gt;, decided May 3, 1948, in which the court held that a state judge violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14&lt;SUP&gt;th&lt;/SUP&gt; Amendment by enforcing a deed covenant that forbade the transfer of property to African-American buyers.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The vote in &lt;EM&gt;Shelley&lt;/EM&gt;&amp;nbsp;was 6-0. The reason? Justices Robert H. Jackson, Stanley Reed, and Wiley B. Rutledge recused themselves; each owned property subject to racially restrictive covenants. Had one&amp;nbsp;more justice been in the same situation, the court would have lacked a quorum in &lt;EM&gt;Shelley&lt;/EM&gt;. Instead of a unanimous vote against, the result would have been a vote&amp;nbsp;in favor of racially restrictive covenants—and that result would have obtained until&amp;nbsp;either&amp;nbsp;the composition of the court or the&amp;nbsp;property holdings of its members changed.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.slate.com/blogs/aggbug.aspx?PostID=3024" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/Supreme+Court/default.aspx">Supreme Court</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/Linda+Greenhouse/default.aspx">Linda Greenhouse</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/racial+discrimination/default.aspx">racial discrimination</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/Shelley+v.+Kraemer/default.aspx">Shelley v. Kraemer</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/Roger+Alford/default.aspx">Roger Alford</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/Alien+Tort+Statute/default.aspx">Alien Tort Statute</category></item><item><title>Dispatch From Malibu—Of Strikes, Star(r)s, Shutterbugs, and Settlements</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/05/14/dispatch-from-malibu-of-strikes-star-rs-shutterbugs-and-settlements.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 09:02:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">b38b617e-fbf1-4816-b2a6-f11ec83af8cb:2854</guid><dc:creator>Doug Kmiec</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/comments/2854.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/commentrss.aspx?PostID=2854</wfw:commentRss><description>Hollywood is struggling with strikes and there's no rest from paparazzi in Malibu, but Dean Ken Starr may be riding to the rescue of damsels Spears, Lohan and others.  Meanwhile, the entertainment industry settles a big race discrimination case against itself, but shouldn't overlook its pilot potential....(&lt;a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/05/14/dispatch-from-malibu-of-strikes-star-rs-shutterbugs-and-settlements.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www.slate.com/blogs/aggbug.aspx?PostID=2854" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/racial+discrimination/default.aspx">racial discrimination</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/britney+spears/default.aspx">britney spears</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/hollywood/default.aspx">hollywood</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/malibu/default.aspx">malibu</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/lindsay+lohan/default.aspx">lindsay lohan</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/screen+actors+strike/default.aspx">screen actors strike</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/ninth+circuit/default.aspx">ninth circuit</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/ken+starr/default.aspx">ken starr</category></item></channel></rss>