REVERSE RACISM IN THE COURTS

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will be hearing the Arizona immigration law case, is the most liberal appellate court in the land. Recently it made a race-based decision that is a terrible travesty of justice.
　
Last month, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit overturned the conviction of Steven Frank Jackson for the brutal rape of a 72-year-old great-grandmother despite solid DNA evidence of his guilt. Two of the three judges were black, as is Jackson, while the victim was white.
　
The judges ruled that Jackson did not get a fair trial because the Sacramento County prosecutors dismissed two African-Americans during jury selection.
　
One of those dismissed was a black man who admitted having "a lot of baggage" in light of a niece and nephew being molested by a family member. He also told the court a friend had been convicted of rape. He was removed because he was unpredictable, prosecutors said.
　
The other prospective juror, a black woman, was dismissed because she had a master's degree in social work, a red flag for prosecutors. Stewart Katz, a criminal defense lawyer, notes that "It's no secret that some professions make better jurors for the prosecution and others for the defense."
　
There was one African-American on the jury that convicted Jackson of first-degree burglary, forced oral copulation, three counts of forcible sexual penetration and 10 counts of forcible rape. Jackson's conviction was his "third strike" and came with a prison sentence of 310 years to life.

Only one African-American on a panel of 12 jurors does not seem to be unfair for Sacramento County where only 10 percent of the population is black. Thus Jackson’s jury was truly representative of his peers.
　
After the court overturned Jackson’s conviction, the victim's son asked, "What do the judges consider representative? Is it African American men with a criminal history?"

The court’s ruling is a clear cut case of reverse racism and a terrible travesty of justice.
　
Here is what Bob Walsh had to say:
　
__There is a significant chunk of society that believes it is not possible for anyone other than a white person to be racist. They believe that, due to the unequal distribution of wealth / power / whatever in this society that virtually all whites (especially white men) are inherently racist, and that it is functionally impossible for a non-white to be racist. Its idiotic, but its there.
　
And here is what Paco had to say:
　
__Racism (reverse or otherwise) and a lack of common sense are not mutually exclusive. Clearly, the judges applied faulty, racially based reasoning in issuing a ruling [that] lacks common sense. How, then, is "reverse racism" so easily dismissed?
　
__Given the overwhelming evidence of [Jackson’s] guilt, it is difficult to imagine any jury exonerating him. Thus, it is equally difficult to infer anything but racism in the ruling. [The overturning of the conviction] leads to the unavoidable conclusion the Court [was] blinded by color. It’s high time we checked Lady Justice’s blindfold.