Civil Rights in America, a New but Old Debate. Meet My Grandfather, Julius W. Robertson, Esq.

Attorney Julius w. Robertson (Top Left) with clients and Attorney Dovey Jonhnson-Roundtree (Bottom Right) © Annette McGee (May not be used without permission)

Attorney Julius w. Robertson (Top Left) with clients and Attorney Dovey Jonhnson-Roundtree (Bottom Right) © Annette McGee (May not be used without permission)

WASHINGTON, DC -Julius Winfield Robertson (1916 – 1961) was known as a brilliant litigator, distinguished civil rights activist, author, much sought after speaker, and well-respected member of the legal community in good standing. He was also the lead attorney on the 1955 precedent-setting case Sarah Keys v. Carolina Coach Company.

Born of humble beginnings in rural Georgia, to a family of subsistence farmers, they subsequently moved to Tennessee for better opportunities. In his early 20s, he moved to Washington, DC, to escape the harsh realities of a black man living in the Deep South. While attending Howard University in 1944, Robertson wrote about racism in America in his book titled 'This Bird Must Fly," It formed the basis of his studies and his subsequent pursuit to remedy the inequitable treatment of African-Americans in a system dominated by segregation and Jim Crow Laws.

In 1948, Robertson graduated at the top of his class from Howard University with combined degrees (B.A. and LL.B.), and today because of his academic standing, he would have received the Order of the Coif.  The admissions committee at Harvard University Law School, having observed Robertson’s career, offered him a full scholarship to pursue his LL.M., but he was unable to accept the offer because of his young family.

He and classmate James Madison Nabrit, Jr. joined the ranks of renowned civil rights lawyers such as the former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall with whom they worked closely in his early years. Robertson, Nabrit, Jr., along with Attorney George E.C. Hayes, were deeply involved in the movement to dismantle segregation through the courts.

Robertson was admitted to the bar in the District of Columbia, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, U.S. Court of Claims, and the United States Supreme Court. He worked as a sole-proprietor until he established the law firm Robertson & Roundtree in 1952 as the senior and managing partner. Robertson hired Attorney Dovey J. Roundtree, upon her graduation from Howard University, and was credited by Roundtree as being her mentor.

He was sponsored to argue cases before the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time in 1952, then in 1954, 1955, 1959, and 1960 shortly before his untimely death. He was a member in good standing of the American Bar Association—one of its first ‘official’ Black members, the National Bar Association, and the District of Columbia Bar Association.

Robertson was recognized as a gifted intellectual with a broad range of knowledge of national and international geopolitics. As a constituent of Senator Estes Kefauver (D-Tenn.), Robertson, had many appointments with him to discuss critical Civil Rights issues. During these meetings, Kefauver discovered that Robertson spoke, wrote, and read fluent German. He then asked if Robertson would be willing to research and gain background information for a bill he was sponsoring.

Robertson reviewed the evidence presented during the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, particularly regarding “Permissible Medical Experiments,” the standards used to judge the German doctors on trial at the time. These became codified as the Nuremberg Code, which was used in part to establish “the requirements that all research participants be fully informed about potential risks or harm that may result from taking part in a study and that, based on this information, they voluntarily agree to participate.” 

Using this standard, Sen. Kefauver and Rep. Oren Harris (D-Ark.) sponsored a bill that “established a framework that required drug manufacturers to prove scientifically that a medication was not only safe but effective.” This legislation became known as the Kefauver-Harris Amendment; it was signed into law by President Kennedy on Oct. 10, 1962.

According to written reports and my mother's anecdotal stories, my grandfather was a brilliant litigator, distinguished civil rights activist and author, much sought after speaker, and well-respected member of the legal community in good standing.

It also seems at that time; my grandfather also enjoyed some press for his part in identifying and taking down a con-artist impersonator.

·     In 1944 my grandfather, Attorney Robertson, wrote about Race Relations in This Bird Must Fly.

·     JET Magazine, December 2, 1954, featured an article about this landmark case titled, ICC To Outlaw Jim Crow In Interstate Travel.

·     In 1955 Attorney Robertson argued a Civil Rights cases on behalf of the plaintiff Sarah Keys v. Carolina Coach Company

·     JET Magazine, November 23, 1961, pg. 50Smooth Talker Tangles With.

·     JET Magazine, July 13, 1961, pg. 23, His Obituary

Not only did Robertson pursue desegregation in the courts, his then-teenage daughter, Annette M. (Robertson) McGee, was in the 2nd ‘handpicked’ class to integrate the then ‘elite’ all-white college prep Theodore Roosevelt High School in Washington, D.C. Her selection was based upon academic acumen, outstanding grades, being from a professional and well-educated family, and possessing a clear understanding of the importance of their role in the Civil Rights movement in education.

