Will Wash. Post reconsider its Supreme Court endorsement criteria after Roberts, Alito?
SUMMARY: The Washington Post editorial board endorsed the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, asserting of Roberts that he possesses "a modest conception of the judicial function and a strong belief in the stability of precedent." Since then, the Post has criticized several Supreme Court decisions written by or joined by Roberts or Alito, claiming that they show a lack of judicial restraint and fidelity to precedent. Yet the Post has given no indication that its evaluation of either nominee was flawed, or that it intends to revisit its criteria for evaluating Supreme Court nominees.
In September 2005 and January 2006, The Washington Post editorial board endorsed the nominations of John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito to the Supreme Court, asserting in both instances that Democrats should defer to President Bush's choices because both nominees, while conservative and likely to differ with the editorial board in many cases, would likely show judicial restraint and respect for precedent. The Post's editorial endorsing Roberts went so far as to call him "the best nominee liberals can reasonably expect" from Bush. In recent months, the Post has criticized several 5-to-4 Supreme Court decisions in which both Roberts and Alito were in the majority, on the grounds that the opinion written or supported by either one or both of them showed a lack of judicial restraint and fidelity to precedent. Yet the Post has given no indication that its evaluation of either nominee was flawed, or that it intends to revisit its criteria for evaluating Supreme Court nominees.
On September 18, 2005, the Post endorsed Roberts, praising him as "overwhelmingly well-qualified, possess[ing of] an unusually keen legal mind and practic[ing] a collegiality of the type an effective chief justice must have." The editorial noted the large disparity between the Post and Roberts "on a number of important issues" -- for example, presidential power, affirmative action, and a "narrow view" of some civil rights protections -- where, the editorial stated, Roberts "seems likely to take positions that we will not support." Nevertheless, the editorial stated, Roberts "represents the best nominee liberals can reasonably expect from a conservative president who promised to appoint judges who shared his philosophy," because he met several criteria, including "a modest conception of the judicial function [and] a strong belief in the stability of precedent." The editorial continued, "While [Roberts] almost certainly won't surprise America with generally liberal rulings, he appears almost as unlikely to willfully use the law to advance his conservative politics."
The Post, however, did indicate one issue where it thought Roberts might reluctantly overturn precedent -- abortion. "Given his comments about precedent and the right to privacy, we do not believe a Chief Justice Roberts will be eager to overturn federal abortion rights. But we recognize that he might end up supporting that unfortunate step."
The Post's January 15, 2006, endorsement of Alito made similar arguments: Alito "is undeniably a conservative whose presence on the Supreme Court is likely to produce more conservative results than we would like to see," but that, the Post argued, is "just what President Bush promised concerning his judicial appointments." A president's "well-qualified" judicial nominees are "due deference," and "Judge Alito is superbly qualified. His record on the bench is that of a thoughtful conservative, not a raging ideologue. He pays careful attention to the record and doesn't reach for the political outcomes he desires." The Post added: "[I]t's fair to guess that Judge Alito will favor a judiciary that exercises restraint and does not substitute its judgment for that of the political branches in areas of their competence."
However, in editorials on 5-to-4 decisions this term in which both Alito and Roberts were in the majority, the Post has repeatedly excoriated opinions written or supported by Roberts or Alito for not possessing the same qualities that the paper had previously said drove its endorsements.
- A June 29 editorial blasted the court's decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 for "invoking the language of Brown [v. Board of Education] but ignoring its context and undermining its intent" when it "ruled that the Constitution forbids school systems from taking certain steps to maintain integrated schools." According to the editorial, in overturning a Kentucky school district's voluntary integration plan that was originally "adopted when the system was under a federal court's desegregation order," the decision -- supported by Roberts and Alito -- provided "a strange view of the Constitution that requires a desegregation plan one day and prohibits it the next" -- hardly the respect for precedent that the Post found in either justice. The editorial particularly took exception to Roberts' four-justice plurality opinion use of Brown v. Board of Education:
But the harm to white students here cannot legitimately be compared to the harm to black schoolchildren that animated the court in Brown. Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion correctly took the four-justice plurality to task for its glib assertion, in the opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., that the "way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." As Justice Kennedy noted, "Fifty years of experience since Brown. . . should teach us that the problem before us defies so easy a solution." There is reason to doubt whether the leeway that Justice Kennedy would give school systems would be adequate for the task, and, even if it were, to worry how long that uneasy equipoise would hold on a court tilting as far to the right as this one is.
- In a June 26 editorial on the campaign-finance decision Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, the Post wrote that "a changed court, without acknowledging that it was doing so, jettisoned [the] common-sense approach" adopted in the 2003 case McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. That case had generally upheld the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act's restrictions on outside groups running "issue ads" targeting "clearly identified" federal candidates within 60 days of a federal general election or within 30 days of a primary. While Roberts' opinion -- joined by Alito -- stated it wasn't overriding the earlier case, the Post editorial noted that "[t]hree other justices who had dissented in the earlier case -- Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas -- said they would do explicitly what they said their colleagues had done silently and overrule the previous decision." And in direct contrast to its earlier view that Alito would not "substitute [his] judgment for that of the political branches in areas of their competence" and to its assertion that Roberts and Alito would respect precedent, the Post criticized the Roberts opinion for defying precedent on an issue that the court "has long made clear" -- that "Congress has the power to prevent corporations and labor unions from seeking to influence federal elections" -- and suggested that the court had intruded into an area in which it had previously said Congress was fully able to act:
Political speech is at the core of the First Amendment; restrictions on such speech must be carefully crafted. The court, however, has long made clear that Congress has the power to prevent corporations and labor unions from seeking to influence federal elections; such entities can't make campaign contributions or run election ads. Yesterday's ruling reopens a dangerous loophole.
