Christopher Darden 10 episodes, Kenneth Choi Judge Lance Ito 10 episodes, Christian Clemenson Bill Hodgman 10 episodes, Bruce Greenwood Gil Garcetti 10 episodes, Nathan Lane Lee Bailey 10 episodes, David Schwimmer Robert Kardashian 10 episodes, John Travolta Robert Shapiro 10 episodes, Darren Criss Andrew Cunanan 9 episodes, Dale Godboldo Douglas 9 episodes, Ariel D. Arnelle Simpson 9 episodes, Tye White Edit Storyline The People v. The trial isn't the whole story. Edit Details Official Sites: Official Facebook Official Twitter. Edit Did You Know?
Margaret York says "Nothing rings a bell" when signing the spousal conflict form, acknowledging that she had no recollections of any interactions with the list of people on the form, including Mark Fuhrman. The "nothing rings a bell" line is a reference to what Fuhrman said during the real trial. During his testimony, the defense asked him if he recalled meeting a woman named Kathleen Bell. Fuhrman replied that the name "doesn't ring a bell. York once worked as Fuhrman's superior officer, and Bell testified that she had met Fuhrman in the past.
Goofs In re-enacted freeway scenes, numbered exit signs can be seen. California didn't begin to number freeway exits until , after the events depicted. Connections Featured in WatchMojo: Frequently Asked Questions Q: Did the defense really redecorate OJ's house? How did OJ and Robert Kardashian know each other?
House of Cards
What was going on with the traffic stop scene? Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report this. Audible Download Audio Books. Simpson 11 episodes, Johnnie Cochran 11 episodes, Christopher Darden 10 episodes, Judge Lance Ito 10 episodes, Bill Hodgman 10 episodes, Gil Garcetti 10 episodes, Lee Bailey 10 episodes, Robert Kardashian 10 episodes, By a vote of , the Supreme Court ruled against Plessy. In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson , Justice Henry Billings Brown, writing the majority opinion, stated that:. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.
The lone dissenter, Justice John Marshal Harlan, interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment another way, stated, "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. Sadly, as a result of the Plessy decision, in the early twentieth century the Supreme Court continued to uphold the legality of Jim Crow laws and other forms of racial discrimination. In the case of Cumming v. County Board of Education , for instance, the Court refused to issue an injunction preventing a school board from spending tax money on a white high school when the same school board voted to close down a black high school for financial reasons.
Moreover, in Gong Lum v. Rice , the Court upheld a school's decision to bar a person of Chinese descent from a "white" school.
Some of the case information is from Patterson, James T. Oxford University Press; New York, Despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Plessy and similar cases, many people continued to press for the abolition of Jim Crow and other racially discriminatory laws. For about the first 20 years of its existence, it tried to persuade Congress and other legislative bodies to enact laws that would protect African Americans from lynchings and other racist actions.
Beginning in the s, though, the NAACP's Legal Defense and Education Fund began to turn to the courts to try to make progress in overcoming legally sanctioned discrimination. Houston, together with Thurgood Marshall, devised a strategy to attack Jim Crow laws by striking at them where they were perhaps weakest—in the field of education.
Maryland and Missouri ex rel Gaines v. After Houston returned to private practice in , Marshall became head of the Fund and used it to argue the cases of Sweat v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma Board of Regents of Higher Education. Disappointed that the University of Maryland School of Law was rejecting black applicants solely because of their race, beginning in Thurgood Marshall who was himself rejected from this law school because of its racial acceptance policies decided to challenge this practice in the Maryland court system.
Before a Baltimore City Court in , Marshall argued that Donald Gaines Murray was just as qualified as white applicants to attend the University of Maryland's School of Law and that it was solely due to his race that he was rejected.
Paperback Editions
Furthermore, he argued that since the "black" law schools which Murray would otherwise have to attend were nowhere near the same academic caliber as the University's law school, the University was violating the principle of "separate but equal. In , the Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of Murray and ordered the law school to admit him. Two years later, Murray graduated. The State of Missouri gave Gaines the option of either attending an all-black law school that it would build Missouri did not have any all-black law schools at this time or having Missouri help to pay for him to attend a law school in a neighboring state.
History - Brown v. Board of Education Re-enactment | United States Courts
By , his case reached the U. Supreme Court, and, in December of that year, the Court sided with him. The six-member majority stated that since a "black" law school did not currently exist in the State of Missouri, the "equal protection clause" required the state to provide, within its boundaries, a legal education for Gaines. In other words, since the state provided legal education for white students, it could not send black students, like Gaines, to school in another state. Encouraged by their victory in Gaines' case, the NAACP continued to attack legally sanctioned racial discrimination in higher education.
Hoping that it would not have to admit Sweat to the "white" law school if a "black" school already existed, elsewhere on the University's campus, the state hastily set up an underfunded "black" law school. He argued that the education that he was receiving in the "black" law school was not of the same academic caliber as the education that he would be receiving if he attended the "white" law school. When the case reached the U. Supreme Court in , the Court unanimously agreed with him, citing as its reason the blatant inequalities between the University's law school the school for whites and the hastily erected school for blacks.
In other words, the "black" law school was "separate," but not "equal. However, it required him to sit apart from the rest of his class, eat at a separate time and table from white students, etc.
- The Plessy Decision.
- The Ministry of Suffering.
- Hallowed Ground: The Ten Commandments.
McLaurin, stating that these actions were both unusual and resulting in adverse effects on his academic pursuits, sued to put an end to these practices. In an opinion delivered on the same day as the decision in Sweat , the Court stated that the University's actions concerning McLaurin were adversely affecting his ability to learn and ordered that they cease immediately. The case that came to be known as Brown v.
- Regina v. Brown [], House of Lords.
- House of Cards (TV Series –) - IMDb!
- R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75;
- Lautopsie dune faillite économique (French Edition);
- A Table of the Springs of Action- THE SEVERAL SPECIES OF PLEASURES AND PAINS OF WHICH MANS NATURE IS SUSCEPTIBLE;
Board of Education was actually the name given to five separate cases that were heard by the U. Supreme Court concerning the issue of segregation in public schools.