Thursday Open Thread

The top political news today is the looming showdown as White House refuses to answer subpoenas .

Iraq is still a sectarian mess. 20 beheaded bodies were found in Iraq and another 25 were killed in car bombs.

(Although I am guilty too), if we can we should start smaller topic diaries rather than creating our monster Open Threads if possible. Thanks.

Comments :

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

As far as the supeona's issued yesterday go

we all know it's going to eventually end up at the Supreme Court. This Administration wants no oversight what so ever and they are going to pursue a run out the clock strategy. On that front, they'll probably win as I don't see it reaching the SCOTUS till late next year at the earliest.

But it's still an important constitutional issue that needs to be addressed so that future administrations can't pull these stunts.

Then again, with the current make up of the court, who knows what kind of a 5-4 decision they'll reach.

I say....don't wait for the courts. Stock up on pitchforks, rope and torches now.

…………

Who here knows who Jonathan Turley is?

He's a professor of law at The George Washington University Law School and he appeared frequently on TV during President Clinton's legal troubles, usually bolstering Ken Star's moves.

Yesterday on KO's Countdown, Jonathan said these things: (speaking about the warrantless wiretapping issue)

"there is one thing that might concern them about the court, and that is, you know, for many years, since we first found out about this program, some of us have said that this was a clearly criminal act that the president called for. ... If we're right, not only did he order that crime, but it would be, in fact, an impeachable offense."

"Both sides, both Democrats and Republicans, have avoided this sort of pig in the parlor. They don't want to recognize that this president may have ordered criminal offenses. But they may now be on the road to do that, because the way Congress can get around the executive privilege in court is to say, we're investigating a potential crime."

"The position adopted by Mr. Addington and Mr. Cheney, to put it bluntly, was absurd. ... In past administrations, if someone like Mr. Addington made such a moronic argument as this one, they would be out of a job the next week. ... I think that what it really shows is the lack of sort of adult supervision within the administration."

"This administration, I have to say, has a certain contempt for the law,"

The video clip is in the link above. Can anyone here start thinking the words Chimpeachment?

………… parent

I'd rather...

...think "war crimes trial." Bush will be out of office before any impeachment could wind its way through the system (even if successful which is questionable). But once he's no longer president he doesn't have immunity to prosecution and he can't pardon anymore.

I think an all expense paid trip to the hague for Bush, Cheney, Rummsfeld, Yoo, and maybe a few others would be quite nice.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

Why are the pilots for Northwest Airlines calling in sick?

NWA has emerged from bankruptcy and a 'looks good on paper' restructuring.

Overworked Pilots objecting to the low staffing levels say that it is becoming a safety issue.

"Fly safe. Fly the contract. Don't fly sick. Don't fly fatigued. Don't fly hungry,"

Here is some Insight from the Employees who from Northwest Airlines about what is really going on down in the trenches.

This is what is happening to our country while we have been distracted by the sexy sexy Iraq War.

Can you treat employees like dirt and expect them to offer service with a smile? Next up retrain your replacement from India who has an one of those worker visas, or else you won't get your four week severance package.

It's the little things.

…………

Senate obstructionism

It’s quite a record the Senate minority has assembled.

EIGHT times Republican obstruction tactics slowed critical legislation

* Fulfilling the 9/11 Commission Recommendations (Passed 97-0, Roll Call Vote #53)
* Improving security at our courts (Passed 93-3, Roll Call Vote #133)
* Water Resources Development Act (Passed 89-7, Roll Call Vote #162)
* A joint resolution to revise U.S. policy in Iraq (Passed 89-9, Roll Call Vote, #74)
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Passed 69-23, Roll Call Vote #173)
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Passed 64-35, Roll Call Vote #228)
* CLEAN Energy Act (Passed 91-0, Roll Call Vote #208)
* Funding for the Intelligence Community (Passed 94-3, Roll Call Vote #129)

FOUR times Republicans blocked legislation from being debated

* Senate Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage. (Rejected 54-43, Roll Call Vote #23)
* Senate Republicans blocked ethics reforms (Rejected 51-46, Roll Call Vote #16)
* Senate Republicans blocked comprehensive immigration reform (Rejected 45-50, Roll Call Vote #206)
* Senate Republicans blocked funding for renewable energy (Rejected 57-36, Roll Call Vote #223)

FOUR times Republicans stopped bills from reaching a vote

* Senate Republicans blocked funding for the intelligence community. (Rejected 41-40, Roll Call Vote #130)
* Senate Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage. (54-43, Roll Call Vote #23)
* Senate Republicans blocked ethics reforms (Rejected 51-46, Roll Call Vote #16)
* Senate Republicans blocked funding for renewable energy (Rejected 57-36, Roll Call Vote #223)

TWICE Republicans blocked bills from going to conference

* Senate Republicans blocked appointing conferees on the 9/11 Commission Recommendations (6/26/07)
* Senate Republicans blocked appointing conferees on ethics reform (6/26/07)

I have only one question: if the shoe were on the other foot, and 49 Senate Dems had blocked this many popular pieces of legislation, what do you suppose Senate Republicans would do about it?

That’s not a rhetoric question; I’m genuinely curious. The GOP is awful at governing, but they’re great at whining.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/11270.html

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

…………

The Cruelest Irony

the new ruling by the Supreme Court rewrites history.

To stop discriminating on the basis of race we have to stop discriminating on the basis of race, says Justice Roberts.

All those white children struggling to attend black schools can no longer rely on Brown for special favors.

The Cruelest Irony

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.

I imagine southern conservatives are thrilled by this decision. This should do much to soothe the aches and long held resentment that the federal government has no right to interfere and force people with a federal mandage to integrate schools.

…………

Different Times

George E.C. Hayes, Thurgood Marshall, and James Nabrit, congratulating each other, following Supreme Court decision declaring segregation unconstitutional


photo from wikicommons

I wonder what their faces would look like today, upon the news of this ruling by the Roberts court.

The history of Brown v Board of Education

As a sidenote the Washington Posts excellent expose on Cheney's power, noted that Cheney reviewed, oversaw and directed the picks for Supreme Court nominee into Bush's vision, in each case giving him the selection to pick from.