 His Civil Rights movement legacy persists through his surviving children Annette M. (Robertson) McGee and her sister, Mrs. Dale (Robertson), and their children, who are lawyers and human rights activists.

CIVIL RIGHTS CASE BACKGROUND: MIDNIGHT IN THE JIM CROW SOUTH

The Keys case originated in an incident that occurred at a bus station in the tiny North Carolina town of Roanoke Rapids shortly after midnight on August 1, 1952, when African-American WAC private Sarah Keys was forced by a local bus driver to yield her seat in the front of the vehicle to a white Marine as she traveled homeward on furlough. At the time of the incident, Jim Crow laws entirely governed Southern bus travel, despite a 1946 Supreme Court ruling meant to put an end to the practice.

That decision, Morgan v. Virginia (328 US 373 (1946)), had declared state Jim Crow laws inoperative on interstate buses on the basis that the imposition of widely varying statutes on black passengers moving across state lines generated multiple seat changes and thus created the kind of disorder and inconsistency forbidden by the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Southern carriers managed to dodge the Morgan decision, however, bypassing segregation rules of their own, and those rules remained outside the purview of state and federal courts because they pertained to private businesses. Also, the federal agency charged with regulating the carriers, the Interstate Commerce Commission, had historically interpreted the Interstate Commerce Act's discrimination ban as permitting separate accommodations for the races so long as they were equal.

The ICC had ruled so consistently against black complainants since its establishment in 1887 that it had become known as "the Supreme Court of the Confederacy." The ICC's 'separate but equal' policy, upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in a 1950 railway dining car segregation case known as Henderson v. United States (399 US 816 (1950)), thus remained the norm in public transportation.

So hardened was the practice of Jim Crow in Southern travel when Sarah Keys made her journey in 1952 that even black travelers who had started their journey in the North on integrated trains or buses were, with few exceptions, forced to comply with Jim Crow carrier regulations once they crossed into the South.

When Sarah Keys departed her WAC post in Fort Dix, New Jersey on the evening of July 31, 1952 for her home in the town of Washington, North Carolina, she boarded an integrated bus and transferred without incident in Washington, D.C. to a Carolina Trailways vehicle, taking the fifth seat from the front in the white section.

When the bus pulled into the town of Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, however, a new driver took the wheel and demanded that she comply with the carrier's Jim Crow regulation by moving to the so-called "colored section" in the back of the bus so that a white Marine could occupy her seat. When Keys refused to move, the driver emptied the bus, directed the other passengers to another vehicle, and barred Keys from boarding it.

An altercation ensued, and Keys was arrested, charged with disorderly conduct, jailed incommunicado overnight, then convicted of the disorderly conduct charge and fined $25.

A THREE-YEAR BATTLE FOR JUSTICE

When that charge was sustained on appeal by a North Carolina lower court, Keys and her father brought the matter to the attention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) office in Washington, D.C., headed by Howard University Law School professor Frank D. Reeves.

With Thurgood Marshall, Reeves had run the Legal Defense Fund's New York City office in the early 1940s, and he was working with Marshall and his team in the early 1950s on the legal drive to end school segregation that would culminate in the groundbreaking 1954 Brown v. Board decision.

Reeves referred the Sarah Keys matter to his former law student, Julius W. Robertson, and his junior partner, Dovey Johnson Roundtree, a World War II WAC who had herself been subjected to Jim Crow during her military travels. The match of client and attorneys proved fortuitous.

Sarah Keys v. Carolina Coach Company, 64 MCC 769 (1955) is a landmark civil rights case in the United States in which the segregationist Interstate Commerce Commission, in response to a complaint filed in 1953 by a Women's Army Corps (WAC) private named Sarah Louise Keys, broke with its past racist practice and banned the segregation of black passengers in buses traveling across state lines.

The November 1955 ruling, publicly announced six days before Rosa Parks' historic defiance of state Jim Crow laws on Montgomery buses, applied the United States Supreme Court's logic in Brown v. Board of Education (347 US 483 (1954)) for the the first time to the field of interstate transportation, and closed the legal loophole that private bus companies had long exploited to impose their own Jim Crow regulations on black interstate travelers.

Keys v. Carolina Coach was the only explicit rejection ever made by either a court or a federal administrative body of the Plessy v. Ferguson (163 US 537 (1896)) 'separate but equal' doctrine in the field of bus travel across state lines, and the ruling made legal history both at the time of its issuance and again in 1961, when Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy invoked it in his successful battle to end Jim Crow travel during the Freedom Riders' campaign.