- A June 17 editorial on the case of Keith Bowles, an Ohio man attempting to appeal his conviction on a murder charge, summarized the decision as a message of "tough luck." A federal judge had given Bowles 17 days to file his appeal; he filed it 16 days later. However, federal law in this circumstance required that Bowles file within 14 days. According to the editorial, the majority opinion -- written by Thomas and supported by both Roberts and Alito -- "insisted that the court was left with no choice but to dismiss the case; these time limits, Justice Thomas said, are 'jurisdictional,' and failing to comply with them, for whatever reason, divests courts of the ability to hear the claim." The editorial then attacked this conclusion for ignoring precedent to get to the result: "In fact, as the dissent by Justice David H. Souter pointed out, the majority was not in any way bound to reach this manifestly unjust result; indeed, it had to ignore and overrule precedents to keep Mr. Bowles out of court." Citing Souter's dissent, the editorial criticized the majority's approach to the law:
But as the dissenters argued, federal judges have more flexibility than the majority's overly rigid approach allows. "It is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, and there is not even a technical justification for condoning this bait and switch," Justice Souter wrote. It "certainly seems reasonable to rely on an order from a federal judge," he noted -- "unless every statement by a federal court is to be tagged with the warning 'Beware of the Judge.' "
Beware of this court may be more like it.
- In an April 19 editorial on the Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart upholding a federal ban on so-called "partial-birth" abortions, the Post wrote that "[t]he willingness of the two new justices to stray so far from the court's previous rulings is disappointing and ominous."
However, the Post's May 31 editorial regarding Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. did disagree with that decision, but said that the issue -- the application of time limitations on filing sexual discrimination lawsuits over unequal pay -- was debatable from a legal standpoint, because "[a]s a statutory matter, this is a difficult question. As the majority opinion, by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., pointed out, Congress, in passing Title VII [the anti-sexual discrimination statute], took care to put in a strict time limit, and it didn't make an exception for unequal pay." The editorial said that "[w]hoever had the better reading of the statute, Justice Ginsburg" -- who argued that a strict application of the statutory time limit in this case would counter Title VII's "core purpose" of remedying discrimination in the workplace -- "is clearly right on the policy."
A February 26 Post editorial did praise a Alito- and Roberts-supported 5-4 decision restricting punitive damage awards. However, that decision, Phillip Morris USA v. Williamson, was written by Justice Steven Breyer, who is not a member of the court's conservative bloc.
According to the Nexis database, the Post did not run editorials on the other 5-4 decisions where Alito and Roberts were in the majority: Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., Uttecht v. Brown, Schriro v. Landrigan, James v. United States, Lawrence v. Florida, and Ayers v. Belmontes.
It would be great if alito and roberts ate a lot of hydrogenated vegatable oil and used chinese tooth paste. My coulter type humor and I am sorry! ...............I forgot to include bush
they also issued a decision today that said companies can, in essence, price fix. they ruled, 5-4, that companies can agree among themselves to set a minimum price on a product. and good catholic scalia has always insisted on the time limit theory in capital cases. good thing we always get the death penalty right. good thing we haven't had over 200 cases where dna evidence has cleared people when they were serving life sentences or sentenced to death. or that most cases do not involve dna, but we know there's no mistakes there. or that a person can be convicted by the eyewitness testimony of a stranger, which is proven to be wrong about half the time. good thing we have none of those problems.
96 years of anti-trust legislation booted right out the door by five political operatives from the radical wing of the Republican Party.
Again, we see the right wing projection tactic. Accuse, accuse, accuse the left of judicial activism as a distraction, from radical right-wing agenda, to insert judicial activists on every single level of the courts.
When will we get it? Every time they accuse the left of anything unethical we better realize that they are telling us their very next move.
Could I get you a tissue? An aspirin?
how about a comment? do you think companies should be able to collude among themselves to set prices?
If you are going to get something try a brain your obvious lack of one is an embarassment
Solon
Ironic, don't you think, that a poster (Taz) who uses so many strawman arguments, has so much in common with the Wizard of Oz' Scarecrow?
That was good Mescal, very good.
Remember Impeach Earl Warren?
What a surprise no calls of judicial activism from the right. Probably busy lining up another abortion case to give a good pesudo reason to take down roe vs wade.
I think that when the campaign ads start to dribble all over my TV its power cable is going to be cut.
Roe v. Wade should be overturned. It is, to put it bluntly, bad law.
to. wit: "Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote the Roe opinion, says that “Roe, as
constitutional interpretation, is virtually impossible to defend.”constitutional interpretation, is virtually impossible to defend."" Harry Blackmun who wrote the Roe opinion, says that “Roe, asconstitutional interpretation, is virtually impossible to defend.”Even noted liberals and pro-choice advocates Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe think it is bad law.
It is bad law because as Blackmun worded the decision, Roe was based on “the right to privacy” which is nowhere in the Constitution. Blackmun uses the word "penumbra" referring to the Constitution to define this 'right to privacy', penumbra meaning 'shadow'. The Constitution defines the legal rights we refer to as privacy in the 4th, 5th and 9th amendments. If it isn't in there, it isn't in the Constitution. There is no 'shadow'. If we want to add a new right to the Constitution, article V defines an amendment process for that. Justice Blackmun and the Supreme Court are not an amendment process.
“Roe v. Wade should be overturned. It is, to put it bluntly, bad law.
to. wit: ‘Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote the Roe opinion, says that Roe, as
constitutional interpretation, is virtually impossible to defend. Constitutional interpretation, is virtually impossible to defend’. Harry Blackmun who wrote the Roe opinion, says that ‘Roe, asconstitutional interpretation, is virtually impossible to defend.’
Even noted liberals and pro-choice advocates Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe think it is bad law.”
Why should we care what these people think?
“It is bad law because as Blackmun worded the decision, Roe was based on “the right to privacy” which is nowhere in the Constitution.”
The Constitution does not give us any rights; it limits the power of government. All rights whatever they may be are inherent to us.
Why should anyone care what you say. Its clear you don't think.
Your opinions are distilled from pure ignorance.
Your posts are devoid of supporting facts and references.