………… parent

Here's a smorgasborg of what others think:

TalkLeft's BTD (you remember him) is not a happy camper.

Adam B of Dkos thinks segregationists are celebrating big time.

Christy H Smith at FDL is extremely disturbed by the verdict.

On the other side of the fence:

Michelle Malkin has decided to free one of her slaves, oh excuse me, one of her undocumented unpaid "guest workers" in celebration of the decision.

Hindrocket is so happy he's thrown himself into his normal late night bondage play early today . Here's a money quote: "I'm tied up now, but hope to comment later in the day." uhhh John? I don't really want to know what you do for your kicks. You scare me enough as it is.

And lastly, Rightie Legal "Genius" Ann Althouse wants to marry 5 of the Supreme Court's Justices.

I'm not gonna link to Pam "AtlasJuggs" because she's just too freaking off her med's for me.

Enjoy.

………… parent

I knew when bush43 was handed the job by the Supreme

Court back in '00 that he'd shred a significant amount of progress the country had made on issues such as pollution, water use and simply fairness in general. My biggest fear was what he would do to the nations courts.

It was my biggest fear because his maximum damage to the United States would be limited to 8 years max. But the judges he would put in would have his imprint for many years beyond that.

I'm sorry to say that my fears have come to realization even before the bushco administration is out of office. And to top that off, he's blazed ahead with a scorched earth policy on the area's I was less afraid of....area's like clean air, clean water, citizens rights and government's limits.

When the boy king dies (and his evil overlord Darth) I'm going to have a kegger some night by their grave sites so that I can be sure to have enough ammo to pee on their graves to my hearts content. Sorry if some of you find that rude. But hurting them physically while they live would be wrong and I won't do that.

………… parent

I think the court took a very narrow view

It sounds like the majority (especially Kennedy) tried to walk a fine line between when taking race into account is necessary to correct past injustice and when it's an attempt to socially-engineer a better society.

I don't see why it's so hard to distinguish as a matter of law between plans that promote segregation and plans that combat de-facto segregation. I completely agree with you that Breyer makes a critical point that Roberts simply glosses over.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

You must have

a great legal mind, because Stevens used almost your exact line:

All those white children struggling to attend black schools can no longer rely on Brown for special favors.

He said:

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.(pg. 104)

We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/

………… parent

Pew Global Atttitudes Project

The latest Pew Global Attitudes report has been published.

The not new news: President Bush remains unpopular
The odd news: Russian approval of President Bush has doubled between 2003 and 2007.

And they still generally like our movies, music, and TV shows. Go figure.

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."  --R. Heinlein

…………

Hollywood...

remains our most powerful tool.

It's too bad the right can't seem to understand that.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

The Immigration Bill

is dead.

Immigration bill suffers major defeat in Senate
Bush's last-minute phone calls fail to rally vital support

WASHINGTON - The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.

The bill's supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.

Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics.

We will hear a lot more about this issue, but one of Bush's last chances for a legacy (except the changing face of the SCOTUS) is slipping away.

We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/

…………

I'm glad

The bill was atrocious.

IN light of all the changes to our country and its 'new unaccountable' govt lately......... *sigh*.

I offer the opinion that the best way to combat all this foolishness is to once again emphasize "It's the economy stupid."

………… parent

RE: I'm glad

I agree the bill was atrocious. It was a (sh)amnesty bill and should be defeated. If this was Bush looking for a legacy, this is a legacy that he is better off without.

Well, even though those who oppose amnesty had their amendments go down in defeat, they tried, and in the end they prevented an amnesty from being passed. A clear victory.

So who was defeated? Primarily the President and, in this case, his Democratic accomplices in the House and Senate. It was kind of funny how they tried to portray this as a "Republican Bill" (implying widespread Republican support) just because the President put it forth.

So, let us not forget that it was the Republicans who primarily opposed the amnesty and the Democrats who tried to push this through over the objections of the American people.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

Serious balls

I'll give the GOP this, they have serious balls when it comes to playing the martyr.

“It is unfortunate that the Majority has seen fit to turn down reasonable offers of cooperation in favor of court battles that will do nothing except draw headlines and further distract the Judiciary Committee from work that needs to be done. After close to 10,000 pages of documents, dozens of interviews and testimony under oath, this investigation has not led, as the majority has speculated, to the White House. This investigation has spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours of work to discover politics play a part in political appointments. If the Majority had accommodated the White House in the early part of the year, we could have already interviewed these people and moved forward with the investigation.

Cannon continued, “Instead, the Majority has stonewalled and denied the Committee the ability to interview the White House staff with the intent to promulgate a myth about wrongdoing. The Majority’s stonewalling has led the American people down a path of ‘constitutional crisis’. We take an oath to defend the Constitution, not shred it.”

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003555.php

Accusing the judicial committee democrats of stonewalling after Bush refuses subpoenas is impressively audacious. It earns Cannon the "Congressional Douche of the Day" award.

Congressman Cannon, your award:

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

…………

I share your frustration.

………… parent

WSJ Walkout: Free Marketeers Go On Strike

I love this story.

The WSJ the prime arbiter of free market=free people principle ...... as in let the markets do the work...... have balked at the market forces, by walking out of the newsroom in protest of Murdochs free market bid to buy the Journal.

..... and then they came for me.

Delicious

Second, by our absence from newsrooms around the country, we are reminding Dow Jones management that the quality of its publications depends on a top-quality professional staff. Dow Jones currently is in contract negotiations with its primary union, seeking severe cutbacks in our health benefits and limits on our pay. It is beyond debate that the professionals who create The Wall Street Journal and other Dow Jones publications every day deserve a fair contract that rewards their achievements. At a time when Dow Jones is finding the resources to award golden parachutes to 135 top executives, it should not be seeking to eviscerate employees’ health benefits and impose salary adjustments that amount to a pay cut.

Getting rid of health care for the elite WSJ journalist crowd. Asking them to take a cut in pay. Surely this only happens to the laboring work force. Not to the WSJ elites.

Why are the WSJ journalists trying to punish Murdoch just because of his success?