Attorney Robertson argued the case on the eve of the explosion of civil rights protest across America, and Keys v. Carolina Coach Company, along with its companion train desegregation case, NAACP v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, 298 ICC 335 (1955), represents a crucial milestone in the legal battle for racial justice in the United States.

Source: My mother, Annette M. (Robertson) McGee, and her sister, Mrs. Dale (Robertson) Ore, are the only surviving relatives of Attorney Julius Winfield Robertson and are available to verify and corroborate the information I have presented here. 

Editor-in-Chief: @ayannanahmias
LinkedIn: Ayanna Nahmias

Pressures on the System Threaten the Wealthy's Income Stream

robert-reich-tries-to-reach-the-mics-photo-by-klutzykristie.jpg

ROBERT REICH WEARS many hats. He is a professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. He brought his economic expertise to Republican Gerald Ford and Democrat Jimmy Carter's administrations. As Secretary of Labor during Bill Clinton's first stint in the White House, Reich oversaw an increase in the minimum wage and was an outspoken advocate of everyday Americans.

Reich is the focal point of the 2013 documentary 'Inequality For All.' His central assertion in the film is that while inequality drives the free market, severe wealth inequality makes the market stagnant. When the gap between the haves and have-nots is such that the bottom 47% of Americans have no wealth (and likely have significant debt), and 400 billionaires at the top have capital comparable to 80 million families, everyone loses out.

While I felt aligned with Reich's agenda from the beginning of the film, I did wonder how he would substantiate the claim that massive wealth inequality is bad for the very rich. I hoped that his rationale would go beyond some sort of moral-ethical dilemma of the one-percenters. As the film progressed, I got the quantitative documentation I was looking for.

During 'Inequality,' we follow a number of people, some billionaires, some struggling to keep enough food on the table for a family of four. The most telling interview came from the successful, thoughtful billionaire named Nick Hanauer. When asked about his yearly salary, he responds "anywhere from 10 million to 30 million." He acknowledges this is an absurd amount of money for one person to collect.

Hanauer describes how the gulf between ordinary Americans and a small circle of billionaires is actually bad for his business, and for the free market in general. As it turns out, billionaires only need a few pairs of blue jeans a year; they only purchase one or two pillows when necessary.

According to Hanauer, if his money was more evenly allocated throughout working class Americans, more consumers would be able to afford a new pair of jeans, and he would move more pillows. Sales would increase. Despite incredible capital and his position on the top of the economic ladder, Hanauer's bank account is hurt by inequality. The wealth disparity limits the free market system and each agent, rich or poor.

The documentary is not short on ways to address the widening wealth gap in the United States. Each facet of Reich's plan is rooted in years of economic research, not in dogma or partisan ideology. Some suggestions are a no-brainer. Decades ago, Japan showed the world that investing in education can be profitable for everyone. As Japan developed, officials prioritized training the workforce and made trade schooling widely available. Now, Japan is one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

Other calls for action are a thorough reform of Wall Street, more equitable tax policies, and greater oversight in the power of amassed wealth in the political system. Whether campaign contributions come from a multi-millionaire or a multi-national corporation, a small number of oligarchs are assuming the arms of democracy and monopolizing the ears of politicians, as per the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United.

While the challenge is great, Reich wants his viewers to feel empowered. Empowered to demand change, to refashion 'equality' from a buzzword to a basic requisite of the American way, to make sure that every person's voice is heard in their political system, regardless of the number of zeros and commas in his or her paycheck.

Follow Michael on Twitter Twitter: @nahmias_report Contributing Editor: @MAndrewRansom

Related articles

When Justice Backfires: At Least 4.1% Of Death Row Convicts Are Innocent

4189891692_85b2e5beed_z.jpg

Michael Ransom, Contributing EditorLast Modified: 20:38 p.m. DST, 6 May 2014

"Operating Room" Photo by: StudioTempuraWASHINGTON, DC - Until last week, the accuracy of death penalty application in the United States had been the subject of speculation. Given to the trades of debate and guesswork, even prominent thinkers with important positions in the judicial system add to the growing body of conjecture. In 2007, Justice Antonin Scalia calculated that the American legal system is correct 99.973% of the time. His math, data and motives are altogether dubious, and his claims carry very little weight in both judicial and scientific circles. 

Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death is a landmark study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and written by Gross, O'Brien, Hu and Kennedy, who are researchers at University of Michigan Law, Michigan State Law, American College of Radiology and University of Pennsylvania Medicine, respectively. They conclude that no less than 4.1% of death row inmates have been wrongly convicted, a percentage they say is the most conservative calculation possible, according to records from 1989 to 2012.