I thought he answerred pretty well.
You on the other hand, well I hope your cute when your angry. Cuz your rhetoric leaves me cold.
Really?
Looks like to me like LOONZ has never read the Constitution.
He asserts that the Constitution does not gurantee any rights. There is this little bit at the end. Its called the 'Bill of Rights'. It discusses specific rights that individuals posses and which shall not be infringed by the government. The 10th Amendment also constrains the Congress's authority to those specific items delegated to it within the Constitution.
Now .... My guess is you think the FDA, OSHA, etc. are wonderful organizations. These agencies were erected by Congress. Which of the enumerated powers of Congress do these agencies represent?
Moreover, these agencies each year write many pages of new regulations which have the force of law if not overruled by the Congress. Where in the Constitution do you see that the Congress has the power to invest the Executive branch with any of its delegated powers?
“It discusses specific rights that individuals posses and which shall not be infringed by the government.”
We possess every right imaginable and the specific rights mentioned in the Constitution are the only rights we possess which the government cannot infringe upon under any circumstances. All the other rights we possess can be limited if they deprive someone else of their rights and this is the only instance where government should pass a law restricting our rights (which should resolve the conflict). You and other conservatives are reading the Constitution incorrectly. With your interpretation of it, we possess virtually no rights. That means I don’t have a right to walk down the sidewalk, I don’t have a right to buy food, I don’t have a right to drink water, I don’t have a right to go swimming, I don’t have a right to play baseball, I don’t have a right to go to the movies, etc. The Constitution does not and has not ever given us rights; we possess all rights inherently.
The language Congess shall make no law PROHIBITING the excersice of religion or ABRIDGING the freedom of speech or press makes it pretty clear that it is protecting rights we HAVE not GIVING us those rights
It sounds like you are the one who needs to re-read the Constitution. Specifically the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Sounds to me like this fully backs up Loonz's point and completely discredits yours.
Why should anyone care what YOU say. YOU are dumb as a post, let me appologize to all posts out there for the comparison. Simply put, since you couldnt possibly understand anything else you are beyond stupid, just because YOU dont get what is being said is NO indication it didn't make perfect sense. IF you ever develop the capacity for higher brain function feel free to get back to us.
Precedent means nothing at all to the rightwing bozos now in the ascendant on the Court, who I believe should be impeached, tossed, and then brought up on charges of lying under oath during their Congressional testimony on their nominations.On June 14, SCOTUS overturned two precedents in order to toss out an appeal to a murder conviction on a technicality.On June 25 it overturned a precedent about campaign finance reform in order to increase the power of money in political campaigns and overturned 30 years of precedent regarding the Endangerd Species Act in order to weaken regulation of developers.On Thursday, the Court ignored its own standard practice by taking up appeals on a matter about which there were no differences among appellate courts in order to strike down school diversity programs - essentially overturning 50 years of decisions designed to enforce racial desegregation.Every one of these decisions was by the same 5-4 majority with the same names on each side. "Respect for precedent," indeed.
Actually, Alito and Roberts have gone out of their way to NOT OVERTURN precedents so far. They refused to overturn both Roe v. Wade and the McCain-Feingold campaign finance decision, even though Scalia and Thomas voted to overturn both of these cases. There's many other cases as well that Roberts and Alito refused to overturn precedents, when Scalia and Thomas voted to overturn these precedents. I'm actually a little concerned that Roberts and Alito seem so reluctant to overturn precedents that were wrongly decided by liberal judical activists. This is what I'm talking about:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/28/AR2007062800991.html?hpid=topnews
Alito and Roberts have gone out of their way to NOT OVERTURN precedents
That's just nonsense, especially since I just cited five cases where they did just that, including one where they did it after taking an appeal they normally would not even have taken.
That they didn't overturn precedent in every single case where they theoretically could have says no more about their devotion to precedent than George Bush's failure (so far) to attack Iran says about his self-declared commitment to the US being a "humble" nation.
No, you simply ignored Rhino's point. They didn't overturn any major decisions, just minor parts. Remember Roe v. Wade created a new right and overturned precedents but of course since that went your way it didn't bother you.
They didn't overturn any major decisions, just minor parts.
Bzzzt! In a couple of the cases I mentioned, such as the one involving the ESA, the previous decision was overturned in whole. And frankly, the argument that they didn't overturn entire decisions, just the parts of the decisions relevant to the case at hand, is just silly and merely reaffirms that precedent was no bar to whatever their agenda required.
I thought it was you rightwingers who were in favor of "tradition" and against "judicial activism." I guess that's another precedent that doesn't matter.
Roe v. Wade created a new right
Bzzzt! Roe was decided on the basis of "substantive due process" establishing a right to privacy, which was recognized years earlier in Griswold v. Connecticut. It established no "new" right and neither in fact did Griswold.
"They refused to overturn both Roe v. Wade"
When did they do this?
They did it in the partial birth abortion case which came before the Supreme Court. Scalia wrote a concurring opinion that Thomas signed onto which said that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided and should be overturned. Alito and Roberts refused to sign onto that concurrence. They had a chance to go on record as saying that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but they refused to sign onto the opinion.
It really winds your righties up that the Federal government cannot rape our women with tyrannical laws, don't it?
Thank God!!!
Comment votre voyage allait-il en France ?
:) so it was liberal judicial activism to decide these laws but would be conservatice activism to overturn them your fingers and just a little bit ahead of your brain there rino
sorry i meant to say would NOT be conservative activism
I am not gonna express my true wishes for the majority on this Supreme Court. Not that I would act on them, but I would likely be hearing an unfriendly knock on my door in short order.
I am very angry - at a lot of people. I am angry at every American too apathetic to get out and vote against the Rethug creeps who appointed these anti-democratic corrupt fascist traitors to the constitution. I am angry at every American voter who allowed themselves to be manipulated into voting against all of our interests (and the crappy educational system that made it possible) and didn't have the time to consider the implications of electing wingnuts in every branch of government. I am angry at every traitor nationwide but especially those in Ohio and Florida who stole votes and installed a usurper in the White House.