Don't they believe in capitalism and free market principles? I guess its that old saying...... it doesn't matter when it affects others, but then they came for me.

Bawahahahahaha!

…………

Nice list

The WSJ complains about the free market
Robert Bork files a frivolous lawsuit
GOP congress critters fillibuster everything in sight

Its almost as if the modern right had no actual principles they really stuck by.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

I hope that Murdoch loses

and the WSJ crew stays on to write another day and from a whole different perspective.

………… parent

People with no principles...

...don't really learn lessons. Intellectual honesty springs from the very principles these hacks lack.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

Well I don't think they are all hacks.

I have slightly more faith in humanity.... ! Or I am more naive.:+)

………… parent

I have great faith...

...in what humanity could be.

I have no faith in what we are.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

Isn't that contradictory?

………… parent

Why? -nt.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

IN order to be what we could be

there has to be a seed of that could be in what we are now.

There are some might fine folks in this world. And I have met plenty of em.

World leaders...... a different story.

………… parent

Yeah

but I see nothing contradictory in the statement "I love oaks, but boy do I hate acorns."

The two are closely related but not identical. I am very awed by our potential and thoroughly disgusted at our blatant waste thereof.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

The voice of experience on intellectual honesty ... :)

and the lack of principles associated therewith. I assume you are speaking from personal experience and self-awareness of the issues?

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

You know, it could be worse

It really could. We think our politics gets rough. Thank goodness we are not Polish. We could have stuff like this on our newstands.

Via Mark in Mexico

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."  --R. Heinlein

…………

no thoughts on todays

SC rulings? :)

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

…………

You mean the ones about education?

I was reading about that over a liberty papers.

Very sticky stuff.

It's tough when both sides of the argument have a point. It's even worse when decisions are 5-4. It shows there's more than simple constitutionality (or lack thereof) at play. Ideology shouldn't rule the roost.

………… parent

even though both sides

might have a point, there is only one constitutional solution imo. The SC moved well towards it today.

But yes, as I was driving today and listening to analysis of how often the Court splits along "party" lines, it struck me at how ideological both sides are nowadays.

Mind you, I've agreed with pretty much every single Conservative majority victory.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

………… parent

Reading about it

I understand the ruling and agree with the conservatives (this time).

I think the liberal argument was subjective and using Brown vs. Board of education was poor reasoning.

………… parent

My (slow) comment o' the day

SCOTUS channels a great one:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

…………

Do you think that

de facto segregated schools will encourage a race blind society?

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

What is this "race" of which you speak?

I don't see race. :)

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

mhmmm

I thought there were no races...

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

………… parent

I'm not speaking for Maddy but this is my take

You are asking the wrong question. The problem we have that prompted this case is a direct result of the geographically based base enrollment system we have. Where you live determines where you go. And it stinks.

Perhaps the school system needs to change (as I agrued in a diary) but advocating cohersion on the basis of race is not the answer. Such advocacy is what one of the Justices of the winning view called "a cruel irony" because a dissenter used Brown vs. BoE as a basis for his view.

Brown being rules correctly doesn't make the dissenting view here correct. In fact, it contradicts it (irony)!

Besides, such mandates would not and does not make people race blind...it only makes them race aware.

………… parent

RE: I'm not speaking for Maddy but this is my take

What you want is school vouchers so that the geographic limitations can be dissolved. Tax people at a state level, put the money into a big pot, then divide it equally amongst the students and give them a voucher. Then they can select whatever school that they want, including religious ones if that is their preference, and everyone gets to go to the best school option for them personally.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

fully agreed there n/t

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

………… parent

This sounds great

But how does that not just result in the poor going to the cheap schools and the rich going to the expensive schools (since the wealthy can monetarily supplement the vouchers that are "divided equally amongst the students")?

And if this is to be taxed at the state level, are you suggesting a federal mandate that all states must enact a voucher system?

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

………… parent

That's what happens now anyway

That's what we have...only it happens thru geography. Think about it, Lefty. Come on, the system causes this! It needs to change...but it has to change the right way.

At least the way GoRight (and I) describe gives kids a chance to make a CHOICE.

I hate the irony in our schools.

………… parent

Correction. It gives the PARENTS a choice.

The kids don't have the legal right to decide.

………… parent

so?

no kidding... Your correction almost sounds like you disagree.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

………… parent

Imagine that!

………… parent

Same difference, most parents take

their kid's views into account on these things.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

The first grader tells his parents

where he wants to go to school?

………… parent

RE: The first grader tells his parents

Sure. They say something like "I want to go to school with my friend Jimmy or Janey." :)

Obviously the viewpoint of a first grader will not be taken into account to the same degree as, say, a ninth or tenth grader would be. But I suspect that you knew that already, silly girl.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

Fair enough

I was (honestly) hoping someone would have an answer to that question, in which case I'd be more likely to support vouchers. (I don't really have a strong opinion on it one way or the other.) So it doesn't solve the problem of poor kids getting stuck in crappy schools, it just gives them a choice of which crappy school they want to go to?

I guess I don't see how a voucher system will actually do anything to improve public schools. Would it, in your opinion? How?

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

………… parent

RE: Fair enough

I guess I don't see how a voucher system will actually do anything to improve public schools. Would it, in your opinion? How?

I don't think vouchers are intended to be way to improve public schools, but rather a means for students to be able to escape those public schools which are failing them (as opposed to all public schools).

This may have an indirect influence on the worst schools by sending them a wake-up call to do better in a substantive way. But that is not the direct intent. The intent is to offer those people who feel that their respective local school is failing their kids a way out.

It is about NOT keeping kids trapped in ineffective schools.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

RE: This sounds great

Who said anything about federal manadates? Keep them out of it and let the states decide for themselves. I was merely articulating a mechanism which I would like to see implementated at the state level.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

Federal mandates

Mostly I threw in the line about federal mandates because I knew you'd reply to it! I'm not trying to be difficult, just fishing for more information. One question, as things stand now, are there any federal roadblocks to the mechanism you're talking about? If a state decided that they wanted to implement a voucher system, could they do it? The only state I could find that has tried it was Florida, and apparently that got struck down by the state Supreme Court. I imagine it had something to do with tax money going to religious schools, but I don't know the details. I suspect that might be one of the more difficult aspects of the plan to sell, particularly to all the atheist commie religion-hating left-wingers about. :)

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

………… parent

RE: Federal mandates

Already addressed by SCOTUS:

http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/1179#comment-49644

But your assessment of this being a major barrier from the left is still correct, in spite of what the SCOTUS says, I guess.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

exactly, GoRight.

Did you read my diary on education?? LOL.

………… parent

Sorry, no I didn't.

But if it is pro vouchers I'm with you. I'll try to get to it tomorrow.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

Do the schools select them?

Presumably many of the better schools have more applicants... and if they happen to select the people who are "Their type" who is to complain?

Oh, and the wealthy who can drive their kids rather than making them bus an hour for the good schools will all congregate.

How do you propose to solve these issues?

………… parent

RE: Do the schools select them?

Presumably many of the better schools have more applicants... and if they happen to select the people who are "Their type" who is to complain?

And this is different than how colleges operate today? Apply whatever safe guards are in place at the college level to the public school level. Simply right into the law that they can't discriminate based on any of the protected groups.

Oh, and the wealthy who can drive their kids rather than making them bus an hour for the good schools will all congregate.

This doesn't seem to have been a problem with my son's current school. All of the surrounding public school districts provide bus service to his school for kids within their districts to the private school. The private school also provides a bus service for those students who are not otherwise covered from specific pickup points throughout the city.

Of course anyone who can afford to drive has that option, but the school buses aren't exactly empty by a long shot.

If you think that the education provided by a particular school is worth it, is a ride on a school bus too much to expect?

How do you propose to solve these issues?

First, it's not really my problem. Every family has their own unique constraints and so no one solution exists. That having been said, none of these are insurmountable problems.

A general response would be: take a portion of the common pot and set aside sufficient funds to cover these or any other comparable needs and implement solutions which are fair to all before doling out the vouchers.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

Boost test scores at no extra cost

with economic integration :

Over the last decade, black and Hispanic students here in Wake County have made such dramatic strides in standardized reading and math tests that it has caught the attention of education experts around the country.

The main reason for the students' dramatic improvement, say officials and parents in the county, which includes Raleigh and its sprawling suburbs, is that the district has made a concerted effort to integrate the schools economically.

Yes, it's better to base the assignment algorithm on income than race, but let's not pretend they aren't correlated in many locations across America. Guess who objects?

"Kids are bused all over creation, and they say it's for economic diversity, but really it's a proxy for race," said Cynthia Matson, who is white and middle class. She is the president and a founder of Assignment By Choice, an advocacy group promoting parental choice.

Sorry, but while I understand the legal arguments behind striking down the race-as-tiebreaker systems, I don't think it's going to benefit the students. I find it odd that a system that is mandated to reverse segregation suddenly becomes unconstitutional once we decide schools are integrated enough.

Louisville's schools spent 25 years under a court order to eliminate the effects of state-sponsored segregation. After a federal judge freed the Jefferson County, Ky., school board, which encompasses Louisville, from his supervision, the board decided to keep much of the court-ordered plan in place to prevent schools from re-segregating.

You're mixed up, Stevens referred to the majority's invocation of Brown as a cruel irony. That the majority Justices cannot legally distinguish between efforts to integrate and efforts to segregate is rather disappointing.

Sure, geographic enrollment sucks. As soon as you use another criteria as part of the assignment process, somebody will sue. Let's see how long economic integration stands up in court.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

Please

read the opinion.

And note, the Justices are not supposed to figure out what the best result would be, and then ignore the law to reach it.

Best procedure:

1) Read the opinions and dissents.

2) THEN talk about the opinions and dissents.

3) Ignore secondary sources.

4) Trust yourself. Trust that you can read and understand. Trust that you can put aside your prejudices. otherwise, "one" ends up searching around for items that fit with one's prejudice, and that is a frellin' waste of time.

(Note: Pop culture reference included just for fun.)

Madscientist's rule: If you had a reaction to the decision when you heard it, you should say nothing until you cleanse your mind, and read the actual decision.

Always ask" what are the legal questions?" not, "What are my goals for society and does this decision help them out?"

………… parent

I've been following

this issue for quite some time . I'm not analyzing the decision, I'm giving an opinion on what I think the best result should be.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

Sorry

to hear that.

From the decision:

But under the Seattle plan, a school with 50 percent Asian-American students and 50 percent white students but no African-American, Native-American, or Latino students would qualify as balanced while a school with 30 percent Asian-American, 25 percent African-American, 25 percent Latino, and 20 percent white students would not. It is hard to understand how a plan that could allow these results can be viewed as being concerned with achieving enrollment that is “‘broadly diverse,’” Grutter, supra, at 329.

………… parent

Concerns about the Seattle

system being too crude with respect to definitions of race were raised a long time ago (e.g., see the link I gave). Certainly they could have done a better job, and in some sense this ruling reflects on their specific implementation.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

That's what it is

all about.

To find out what this ruling "reflects on," I suggest simply reading the ruling.

………… parent

You chose an odd way

to introduce a discussion of the precise specifics of the Seattle plan, using the quote “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Some might take that as an invitation to general discussion on race and education today. My comments were pretty clearly, I think, along those lines.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

Scroll back up

You were referring directly to the decision in this sub-thread.

btw,I sent the stuff.

I hope it works for you. Got me high as a kite.

………… parent

Read what I said

about the decision.

A careful parser such as yourself should appreciate the scope of my comments =)

Thanks for the articles!

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

Here it is

You're mixed up, Stevens referred to the majority's invocation of Brown as a cruel irony. That the majority Justices cannot legally distinguish between efforts to integrate and efforts to segregate is rather disappointing.

Was the legal basis of the "majority's" decision dependent in any way on distinguishing between efforts to integrate and efforts to segregate? In fact, I'm reading about such arguments right now! btw, Roberts just takes Breyer to school. Breyer got served, man.

btw, I know that because it is in the decision.

………… parent

No, that's the point

The invocation of Brown illustrates that the majority Justices [edit: you want me to say Roberts?] cannot (meaning, either choose not to or believe it is legally impossible to) distinguish between efforts to integrate and efforts to segregate, which (I personally think) is rather disappointing.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

See

what happens when you don't read the opinion.

What Roberts wrote was a direct quote from the decision as to means, but it is not the base of the argument, it's more of a "hark back," like, "even in Brown we said."

The fact is, the legalities themselves do not
distinguish.

You know, it is not as if the Court hasn't been down this road before. The question is just when is it right to use race as a sole criterion upon which to make decisions to reach a goal.

………… parent

I think that's basically what I said...

That the reference to Brown suggested this ruling was consistent, in that both prohibit explicit consideration of race. To which my reply, it's too bad that they couldn't pay a little more attention to the context, and make a point of distinguishing between attempts to integrate and to segregate. That's what prompted Stevens' remark.

Kennedy did:

School districts can seek to reach Brown’s objective of equal educational opportunity. The plurality opinion is at least open to the interpretation that the Constitution requires school districts to ignore the problem of de facto resegregation in schooling. I cannot endorse that conclusion. To the extent the plurality opinion suggests the Constitution mandates that state and local school authorities must accept the status quo of racial isolation in schools, it is, in my view, profoundly mistaken.

I guess I could have been more clear, said Roberts instead of majority, etc, but really, I don't know what is driving your quibble here.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

Quibble?

The remark is nonsensical. As is explained in the decision. (You realize that everyone sees everyone else's opinions before finalizing his own.)

Brown and nearer precedent are clear that it can't be a case of ends justify the means. There are two justifications for using race to achieve some goal, like racial balance, and rules for when race can be used even in those two circumstances. One circumstance is to redress past racial discrimination, the one used most often. But it applies in neither of these cases.

In this case, the Court can't say, "well, we know it's unconstitutional, but it's for a good cause, so...."

But that is exactly what people want them to do!

All I'm saying is that the Supreme Court is a Judicial body whose concerns are as laid out in the Constitution. They are involved in deciding legal issues. They are not some quasi-legislative body which is charged with remaking the social landscape in America.

So far, the negative arguments on this opinion have entirely missed the legal issues, and spoken to the social issues, mostly wrongly, with great assumptions.

I also believe those arguments are important, and that is why we have the other two branches of government.

Remember, those who brought Brown did not argue it on social grounds; they argued it on constitutional grounds.

There is also the common bugaboo of "equality of result" here. It is one thing to argue for equality of education, but normally the argument is that if the schools are not racially balanced, the education is unequal. this is extremely bad reasoning.

So the only real question here is where was Robert's wrong on the legal matters. You know, it's not as if this was unanimous. You would think that people who were wont to make a case against it because their senibilities are disturbed would go to the dissents for legal arguments.

Instead of just whining. Fact is, from the facts, I think that overall, this decision will stop some real pain, and if it had gone the other way, it would have done nothing to help anyone. But, of course, that isn't even the issue.

It's legal.

………… parent

It's not freaking nonsensical

when you realize that "rather disappointing" expresses an opinion.

As you might say, geesh =)

Are you ignoring Kennedy's rather different take on the relevance of Brown or have you not got there yet?

Edit: sorry, missed that you commented on that below.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

Actually, I'm wading

through Thomas, which if Roberts took Breyer to school, Thomas is burying him. Complete with enough footnotes for Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D. He does a long and well-documented comparison of Breyer's arguments with those of segregationists arguing against Brown and related cases. It is striking.

Especially when one considers that Thomas is seen as the most congenial of the justices. I mean, it is scathing.

There was one interesting bit where Thomas is arguing the notion that Blacks can't learn unless they are surrounded by whites, a notion that has been floated right here on this thread. Seems Seattle, well....

The Seattle school board itself must believe that racial mixing is not necessary to black achievement. Seattle operates a K–8 “African-American Academy,” which has a “nonwhite” enrollment of 99%. See App. in No. 05–908,
p. 227a; Reply Brief in No. 05–908, p. 13, n. 13. That school was founded in 1990 as part of the school board’s effort to “increase academic achievement.”(12) See African American Academy History, online at http://www.seattleschools.org/schools/aaa/history.htm (all Internet materials as visited June 26, 2007, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). According to the school’s most recent annual report, “[a]cademic excellence” is its “primary goal.” See African American Academy 2006 Annual Re-port, p. 2, online at http://www.seattleschools.org/area/siso/reports/anrep/altern/938.pdf . This racially imbalanced environment has reportedly produced test scores“higher across all grade levels in reading, writing and math.” Ibid. Contrary to what the dissent would have predicted, see post, at 38–39, the children in Seattle’s African American Academy have shown gains when placed in a “highly segregated” environment.

Thomas likes to put little jokes in his footnotes. See that (12) up there? Here it is:

(12) Of course, if the Seattle school board were truly committed to the notion that diversity leads directly to educational benefits, operating school with such a high “nonwhite” enrollment would be a shocking dereliction of its duty to educate the students enrolled in that school.

The hilarity is that Breyer and Seattle argued that education is better "mixed!"

Thomas is brutal. After arguing that it matters not what the social scientists say for the case, something some amici argued, and Breyer did as well, Thomas must have summoned up every study ever done on the subject, fully footnoted, to show that there are no compelling results on the subject! He sometimes got to the good old page with one line of text, and the rest footnotes.

It just doesn't get much better than this!

One more great footnote! "The dissent" is what he is calling Breyer's dissent. Thomas has distinguished "racial imbalance" which arises naturally and cannot be remedied by governments using racially based methods in any case, with "de jure segregation," which arises from the law and the like, and whose adverse effects both can and must be remedied, sometimes by racially based policies.

(14) The dissent accuses me of “feel[ing] confident that, to end invidious discrimination, one must end all governmental use of race-conscious criteria” and chastises me for not deferring to democratically elected majorities. See post, at 62. Regardless of what JUSTICE BREYER’s goals might be, this Court does not sit to “create a society that includes all Americans” or to solve the problems of “troubled inner city schooling.” Ibid. We are not social engineers. The United States Constitution dictates that local governments cannot make decisions on the basis of race. Consequently, regardless of the perceived negative effects of racial imbalance, I will not defer to legislative majorities where the Constitution forbids it.