These experts use data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics from the Department of Justice and numbers from The Death Penalty Information Center to arrive at their findings. Using survival analysis, the team is able to isolate the frequency at which wrongful convictions are overturned, and apply that ratio to the death row population. Resources and legal expertise are rationed to inmates nearing their scheduled execution, and survival analysis standardizes the effects of these efforts in uncovering groundless convictions across the board. The authors of the study and many in the national conversation agree that the true number of innocent convicts living on death row is much higher.

Meanwhile, executions throughout the country have gained considerable media attention. As European producers of lethal drugs have stopped supplying their products to the United States for the express purpose of execution, officials have struggled to obtain injections that are neither cruel nor unusual. Last week, convicted murderer and rapist Clayton Lockett was put to death in Oklahoma with a needle that introduced only certain ingredients of the drug cocktail into his bloodstream. Lockett's execution was halted midway, and he died ten minutes later of a heart attack. Charles Warner is the next to be executed in Oklahoma, and he is seeking postponement while Lockett's proceedings are investigated by a third-party.

1 2 Next Page »

Published: 6 May 2014 (Page 2 of 2)

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma has recently sounded off on inmates' request for the names and types of substances that they will be administered. The court found that it is constitutional to withhold this information from convicts. Justice Steven Taylor responded that they had no more right to this disclosure than "if they were being executed in the electric chair, they would have no right to know whether OG&E or PSO were providing the electricity; if they were being hanged, they would have no right to know whether it be cotton or nylon rope; or if they were being executed by firing squad, they would have no right to know whether it be by Winchester or Remington ammunition."

Well, that sounded poetic, and almost made sense. But Lockett's inadequate execution is just one of many similar cases recently, ever since untested American drugs have taken the place of better-researched European counterparts. This national experiment has yielded cruel results, such as the Ohio inmate who cried "I can feel my whole body burning" during his lethal injection earlier this year. So, Taylor's statement would be more accurate if he offered comparisons that mirror the humane nature of former injections and the inhumane reality of newer concoctions. Surely Taylor would agree that death row convicts should know whether they would be killed by high voltage or low voltage electric shocks; nylon rope or barbed wire; Winchester rounds or rubber bullets. Similarly, Taylor should acknowledge the inherent difference between the type of injection that renders the individual unconscious before killing him, and the type that leaves people writhing on the gurney, slowly dying from a heart attack. 

True, the crimes of these two men in Oklahoma are heinous, and true, they should never be free to walk the streets again. But soon the nation will have to come to terms with the costs of capital punishment, and not in terms of dollars and cents. Of the 121 inmates on death row in Arizona, at least 5 are innocent according to Rate of false conviction. In Texas, the national sanctuary of  the death penalty, 273 are awaiting execution and no less than 10 of these individuals are innocent. California's collection of convicts numbers 746, which includes at least 29 innocent people. Nationwide, 3,108 offenders are waiting on death row. The only problem? 124 of these people did not commit the offense. And probably more.

A common and intelligible rallying cry behind the death penalty is "if your loved one was senselessly taken by a vicious predator, maybe then you would understand." Certainly. It is a tragedy that anyone should be taken before their time. Inherent in that statement, though, is the value of human life, especially moral and upright people. Americans will need to address issues in the application of the death penalty and the conditions in society that make murder and rape commonplace. When the stakes are life and death, why perpetuate the injustice to 124+ more victims? Why extend that pain to countless more family members?

These 124 and more upcoming executions are preventable deaths. The desire to apply justice to reprehensible perpetrators should not turn us into criminals ourselves.

Return to Page 1 »

 

Follow Michael on Twitter Twitter: @nahmias_report Contributing Editor: @MAndrewRansom

India to Recognize Third Gender

hijra-dance-chhath-festival-strand-road-kolkata-2013-11-09-source-wikipedia.jpg

INDIA - A decision was made on 15 April 2014 in favor of the 3 million Indians who are transgender. On legal forms, there is now a third category marked either "transgender" or "other." The Indian constitution orders against gender discrimination and more and more people are beginning to realize that that includes more than just men and women.

Transgender is defined as someone who has acquired physical characteristics of the opposite sex, who identify as neither male or female, or who present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth.

Among other things, transgendered people now have the legal right to adopt children and to have the same jobs as non-transgendered people. Before the law, the majority was either restricted to "show" careers -- singing and dancing -- or to a life of begging or prostitution. Now if needed they can be included in welfare programs that help provide jobs, education and healthcare.

Public toilets for the transgender community as well as transgender-specific health services are now available. India has also launched public awareness campaigns to fight the stigma against transgender people.

Since the ruling, 28,000 people have chosen to identify themselves as "other" on voter registration forms.

Follow Sarah on Twitter Twitter: @nahmias_report Contributing Journalist: @SJJakubowski

Related articles