I am mad as hell at Ralph Nader who took almost 100,000 votes in Florida (making the count close enough for the court to step in and appoint Bush to the presidency in 01) - saying "There isn't a dime's worth of difference between the parties."
Oh really? What Democrat would have appointed Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito or Kennedy?
I am furious at the Democrats who have repeatedly rolled over and allowed confirmation of these fascists - knowing that the Rethugs fight like junkyard dogs to prevent any justice with the faintest of liberalism off the court. (I heard Obama say he would have voted to confirm Roberts; I'll never support him in the primaries) The American electorate may be stupid and ill-informed; US Senators know better.
Our Democracy and freedom have never been in greater peril. Unfortunately that danger will not pass when and if we manage to pry our dictator-in-chief out of the oval office. Given that the only difference between this one and the one that unconstitutionally installed the usurper is two more neocons appointed by W, that is far from a certainty.
If the danger was not now so great, I would support the formation of a third party and damn the consequences, Since it is, we have to support real Democrats in the primaries and elect the nominee - whoever it is. Then we have to keep up the pressure.
Right on, uneasyone.
How will WE lead?
Great post, agree with everything you said!
I do remember that quite a few Democrats voted to put those men on the Supreme Court. Guess it's always Nader's fault when the Democrats vote for fascism. Can't blame the Dems, that would be too honest.
Will the Washington Post REconsider their endorsements of Roberts and Alito? That would presume they considered them in the first place, no?
Larrye, your analysis of where the court has contradicted "Conservative Principles" and its newest members have contradicted their own testimony before Congress is sharp. My question is Why even bother constructing an argument to point out the flawed reasoning and intellectual foundations of this week's decisions?
There is no reasoning, nor are there any intellectual foundations to these rulings. The five members of the SCOTUS already know this. They are simply carrying out the agenda they have always had, which is also the reason they were nominated to begin with. They are there to ensure that all traces of progressive legislation and social change of the last century are eradicated from American society. That's it. End of story, folks. There is no point in engaging these people or trying to make them understand your point of view - or see the inconsistencies between their stated goals and their actions. They know there's an inconsistency there. They always have. It's called lying.
If you look back at the performance of the Republican Party for the past 15 years, it's fairly obvious that the party leaders will stop at nothing in their quest for absolute Power. They are not interested in governing, their quest is to rule. Meanwhile, the Democrats have continued to act like Golden Retrievers when they should be taking their cues from abused Pit Bulls.
I happen to be an expert on the Seattle School District Case, more than 90% of the Country.
This time MMFA is incorrect. It is not the fault of who wrote this, but that case was correctly decided.
First, there was NO Segregation in Seattle!!
Moreover, the District provided no evidence that achieving an arbitrary racial balance served any purpose at all. As Justice Thomas said in his concurring opinion today, “Racial imbalance is not segregation, and the mere incantation of terms like resegregation and remediation cannot make up the difference. Racial imbalance without intentional state action to separate the races does not amount to segregation. To raise the specter of resegregation to defend these programs is to ignore the meaning of the word and the nature of the cases before us.” He was referring to the fact that Seattle’s housing pattern was voluntary, and did not result from State segregation. This fact clearly distinguishes this case from Brown v. Board of education, no matter what you hear in the media.
Notably, contrary to what the District claimed, every school in the District had a diverse student body. For example, “the District estimated that without the race-based tiebreaker, the nonwhite populations of the 2000-01 ninth grade class at Franklin High School would have been 79.2 percent, at Hale High School 30.5 percent, at Ballard High School 33 percent and at Roosevelt High School 41.1 percent. Using the race-based tiebreaker, the actual nonwhite populations of the ninth grade classes at the same schools respectively were 59.5 percent, 40.6 percent, 54.2 percent and 55.3 percent.” 426 F.3d 1162, 1170-71.
Did you catch that?? Since when is segregation defined as having a school with a 30% nonwhite student body?? Why is there a compelling interest to reach the arbitrary 60/40 ratio?? Where is the evidence that 60/40 is optimal for learning??
In fact, rather than differentiating between African-American, Asian-American, Latino, Native American, or Caucasian students, the tiebreaker classifies students only as “white” or “nonwhite.” Consequently, Justice Roberts stated, “We simply do not understand how Justice Breyer [in the dissent] can maintain that classifying every schoolchild as black or white, and using that classification as a determinative factor in assigning children to achieve pure racial balance, can be regarded as “less burdensome, and hence more narrowly tailored” than the consideration of race in [prior precedent involving the University of Michigan’s admissions program.]”
Justice Roberts also spent about thirty pages ripping apart Justice Breyer’s worthless arguments. He said that Breyer’s arguments, “Relied on inapplicable desegregation cases, misstatements of admitted dicta, and other noncontrolling pronouncements.” He said, “[The] dissent candidly dismisses the significance of this Court’s repeated holdings that all racial classifications must be reviewed under strict scrutiny, arguing that a [more lenient] standard of review should be applied because the districts use race for beneficent rather than malicious purposes.” I guess Justice Breyer and the dissent thinks it is beneficent to send young students on three buses back and forth from school because they did not meet a racial quota.
Finally, Justice Thomas cited his brilliant argument in a prior decision: “The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.” Good thing the mainstream media provides you with complete analysis.
I don't want to paste my whole editorial...but if you want to be more informed about the facts of the case.
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com/2007/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-seattle.htmlI think your comment shows more bias than expertise, with its references to Thomas's "brilliant" arguments and Breyer's "worthless" ones.
What's more, by declaring segregation can exist only as the result of direct government action, Thomas is rejecting decades of legal theory and practice, which has long recognized that de facto segregation is every bit as real and as harmful as de jure.
And I'd have more confidence in your "expertise" if you didn't swallow whole the claim that housing patterns are entirely "voluntary," an utter absurdity that can only be accepted under the delusion that neither racial nor ethnic nor economic discrimination exist.
Admittedly, that is the fantasy world in which the Filthy Five want us to imagine we live, so that no action need be taken at all, but I would have expected an "expert" to know better.
Breyer is one of those Justices who has violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution by using foreign law to decide US Constitutional cases. this action by definition subverts the Constitution to foreign law and therefore violates his oath to defend same.
In this debate with Antonin Scalia, Breyer defends exactly this 'principle'.
All of Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer have committed this offense. All three should be impeached and removed for failing to defend the Constitution.
"Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have been the most enthusiastic justices in giving consideration to foreign legal trends. In voting last month to uphold an affirmative action policy at the University of Michigan, Ginsburg, joined by Breyer, highlighted an international treaty that endorsed the use of race-conscious programs to help minorities."
This is the oath of office taken by a Supreme Court justice
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''
I see nothing in there violated by referencing foriegn law. Since the Supreme Court has already been doing this from the beggining
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/09/12/050912fa_fact
The United States Supreme Court has made references to foreign law since the earliest days of the Republic. During the tenure of Chief Justice John Marshall, the Court was often called on to interpret treaties and weigh controversies involving ships on the high seas, and the Justices frequently cited the laws of other nations in their decisions. In 1829, for example, Marshall analyzed both Spanish and French law to settle a claim by an American who had bought a parcel of land once owned by Spain and later included in the Louisiana Purchase. Contemporary commercial disputes also cross borders, and the Justices rely on foreign and international law, as well as on American statutes, to adjudicate them. In the past two years, the Court has considered such questions as whether Mexican trucks must abide by American safety rules under nafta, whether the American family of a Holocaust victim could recover art seized by the Nazis in Austria, and whether a United States district court should compel the American computer-chip-makers AMD and Intel to provide documents to each other in a European antitrust dispute. “When it comes to interpreting treaties or settling international business disputes, the Court has always looked to the laws of other countries, and the practice has not been particularly controversial,” says Norman Dorsen, a professor at New York University Law School.
Its not like they are tossing out our soveriegnity or saying WE are controlled by international law. The US SUPREME COURT made these decisions and talking about an international legal consensus to bolster their arguments is a reasonable argument.
Ooooooh
Someone please call the coroner, because NL's argument just got thoroughly OBLITERATED!!!
I'd have more confidence in his expertise, if his first sentance where something I'd expect from an expert.
“The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.”
It should demean us all that today in the 21st century we still have to use racial registers to achieve diversity but I’m sure this is not what Thomas was referencing. Conservatives have it in their head that everything is equal between the races because of some Supreme Court decisions in the fifties and sixties and laws that were passed by the Congress but this is not the case. Racial disparity still exists here in America and conservatives for some reason won’t admit it (maybe their happy with the racial disparity).
And I’m trying to figure out what Thomas meant when he said “because those classifications can harm favored races”.
It comes as no surprise to me that YOU are confused by this.
A government that classifies its citizens according to their race is by definition a racist government. Thomas is stating the obvous: The government cannot make any law or policy that decides the fate of individual citizen according to their race. To do otherwise is racist.
So how is yoru anti-semitism coming today, Loonz? Find any new Neo-cons to hate today?
"A government that classifies its citizens according to their race is by definition a racist government."
No it's not.
"The government cannot make any law or policy that decides the fate of individual citizen according to their race. To do otherwise is racist."
They can indeed if the minority is being oppressed or discriminated against.
"So how is yoru anti-semitism coming today, Loonz?"
I keep on telling you only conservatives are anti-Semites.
"Find any new Neo-cons to hate today?"
Nope. It's still only that 28 percent who support Bush.
Typically mindless liberal: "It's not racist unless it discriminates against a member of your predefined victim group." Our nation was founded on the God given rights of individuals. Our Constituion guarantees individual rights. There is no such constitutrion thing as "group rights".
This is what racist means:
Any policy that makes distinctions [discriminates] between citizens according to their race is, by definition, racist. Any governmmet that pursues such policies is, by definition, racist. Any person that makes judgements about the worth of another [discriminaqtes] based on their race is, by definition, a racist.Since you've demonstrated clearly you don't actually know what a racist is, your opinion on this point is worthless."It's not racist unless it discriminates against a member of your predefined victim group."
We do have a lot of victims in our society because of conservatives. Tell your people to stop being racist, bigoted and prejudice and maybe we can get rid of these laws that try to level this unequal playing field created by them.
We have a lot more victims in society because of liberals. Why? Liberals constantly seek to expand the scope of givernment. e.g. Every white male in this country has diminished rights because the National government has for the last 35 years been promoting racila discrimination against white men in the form of Affirmative Action programs.
If it is wrong to give whites preferential treatment over blacks because they are white, then it is also wrong, by the same principle of law, to give blacks preferential treatment over whites.
You have advocated this very policy above, declaring yourself as a racist by doing so. You have also labeled the denial of equal treatment under the law to blacks as wrong yet justify the same denial of basic rights to whites under the guise of 'affirmative action', identifying yourself as a hypocrite. You are no better than the KKK and the other white bigots who used to make blacks sit in tha back of the bus because they are black.
We have a lot more victims in society because of liberals. Why? Liberals constantly seek to expand the scope of givernment. e.g. Every white male in this country has diminished rights because the National government has for the last 35 years been promoting racila discrimination against white men in the form of Affirmative Action programs.
White males in America have had 270 years of Affirmative Action. It has only been the last 50 years have people other than White males have been able to beak the systemic favoritism WCM Affirmative Action has held on American society.If it is wrong to give whites preferential treatment over blacks because they are white, then it is also wrong, by the same principle of law, to give blacks preferential treatment over whites.
If two people begin a race, and one of the runners has an anchor attached to his leg it is an unfair race. If after five minutes into the race the anchor is cut loose is the race is still unfair. In order to compensate for the unfair circumstance of the labored runner he must be moved to the same location as the runner who started without any limitations. · You have advocated this very policy above, declaring yourself as a racist by doing so. You have also labeled the denial of equal treatment under the law to blacks as wrong yet justify the same denial of basic rights to whites under the guise of 'affirmative action', identifying yourself as a hypocrite. You are no better than the KKK and the other white bigots who used to make blacks sit in tha back of the bus because they are black.The Klu Klux Klan were white supremist who view anyone who did not fit their paradigm as inferior. The used muder, intimidation and terrorism to further their cause. People who advocate for Affirmative Action believe that qualified people from historically oppressed segments of our society should be allowed to receive opportunities that traditionally would not be available to them because of systemic discrimination with regard to hiring practices. There simple is no relation between the two. Your KKK=Affirmative Action argument is…outrageous, to be king, utterly stupid to be honest.
There has never been a more priveleged group of non royalty in the history of the world than white Christian American males and I say that AS a white Christian American male. Your attempt to portray us as sad victims is just a flight from reality.
FASCINATING ARGUMENT that you're making here, NL.
To RECOGNIZE the existence of racial discrimination... & to attempt to minimize the harmful effects upon the discriminated racial group are... by you definition, RACIST? It is racist to oppose racism.
Hmmm.
So, the only way that government can resist racism is by PERMITTING RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL MINORITIES TO CONTINUE UNABATED!
Wow.
So,,, by your definitions... recognizing the existence of racial discrimination is... in itself... racist.
Compensating the clear VICTIMS of racial discrimination is... in itself... racist.
The only thing that seems to qualify... by your definitions... as non-racist is RACISM ITSELF!
Yeahhhh...
Good luck to you on that theory.
NL:
As a White Male in America, I reject your "VICTIM" portrayal of White Males as a result of Affirmative Action. You are a whiner.
AA was, and IS, what's called a "REMEDY" to systemic discrimination AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE and WOMEN (with a centuries-old history). To deny this discrimination is to admit hopeless ignorance or willful idiocy.
So, was there a PROBLEM? There was. Was it "curing itself"? One hundred years after the 14th Amendment guaranteed "equal protection under the laws", racial and gender discrimination were still rampant in this nation. Something HAD to be done, and AA was the answer.
You're like the street thug who has been beating hell out of a pedestrian for a half hour, then he manage to land a punch on YOU. "No fair!" you holler, "It's jut not RIGHT for him to hit me! I'm obviously the VICTIM here!"
Try it among the rightwing ignorant bigots and haters ... it's a NO SALE here.
Typical moron conservative posting a definition he obviously didnt understand.
NL, where did you get your law degree?
Rightwing TalkingPoints University? Ah I thought I remembered all of these classics. Others have argued the exact same arguments you have (btw: you might want to double check, if you quote your right wing heroes nearly verbatim as you have, they could sue you for copyright infringement.)
But as in the past, these arguments are bs and you should know better.
Oh, no the courts used international law to decide an issue! Well as any first year American History student can tell you, we would not have any laws if they had not been taken from other sources. Our very Bill of Rights is in fact a conglomeration of French laws, the ideal s of the Humanist Period, English law and a variety of other sources.
As for the right to privacy. This one seems to be hard for cons to get.
1. Its implied in the Bill of Rights. Freedom of Religion? Freedom of Speech? These and other freedoms listed imply that government does not have the ability to intrude into our personal lives.
2. This is also one of the reasons for the revolution. Ask yourself, beyond taxes, why did the colonists revolt? Was it because they had the freedom to do whatever they wished and to choose their own destiny? History says no.
There are about 253 other reasons (that I have listed) for the idea of a right to privacy, both in a historical context and a legal context. Unfortunately I need to go to work, so maybe another time.
But let me put it like this. It like other ideals, can be treated as a 20 questions type game. Does the Bill of Rights say Right to Privacy? No. Should it have, yes. Can someone form and use Right to Privacy, from past decisions of the court and also the history of our country? Yes.
Everyday I read more and more, and everyday my belief that all children and adults should take basic Civics and US history classes grows.
"Justice Thomas cited his brilliant argument..."
Sorry, I just can't get my mind around that phrase.
At least you weren't referring to your screed as brilliant.
You can take your "worthless" expert opinion somewhere else, where they "appreciate "experts" such as you.
Anyone who's ever gone to your blog knows what to expect. I doubt anyone returns a second time.
I see more dissent between the nitwit and Darth than can be found on your blog.
You all are demonstrating that you have no clue what took place in Seattle.
The school district arbitrarily decided that they needed a 60/40 ratio of nonewhite to white students in their schools.
The only problem was that none of the schools were segregated. They created an absolute tiebreaker to assign students to the schools based on race.
Precedent requires individual consideration, no quotas, a sunset period.....all absent in Seattle.
The University of Michigan Law School was found to be Constitutional because it satisfied those factors.
I read the depositions, the Seattle School Board didn't think this through. You are required under strict constitutional scrutiny to narrowly tailor you plan if you are going to make classifications based on race.
They clearly didn't do that in this case. Consequently, the Meeks child had to take three buses back and forth from school just because he didn't satisfy the random 60/40 racial quota. Again, if you really want to learn what the issues were see below.
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com/2007/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-seattle.html
Moreover, everyone knew how this case was going to come out after listening to the oral arguments. I link to them too if you care to hear.
Loonz:
Here is what he meant by “because those classifications can harm favored races”
The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. Gen. Banks was distressed with solicitude as to what he should do with the Negro. Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, "What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don't disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot- box, let him alone, don't disturb him! [Applause.] If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone,--your interference is doing him a positive injury.
- Frederick Douglass
This speech was a plea by Douglas not to interfere with self determining people of color. It has no bearing on a case involving school districts trying to reach some level of ethnic integration. I have not studied the case in depth, but the argument that skin color cannot be used to integrate schools in completely contradictory. If I had a jar with 100 white jelly beans and I wanted to create a certain ratio in order to achieve some level of diversity I would require that some of the white jelly beans be removed from the particular jar in order to achieve the objective. In short, you have to move some of the white kids to another school so that the kids of color can e moved in. This speech was a plea by Douglas not to interfere with self determining people of color. It has no bearing on a case involving school districts trying to reach some level of ethnic integration. I have not studied the case in depth, but the argument that skin color cannot be used to integrate schools in completely contradictory. If I had a jar with 100 white jelly beans and I wanted to create a certain ratio in order to achieve some level of diversity I would require that some of the white jelly beans be removed from the particular jar in order to achieve the objective. In short, you have to move some of the white kids to another school so that the kids of color can e moved in. Some kids may be placed in a school that was not their original choice, but what I have read gives no indication that any child was denied adequate access to education. To play devil's advocate, if a school district s attempting to aggressively integrate schools it must provide some flexibility in the desired benchmark, so that children aren't sent through loops simply to get to school everyday. There must be a balance.
I have to disagree with Frederick Douglass. He mistakenly believed that if Blacks [and women] were given the right to vote everything would be just peachy. After that speech, we saw the emergence of the terrorist group: the KKK, law enforcement and the courts looking the other way while blacks were being beaten and killed by these terrorists, Jim Crow Laws and The Black Codes were enacted (lasting a hundred years with court approval), and racial discrimination in employment, housing, education, prison sentencing and confinement and even seating was rampant. There is no way you can fight against these forces on your own. Douglass assumed there would be no barriers after enfranchisement and he was wrong.
Okay??
The KKK, Black Codes, and everything you mentioned had NOTHING to do with what the school was doing in Seattle.
The school wanted an arbitrary 60/40 ratio for no particular reason. That's not good enough to be constitutional.
"The KKK, Black Codes, and everything you mentioned had NOTHING to do with what the school was doing in Seattle."
I was responding to the quote you posted by Frederick Douglass (I don't even know why you posted it).
"The school wanted an arbitrary 60/40 ratio for no particular reason."
To help along with the desegregation of our society.
"That's not good enough to be constitutional."
If they were purposefully trying to make the school 100 percent black or 100 percent white, then I would agree with you but that's not the case.
You don't get it, loonz. Only, verysillyextraneouslylongshamelessblogplughandle.com can draw on outside sources to support his argument about the Seattle school district. Everyone else MUST constrain themselves to referrencing ONLY that which happened in Seattle.
Further we must not consider the implications this court decision may have in Selma, Alabama or Macon, Georgia or anywhere else that segregation is now free to be practiced.
If you want to hear the implication...here it is.
Schools will still be able to use race as a factor, not the determinative factor.
This is what the University of Michigan Law School Does.
I hate to break it to you...but unless you read the facts of the Seattle Case, you have no clue what you're talking about.
In other words high performing school districts are free to siphon off the best and brightest from the pool of the multicultural student body and let the rest be relegated to unequal access to first rate education?
No, and the the School District did not argue that.
The plan worked like this, first students could choose what school they wanted to go to. But, if the should was outside the 60/40 ratio, then the student would be sent to another school because of his or her race.
That is unconstitutional.
The Depositions of the Super Intendant demonstrate that the District didn't even consider why they had a race-based tiebreaker. 1) None of the schools were segregated; 2) None of the students or parents complained that the schools were segregated; 3) the school did not narrowly tailor its plan which is required by law.
"The plan worked like this, first students could choose what school they wanted to go to. But, if the should was outside the 60/40 ratio, then the student would be sent to another school because of his or her race."
I was reading some news reports and it looked like the school district was willing to work with parents who were against desegregation in our society.
1) None of the schools were segregated
What was the ratio before the 60/40 system.
2)None of the students or parents complained that the schools were segregated
What percentage of students and parents complained after the 60/40 ratio was implemented. I would think most students and parents would have no problem with the desegregation of our society.
3) the school did not narrowly tailor its plan which is required by law.
What does this mean?
1) None of the schools were segregated
What was the ratio before the 60/40 system.
*70/30 in the MOST racially imbalanced school.
2)None of the students or parents complained that the schools were segregated
What percentage of students and parents complained after the 60/40 ratio was implemented. I would think most students and parents would have no problem with the desegregation of our society.
*Not data was provided in the record of the total number of complaints made, but the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is an individual right. It is not considered by the number of people on one side vs. the other.
3) the school did not narrowly tailor its plan which is required by law.
Narrowly tailored means that the plan was the least burdensome to achieving its "compelling interest." If there are less burdensome ways of acheiving the same result, the Court will strike it down as unconstitutional.
For example, the University of Michigan Undergrad plan was struck down, while the law school plan was not. The reason was because the Undergrad plan gave student 20 points if they were a minority. That made it determinatvle and unconstitutional.
The law school used race as a single factor, which the court found okay.
Moreover, Quotas have been found by Precedent to be unconstitutional as well, which was present in this case.
"70/30 in the MOST racially imbalanced school."
If it was 70/30 already, why are you complaining about the 60/40 ratio?
“Not data was provided in the record of the total number of complaints made”
Give a roundabout number of the record complaints. And you'll probably see a record number of cases around the country especially in the south when schools start to resegregate.
“but the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is an individual right. It is not considered by the number of people on one side vs. the other.”
This is from the dissenting opinion:
It should read: "state and local governments to deal effectively with the growing resegregation of public schools".
“We have approved of “narrowly tailored” plans that are no less race-conscious than the plans before us. And we have understood that the Constitution permits local communities to adopt desegregation plans even where it does not require them to do so.
No, they only approved plans resulting from actual segregation.
Moreover, Breyer was only discussing dicta which was inapplicable to this case.
This plan was much more less tailored than prior plans, especially since they only made a white/nonwhite criteria.
Also, it was 70/30 if the district left everything alone. If the school is going to take drastic measures based on ract, that lead to young students taking 3 buses to get to school, they better make sure they demonstrate why 60/40 is better than 70/30.