It should escape no one that behind JUSTICE BREYER’s veil of judicial modesty hides an inflated role for the Federal Judiciary. The dissent’s approach confers on judges the power to say what sorts of discrimination are benign and which are invidious. Having made that determination (based on no objective measure that I can detect), a judge following the dissent’s approach will set the level of scrutiny to achieve the desired result. Only then must the judge defer to a democratic majority. In my view, to defer to one’s preferred result is not to defer at all.

And he's got your "context" right here!

………… parent

Suffice it to say

that Breyer does not ignore Thomas' points, nor the studies cited. [Edit: I shouldn't be so broad, I haven't read all of Thomas -- Breyer addresses at least some of Thomas' points.] How can you know that "if Roberts took Breyer to school, Thomas is burying him" when you haven't read Breyer yet?

Nobody is saying blacks can't learn unless surrounded by whites. There is compelling evidence that economically integrated schools raise achievement; I linked to some. With respect to the all African-American school, do you think that the majority of schools that have essentially no white students have the record of achievement of the one Thomas mentions? Do you suppose most of them have an African/Black-centric curriculum, only 400 students, and received extra funding such as a $400,000 grant?

Breyer even manages to make some points of his own; here's one I made way up thread:

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?

I also already said upthread (in my first post on the case) what Thomas says here: It sounds like the majority (especially Kennedy) tried to walk a fine line between when taking race into account is necessary to correct past injustice and when it's an attempt to socially-engineer a better society. 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.

What was Brown if not an inflated role for the Federal Judiciary? Not just Brown, the SC has historically meddled in quite specific ways with education (almost legislating from the bench!), but suddenly Thomas can't think of "any objective measure" as to what sorts of discrimination are benign and which are invidious? (I have a non-lawyerly commonsense one -- does the plan promote integration or segregation?) How fortunate that prior courts weren't so handcuffed.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

Brown v. Brendan

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?

………… parent

SC meddling in education

Court-ordered busing, distribution of state funding [edit: shoot, after checking I was thinking of state SC decisions here], case-specific restrictions on student-led prayer, just a few days ago bong hits for Jesus -- the SC has shown little hesitation in getting involved with the nitty-gritty details of implementation.

You mischaracterize Breyer's point, I think -- he finds the distinction arbitrary, since the precise point at which the effects of "remnant effects of past de jure segregation" have been erased is somewhat subjective. In line with Kennedy, he doesn't see why schools can't, if they so choose, take pro-active measures to prevent resegregation.

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!!!!! Yes, and they were wrong, because separate but equal is not equal. Why can't I find it disappointing that the Court chose not to legally distinguishing between utilizing race to promote segregation, as in Brown, and integration, as here?

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

You can find it disappointing

But I think you need to consider that in one case, Brown, the court made a correct decision by basically striking down the use of race as a factor in school enrollment.

Seen in that legal light, the recent decision would have been somewhat of a contradiction.

Besides, we all understand the intent of trying to do what the court struck down. But consider what MadS said about viewing the decision in legal terms and not in how the view advances a cause. Very true.

We can always think up bad ways to achieve good causes. Not acting on those ways is not an indictment of the cause.

………… parent

The result of Brown

and subsequent decisions was explicit consideration of race to combat the lingering effects of segregation, including in Louisville under court order until 2000!

Like I've said repeatedly, I get the legal reasoning, and an economic-based integration scheme will probably be fine.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

Educational meddling

You are fogging on this point. What i asked is where the Court had backed using racial criteria for admissions NOT for the purpose of redressing the effects of segregation in those particular schools. Grutter is one. But this has nothing to do with allocation 0of funds, school prayer, or bong hits for Jesus. Those involve other issues.

You mischaracterize Breyer's point, I think -- he finds the distinction arbitrary, since the precise point at which the effects of "remnant effects of past de jure segregation" have been erased is somewhat subjective. In line with Kennedy, he doesn't see why schools can't, if they so choose, take pro-active measures to prevent resegregation.

There you go again.' This is not about "resegregation." First of all, there was never any segregation in the first place in Seattle. This is about an attempt to increase racial diversity. I believe that conflating segregation with a natural demographic drift to less diversity is wrong, evil, and dishonest. When one hears "resegregation," one naturally is led to think that the conditions of "separate but equal" are returning. Likewise, the use of "integration" in this context is dishonest.

As for "subjective," this involves another slight of hand. Race has been allowed to redress the effects of segregation in those school districts which had segregation. Seattle never had segregation, so their program cannot have anything to do with redressing segregation. And in the Kentucky case, the Courts themselves declared the effects redressed. that's the point.

The dishonesty on this point, again, something I heard all day yesterday, is to confuse segregation in particular schools with racial policies over all. One heard, for instance, "Segregation was the law of the land for a couple hundred years; how can anyone say that the effects are completely overcome." Here, the question is not about5 the broad sociological questions, but about questions specific to a school or district.

Why can't I find it disappointing that the Court chose not to legally distinguishing between utilizing race to promote segregation, as in Brown, and integration, as here?

Geesh! The Court chose to distinguish between segregation/integration issues, and racial diversity issues. The Court, in Brown, clearly, that is,k clearly, I mean to say, clearly stated that assigning people to schools based on race was unconstitutional. Those arguing against Plessey were clear in their arguments that even applying race as a label by a government is demeaning and against the constitution.

Later Courts quickly held out a ends-limited exception for redressing de jure segregation. Following Bakke, Grutter cut out an exception for "proactively" working for racial diversity in education, so long as it served an educational purpose, was a part of a program for general diversity, and more.

These programs weren't about "integration" but about, supposedly, racial diversity.

The question, one again: did these programs pass constitutional muster?

………… parent

Your last question

has been answered by the ruling. My commentary throughout has been mostly directed at the societal aspects, athough you've managed to drag me into discussing some specifics of the case =)

Presumably more schools will now attempt to utilize economic metrics to achieve integrated schools. From what I gather from studies, it's a cost-effective way to increase learning.

