What Fresh Hell Is This?

March 13, 2013


Last month at the PPT it was 1776.  This month it's a play called Thurgood.

From the Public Theater's website:
In 1967, Thurgood Marshall became our first African-American Supreme Court Justice. In this exuberant one-man play we hear Thurgood’s story in his own words – from humble beginnings as a waiter in Baltimore, to behind the scenes with leaders such as General MacArthur, Robert Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson, to his triumphant rise to the highest court in the land. A journey of epic proportions, Thurgood is an eye-opening, humorous, and uplifting portrait of a true American hero.
The show opened a few days ago and will run until April 7th.  It's already attracting some local attention.

From the Trib:
In theater, whether it's telling a joke or producing a play, timing is often the key to success.
[PPT Director Ted] Pappas wanted to include the play in the season because: “It's a subject that matters enormously to me and should matter to others,” Pappas says.

What Pappas couldn't have anticipated was that “Thurgood” would arrive at the O'Reilly Theater stage while the Supreme Court was pondering arguments about whether some protections for racial minorities covered by the 1965 Voting Rights Act were still necessary.
Specifically, the discussion is about Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and Justice Antonin Scalia's assertion that the protections afforded by that section are something of an unecessary "entitlement" that Congress is not likely to vote down.  From the transcript:
And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don't think that's attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It's been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.

I don't think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless -- unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution.
The discussion continues, I guess.

No comments: