June 29, 2007 12:45 AM
Brown vs. the Roberts Supreme Court
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision overruling two school racial diversity plans would be bad enough. But Chief Justice Roberts' explanation -- that his ruling was "faithful to the heritage" of Brown v. Board of Education -- went well beyond bad.
Roberts said Brown meant that government had to be colorblind. Is it possible that the Warren Court would have agreed?
Justice John Paul Stevens, who's been on the court for over 30 years, put it this way: “It is my firm conviction that no member of the court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision.”
Even Anthony Kennedy, who voted with the majority, said he disagreed with Roberts' color-blind vision of the Brown ruling, which Roberts said meant that "(t)he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Here's part of Stevens' dissent:
There is a cruel irony in The Chief Justice's reliance on our decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294 (1955). The first sentence in the concluding paragraph of his opinion states: "Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin." This sentence reminds me of Anatole France's observation: "[T]he majestic equality of the la[w], forbid[s] rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." The Chief Justice fails to note that it was only black schoolchildren who were so ordered; indeed, the history books do not tell stories of white children struggling to attend black schools. In this and other ways, The Chief Justice rewrites the history of one of this Court's most important decisions.
Activist judges anyone?
August 1, 2007
8:06 AM
Janice Pound writes:
Another executive order to increase spying on the U.S. citizens. Has Bush mad more executive orders than any other President in history? it sure feels like it.
July 1, 2007
10:51 AM
Jim writes:
Nitwit must the whole world be leftist like you or can others have some freedom?
June 30, 2007
3:57 PM
Joe writes:
Nice rant Bill, you might want to read the ruling, and a few of the others coming from these corporate stooge's mascarading as judges.
This court and Iraq are both parts of Bush's tragic legacy.
June 30, 2007
9:40 AM
Bill writes:
Why is it so hard for left wingers to understand that people of any color prefer to live and be educated among their own? It is called personal choice and Littwin's 85% statistic proves this point. This decision improves individual freedom and justice, Joe and Iraq is not the issue here. The issue is the schools and the right of parents to allow their kids to go to the local school in the neighborhood in which they live. In a culture of stop snitchin, gangsta rap, and where high achieving kids are ridiculed, I would ask, is it the schools that are failing, or the parents who allow this deviant behavior? The liberal's answer to forcibly move kids out of their neighborhoods does nothing to address the real problem - the failure of parents to guide their children toward a life of learning and education.
June 30, 2007
9:28 AM
RS writes:
Mike F. "I agree with the court's decision. It is obvious that addressing discrimination with more discrimination is not the answer.
(I am a registered Democrat if it matters)."
Mike, given the reaction of the Democrat Presidential candidates immediately following this decision (clearly they seek to expand and exploit the "racial divide") you might consider changing parties and supporting Ron Paul. In my opinion, Ron Paul has the strongest, and most practical, human rights postion of any candidate!
June 30, 2007
6:42 AM
Scott writes:
Her struggle for composure lost, parent Kathleen Brose wept Thursday over the Supreme Court's decision Thursday vindicating her claim that the local school district's racial-diversity practices discriminated against her daughter
"I don't want any parent to go through what we went through," Brose told a group of reporters. "It shouldn't matter what color any kid is. Everyone should have access to great schools."
Brose led a group of Seattle parents in a 2000 lawsuit against the district after her daughter Elisabeth failed to get into her top choice of high school because of her skin color. The Broses are white. Elisabeth's top choice was closest to home, but she ended up commuting 30 minutes to a school across town.
Why is discriminating against her OK?
June 29, 2007
3:23 PM
Elton writes:
I believe the greatest American civil rights champion said that one must not be judged based on the color of his/her skin.
I'll go with his advice and that of the Supreme Court over the nonsense posted by Ms. Duncemore.
June 29, 2007
3:10 PM
Dona Dunsmore writes:
and the way to stop hunger is to eat more and the way to protect minority rights is not to have any. Boy this governancing is easy!
June 29, 2007
3:07 PM
Dona Dunsmore writes:
And the way to stop hunger is to eat more and the way to protect minority rights is for them not to have any.
Having known Bush as a governor, I knew his presidency would not be good for most of us but I didn't know it would be tragic.
June 29, 2007
10:46 AM
Mike F. writes:
I agree with the court's decision. It is obvious that addressing discrimination with more discrimination is not the answer.
(I am a registered Democrat if it matters).
June 29, 2007
9:45 AM
Joe writes:
More platitudes from the right as individual freedom and justice go out the window.
This court may end up being worse for our country than the invasion of Iraq.
June 29, 2007
8:11 AM
Paul writes:
It remains to be seen when minority advocates will realize that addressing remedies against discrimination through discrimination, no matter how euphemized, is patently wrong.
The Supreme Court arrived at the correct decision.