Although frankly from a legal perspective I don't see why they'd even bother -- would this court mandate any school take pro-active steps to combat de facto segregation?

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

And the answer is

would this court mandate any school take pro-active steps to combat de facto segregation?

Not using race as a criteria. There is an upscale suburb of Atlanta whole population is almost entirely Black professionals and business people. Do you think that any schools there should be subject to court mandates to lessen "defacto segregation?"

………… parent

Hey Mad, it would be cool if you

felt like summarizing the case and ruling in a diary, leaving room to discuss the societal as well as legal aspects. If you wanted to, no pressure.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

I am trying to follow Purpleface's

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. :-)

………… parent

Purpleface means well! :)

But as long as you are ruffling the Blue colored feathers I say more power to ya! :)

Stay away from the Red feathers, though, they might actually have a legitimate argument to throw back at ya!

[ Disclaimer: For the kidding impaired, I was just kidding. ]

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

Here's some text

Again, from the opinion:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L.Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was“determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis?

As Specter will note, the text is clear. Are you saying there is some overriding "author intent?"

As I noted, the Court has carved out two exceptions. The question is whether the second one applies in this case. For clearly redress of past discrimination does not.

You might note that the negative effects of this policy in Seattle fell mostly to non-whites.

………… parent

By the way

I don't read Roberts' opinioin that way. He went so far as to offer methods which would pass muster under the relevant precedents.

Note that Kennedy does not say that the majority opinion says that. He sort of says that Roberts could have written it better so that no one ever could offer an argument that it says that.

He's got the experience, so maybe i should defer, but if you can tell me where in Roberts' opinion someone could hang that opinion, I would be grateful.

………… parent

Interesting here

at Franklin High School in Seattle, the racial tiebreaker was applied because nonwhite enrollment exceeded 69 percent, and resulted in an incoming ninth-grade class in 2000–2001 that was 30.3 percent Asian-American, 21.9 percent African-American, 6.8 percent Latino, 0.5 percent Native-American, and 40.5 percent Caucasian. Without the racial tiebreaker, the class would have been 39.6 percent Asian-American, 30.2 percent African-American, 8.3 percent Latino, 1.1 percent Native-American, and 20.8 percent Caucasian. See App. in No. 05–908, at 308a. When the actual racial breakdown is considered, enrolling students without regard to their race yields a substantially diverse student body under any definition of diversity.

………… parent

Again, this is a consequence

of the white/non-white methodology. It's not a bug, it's a feature, of which SCOTUS didn't approve.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

It sounds

like Kennedy would have disagreed with the majority if it did not have the 'white/non-white' terminology instead of race in general.

We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/

………… parent

I don't think so

Kennedy agreed with the decision, but criticized it as being too restrictive in being, according to him, able to be read so that no racial diversity program could ever be justified.

………… parent

yes SCOTUS

did our country proud today.

Imo we have turned the corner. After removing the direct institutional forms of discrimination and racism we are starting to dismantle the harmful tools that helped us.

In battling the cancer of racism SCOTUS action today is the beginning of withdrawal of chemotherapy as the healing is within sight. Time to focus on liberty.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

………… parent

What harmful tools are you refering to?

I'm just wondering if you have the right opinion for the right reasons.

………… parent

affirmative action and mandated desegregation

using race. I am not much for solving the problems of racism and discrimination with another form of racism and discrimination.

I hope we keep moving towards a colorblind society. I want people to be able to live wherever they want, work wherever they want, hire whomever they want, send children to the schools of their choice, etc. It is all part of furthering liberty to me.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

………… parent

OK agreed :) n/t

………… parent

Bush logic comes forth from the mouths of babes.

You've turned reason and logic on it's head.

Both Louisville & Seattles plans were VOLUNTARY. No one was forced to go where they didn't want to go.

Your wishes for a colorblind society mean nothing when you cheer that societies separation and segregation, because that's exactly what this decision brings. Your platitudes are hollow and the fact that you can spout such obvious bulls**t claiming to move America forward leaves me wondering about you.

………… parent

somebody obviously took issue with it

or it wouldn't have reached the SC.

Either way, Kindness, the move would have been unconstitutional.

………… parent

I was curious about that

but didn't see any details in what I scanned. Any idea who brought the suit and why?

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."  --R. Heinlein

………… parent

No. BUT....

If you go to Liberty Papers link under Libertarian, scroll down to the article (dated 6/28) and get more info...

………… parent

Guess (nt)

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

Too much work!

Have pity.

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."  --R. Heinlein

………… parent

A small group of paents who couldn't

transfer their kids to the school of their choice. The districts said no & the parents sued on these grounds saying their kids were being "discriminated" against. At least that's what I read.

………… parent

These are often mutually exclusive

work wherever they want, hire whomever they want

When the hirer doesn't like 'those types'.

We've still a ways to go on this whole colorblind thing.

………… parent

Just wondering

if this healing of the cancer of racism includes muslims?

Are you ready to embrace your glorious notions of liberty for muslims in America living in America.

………… parent

Let's stay on topic, MissL.

We're talking about education here. That's a remark for a another thread. What about THIS matter?

Let's not shift the goal posts.

………… parent

No we are talking about education and racial diversity sir

The SC decision specifically uses the word race in Roberts decision.

Let's not pretend like the issue is about solely education because it is not.

There has been some hostility towards Arabs due to our Iraq involvement and other factors so I don't think my question is out of line.

The schools were interested for the sake of diversity in a voluntary *keyword* voluntary program to include different ethnic and race backgrounds in their school. Some parents were offended by the voluntary integration program and choose to take it all the way to the SC. I guess they can sleep easy tonight, should I assume they are white? Or do you think black parents are worried about integrating white students into their schools

………… parent

No your shouldn't.

I guess they can sleep easy tonight, should I assume they are white?

Because doing so would be racist and being racist would be bad. I don't want you to be bad.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

did I ever suggest something bad

for muslims in America?

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

………… parent

No.

………… parent

Sure.

Just not the terrorist variety.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

How do you

tell the difference between a regular arab and a terrorist arab.

………… parent

The terrorist arab is trying to kill me.

