There is compelling evidence that economically integrated schools raise achievement

Unfortunately, this wasn't about placing students by a criterion depending on their family's economic status.

What I see here is simply a way to avoid the duty of the school districts involved, that is, to provide quality education to all of its students no matter where they come from or which school in the district they attend. NO CASE was made that either of these programs had nor was likely to promote that goal.

Breyer's point:

But if the plan was lawful when it was first adopted and if it was lawful the day before the District Court dissolved its order, how can the plurality now suggest that it became unlawful the following day? Is it conceivable that the Constitution, implemented through a court desegregation order, could permit (perhaps require) the district to make use of a race-conscious plan the day before the order was dissolved and then forbid the district to use the identical plan the day after?

Is so far off the mark, that it has changed forever my opinion of him. It reminds me that all day yesterday when the legal experts were gathered, they characterized Roberts' opinion as "closely reasoned" and Breyer's as "impassioned." Here, in just this example, it is clear that his passion clouded his reasoning. Perhaps it is not so clear without reading the whole shebang, but quite obviously, a program can be, as this one was, legal one day and illegal the next. That is true because, in this case, the plan's purpose was to erase the remnant effects of past de jure segregation one day, when it is permissible to use racial distinguishment to achieve the goal, and is meant to counter racial imbalance (sometimes called "de facto segregation) the next, where such racial discrimination is much harder to justify, and was not not his case.

In fact, this quote by me wasn't really fair to Kennedy, who it turns out makes a point of mentioning that schools can take measure to deal with resegregation, ie racial imbalance.

Yes, they can if they can show a compelling interest in doing so, (as in "show"), they can show that the plan actually achieves the results or is likely to achieve the results it is purportedly set up to achieve, and if they can show that no other means, made in good faith, would achieve the goal, not to mention that race criteria cannot be the only criteria. This exception seems to be carved out by Grutter. Of course Grutter concerned higher education, and it is on Roberts' insistence that there may be differences between higher education and the present cases that Kennedy sees as maybe walling off any remedy.

What was Brown if not an inflated role for the Federal Judiciary?

Uhhh, a case argued and decided on constitutional grounds? In Thomas' opinion he lists some of the arguments made against the plaintiffs in Brown. It was they who made the social engineering arguments. The plaintiffs stuck to the constitutional. O)f course, it doesn't help that Brown is seen not for what it is, but as a wonderful example of the kind of social engineering that leftists (this is a generality) think the Court should embrace.

Not just Brown, the SC has historically meddled in quite specific ways with education (almost legislating from the bench!),

Really? Examples, please, where the Court legislated from the bench to achieve, not redress for de jure segregation, but for a "correction" to "racial imbalance." Grutter is one. Do either of these cases meet Grutter?

suddenly Thomas can't think of "any objective measure" as to what sorts of discrimination are benign and which are invidious?

Suddenly? Can you think of one? Oh, wait....

(I have a non-lawyerly commonsense one -- does the plan promote integration or segregation?)

It has not escaped my notice that those who have a broad view of the Court as an instrument for social engineering often elide the real issue here. I noticed it yesterday when all the experts who opposed the decision dishonestly did so. This isn't about "segregation," on which the Court has been clear. This is about "racial imbalance" which arises for reasons other than the orders or laws of some government body. Now that I have pointed out the sin, I will call you on such elision in the future. (Fair warning.) In other words, such an elision is excused and no sin up to now, but hereafter IS a sin.

Notice also that the (generally) leftist view depends on those who argue for the Court doing social engineering thinking that they have an exact and perfect vision of the good, which they can enforce on everyone else, even if by overt racism. This is exactly what those who supported segregated schools thought!!!!! Quotes abound in Thomas' decision, but one statement from, I think, South Carolina said that they thought that by maintaining segregated schools, they were doing what was best for all the students of the state. No doubt, if called upon, they could have produced studies to back up their assertion. They were exactly arguing, against the plaintiffs of Brown, that using race as a criterion for placement in schools was legal because it served a higher good. IN fact, Plessy relied on just that notion!! In fact, Brown does not dispute the goals stated in Plessy, but precisely says that the means to achieve them, are unconstitutional even if it can be shown that they achieve the desirable goal.

The expanded quote from Harlan's dissent in Plessy is telling. He actually makes himself out to be a racist, yet argues that the Constitution is colour-blind.

How fortunate that prior courts weren't so handcuffed.

See, you've got to read the opinion. Prior Courts were so hand-cuffed. Besides, you once again assume what is not true, that the courts should not be prevented from legislating.

The only question that matters, and I ask you now, is this: do either of these programs pass muster constitutionally?

Not, "do you think these are good programs with noble purposes?"

Do either of them pass muster constitutionally?

advice to slow down.

I've set my goal as one comment per open thread. Here, on this thread, I got pulled back in.

Purpleface thinks all I'm doing here is ruffling feathers. That's not (always) my goal. :-)