Haven't we been over this before?

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

So is the terrorist criminal robbing your home

Dropping it now.

………… parent

RE: So is the terrorist criminal robbing your home

Not sure I understand your point. I am likewise against terrorist criminals, whomever they might be as a group, robbing my or anyone else's house. I make this statement without prejudice against any particular racial or ethnic group.

Are you arguing that we shouldn't be against "terrorist criminals robbing our homes?"

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

I think

her point is that they do not wear signs that say, "Hello, I am a terrorist."

Your reply to her question about 'What about Muslims?' in reference to discrimination suggests that you think we should be able to discriminate against Muslim terrorists. She replied how do we know a terrorist (until it is too late i.e. robbing your house) which suggests you can't know a terrorist until the act is perpetrated, so discrimination against Muslims is not valid.

A lot of 'suggests' going on, so if I falsely attributed anything to anyone feel free to correct me.

We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/

………… parent

The reason I brought it up

is the guys at Powerline get the vapors over Keith Ellison, Congressman, because he is a muslim.

They also get the vapors over arab customs becoming too accepted at the schools.

So those in favor of this ruling don't see 'race' including arabs I assume.

………… parent

Justice Kennedy Left The Door Open

Today's Supreme Court decision in the race-based school assignment cases turns out to be a disappointment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote an excellent opinion explaining why the two plans are unconstitutional, and four other Justices agreed with the result. However, one of them, Justice Kennedy, would not sign on to a key part of the Roberts opinion -- the part that says assigning students to schools by race cannot be justified as a means of achieving a racial balance in particular schools that reflects the school district's racial demographics. This leaves the door open for school systems to develop different types of plans for assigning students by race for that purpose, and then to try and persuade sympathetic lower courts that the plan in question does not run afoul of what Kennedy said in his concurrence.

Scott Johnson

So the decision is not quite as cut and dried as it first appears.

I don't exactly understand how this works. The Justices read their opinions and the lower courts can use the weakness of the 5-4 decision with Kennedy's lack of agreement and his refusal to sign on Chief Justice Roberts ruling to take issue and skirt the ruling on the state level.

………… parent

(Slow) Information

It's not hard to find the decision.

From the syllabus:

Respondent school districts voluntarily adopted student assignment plans that rely on race to determine which schools certain children may attend. The Seattle district, which has never operated legally segregated schools or been subject to court-ordered desegregation, classified children as white or nonwhite, and used the racial classifications as a “tiebreaker” to allocate slots in particular high schools. The Jefferson County, Ky., district was subject to a desegregation decree until 2000, when the District Court dissolved the decree after finding that the district had eliminated the vestiges of prior segregation to the greatest extent practicable. In 2001, the district adopted its plan classifying students as black or “other” in order to make certain elementary school assignments and to rule on transfer requests.

So, missliberties, Muslims not Black would be treated just like white or any other "other" in Louisville.

The issue is simply that a student may not be able to go where he wants because he is the wrong skin colour under these plans.

All in favour, say "AYE!"

…………

Strange the court would take up a case on a

voluntary program.

As mentioned, I am sure the blacks will be relieved that know white kids will be forced into their schools...... !

Would you agree that this is more about the parents than the kids.

And as in my post above, Kennedy didn't sign off on the opinion, so the door has been left open for other ways to incorporate diversity into the schools at the local level.

………… parent

Not a voluntary program

The issue is simply that the decision to assign students who wanted to attend a school was made on the basis of race.

Do you want such decisions based on race?

Really, ML, read the damned opinion.

Kwennedy agreed that these cases were properly decided by the court, but, as it says in the syllabus

JUSTICE KENNEDY agreed that the Court has jurisdiction to decide these cases and that respondents’ student assignment plans are notnarrowly tailored to achieve the compelling goal of diversity properly defined, but concluded that some parts of the plurality opinion implyan unyielding insistence that race cannot be a factor in instances when it may be taken into account.

In response, such cases are spelled out according to the precedent. Again, from the syllabus:

The districts here invoke the ultimate goal of those who filed Brown and subsequent cases to support their argument, but the argument of the plaintiff in Brown was that the Equal Protection Clause “prevents states from according differential treatment to American chil-dren on the basis of their color or race,” and that view prevailed—this Court ruled in its remedial opinion that Brown required school districts “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown v. Board of Education, 349
U. S. 294, 300–301 (emphasis added). Pp. 28–41. [Emphasis added by the Court.]

The Court actually suggests several ways to reach the goal without actually using race as the sole factor.

Here's how it went down:

ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III–A, and III–C, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts III–B and IV, in which SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

Now, stop depending on secondary sources, and start reading.

Decision (pdf)

………… parent

How about

you stop being such an arrogant a**.

Clearly even the brilliant justices have differences of opinion as to the facts of the case, so obviously there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Since you don't see race, how about we throw you into the gym in the streetwise all black neighborhood and you can explain the decision as a colorblind observer to the group. I am sure they would be fascinated with how you parse your intellectual findings of the Supreme Court Decision.

Really I am not interested in discussing this with you. My favorite color is still pink.

………… parent

I think there's some confusion about voluntary

As I understand it, the plans permitted students (parents) to rank choices, then the district assigned based on ranking, taking into account factors such as siblings, race, distance, etc. Details here .

I don't think the plan is voluntary for the students, I think it's voluntary for the district in that they weren't court-ordered to take steps to deal with the impact of segregation.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

So nobody can say

I am unfair, you should probably find a better way to word this than resorting to personal attacks.

I agree with you about the differences in opinion. I think there were three major separate opinions (and a few smaller expositions). That is fairly high for a court of 9, which seems to me to be quite astounding and a lot of room for disagreement on the issue.

We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/

………… parent

edit *grumble* edit

tone is important I agree. grumble... don't read the rude parts.

sidenote: Watching the PBS debates last night did anyone else notice that some of the candidates on stage looked slightly uncomfortable with the most black audience.

and is it okay to notice that the audience was black?

………… parent

Thanks

and, yes, I think it is ok to notice that.

I'm stepping out for a bit (going to the pool). See you all tonight hopefully.

We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/

………… parent