I told you earlier that the school district was willing to work something out with the people who didn't care that Seattle was furthering the case of desegregation in our society.
First, in order for a school’s affirmative action plan to satisfy Constitutional scrutiny, the school must demonstrate: 1) It is motivated by a compelling state interest, and 2) the methods used to achieve its compelling interest are narrowly tailored, not overly broad. This case centered mostly on the second prong, although the majority in this case questioned the District's compelling interest, and alluded to the fact that school admission plans should be entirely “colorblind."
This “colorblind” argument diverges from precedent, which has held that schools have a compelling interest in achieving a racially diverse student body. This has legalized some affirmative action programs around the Country. Today, Justice Kennedy, in his concurring opinion upheld this precedent stating that race still can be considered as a factor in admission. Kennedy's concurrence is extremely important. It limits the holding of this case and likely means that High School's affirmative action plans are constitutional so long as they mimic the University of Michigan Law School's plan, which was found to be constitutional.
Nevertheless, outright racial balancing and quotas are still unconstitutional. For example, race can be used as a single factor, not the deciding factor, when determining admission. This is why the Supreme Court has held that the University of Michigan Law School can consider race in its admission process. However, quotas are not tolerated because they insulate racial minorities from competing with the majority of students for the same seats. Quotas prevent people from gaining “equal protection under the law.”
Whether or not the Seattle School district had a compelling interest in this case, the plan was so blatantly a quota that the 9th Circuit had to turn itself into a pretzel to find it Constitutional. “The District sought a racially balanced student body of 40% white, 60% nonwhite children in each school; the tiebreaker [used] exclude[d] white or nonwhite students from an oversubscribed school if their admission did not further that preferred ratio.” For example, if too many students elected to attend one school and that school’s racial proportion was plus or minus 15% greater than the ratio, the student would be forced to go to a different school.
"Nevertheless, outright racial balancing and quotas are still unconstitutional. For example, race can be used as a single factor, not the deciding factor, when determining admission."
What if the school district did it by location where 60 percent come from one neighborhood and 40 percent come from another neighborhood? And do you think that woman would sue again if the district did it this way?
To be honest, if the District wants its plan to pass. It would have to give individual consideration and not set a quota.
For example, the school could have a point system like the University of Michigan law school does. It seems like it would accomplish the same result, but it is a simple formality.
While I agree with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, that race should not be considered....Kennedy left this case open for schools to follow the University of Michigan Law School Plan.
"For example, the school could have a point system like the University of Michigan law school does. It seems like it would accomplish the same result, but it is a simple formality."
Michigan had a point system before the Supreme Court case. The court just said that you couldn't award any points based on race so they'll probably do it by location but this will not work in Seattle or other places.
No...you're getting the facts messed up. The Undergrad plan awards 20 points to minoriites. That was too high. They still have sort of a point system, but they just review it as a factor, not the factor. It has nothing to do with geography. They can still consider race.
This was what the Michigan Law School did and was found to be okay.
The Seattle school District just decided that 60/40 was its goal, and tried to achieve it with an absolute tiebreaker. This went against what Justice O'Connor said was permissible in Grutter (Law School Case) and Gratz (Undergrad case)
"No...you're getting the facts messed up. The Undergrad plan awards 20 points to minoriites. That was too high. They still have sort of a point system, but they just review it as a factor, not the factor. It has nothing to do with geography. They can still consider race."
Michigan had a 150 point based system and they awarded 20 points for underrepresented minorities. So it was just a factor.
“The Seattle school District just decided that 60/40 was its goal,”
It was based on the majority/minority population in the district. If a school fell outside a 30 percent range of the majority/minority population in a district the tiebreaker was used. And after attending a school for one year, any student was allowed to transfer to any school regardless of the ratio of the transferring school. They did this for about two years and achieve diversity of all school in accordance with population of the district. 80 to 90 percent of all students received their first choice of school and between 90 to 97 percent received their first or second choice.
And you keep posting this 70/30 ratio. In Seattle the School Board considered a school like that to be unbalanced. Seattle is about 70 percent White and 30 percent minority. If a school has a 70 to 80 percent minority population the school was not considered diverse. Before the current system was implemented, Seattle considered a school with more than a 50 percent minority population or a 67 percent white population to be unbalanced.
Reallylonghandle.com please look up what is happening to the University of Michigan and its current problems. Also see current Michigan laws and the ramifications of the highly racist amendment (Prop 2) that was passed last November. (I especially liked how the people collecting names for the petition openly lied to people. "This protects the rights of minorities." or claiming it would increase the number of black students at the public universities when the opposite was true.)
Also comparing a public school system to a university, that is what I believe is called comparing apples to oranges.
If you are going to continue using U of M as an example, please actually understand what you are talking about first.
You all are demonstrating that you have no clue what took place in Seattle.
Actually, what's being demonstrated is your ability to regurgitate talking points - especially since I didn't comment on Seattle, I commented on you.
arbitrarily decided that they needed a 60/40 ratio
Based on the very figures you quoted, such a ratio would mean a roughly-equal distribution across all the high schools, i.e., maximum diversity. You may disagree with goal, plan, or both, but it's absurd to call it "arbitrary."
Precedent requires no quotas
"Quota" has become nothing but a rightwing buzz word. Courts had earlier found that "quotas," which implied rigid limits, were wrong but "targets," which implied "pretty much somewhere around this number," were acceptable. By your own account, the "quotas" in Seattle could vary by 15%. That is, in the not-distant past they are exactly what would have been called acceptable "targets." But now, any attempt at balance or diversity or integration that uses numbers to judge success risks being slammed as a "quota."
everyone knew how this case was going to come out after listening to the oral arguments
Everyone should have known as soon as the case was taken, since in doing so the Court violated its own standard practice of not taking appeals where there are no differences among appellate courts - and there were none about the legitimacy of such programs.
"Quota" has become nothing but a rightwing buzz word. Courts had earlier found that "quotas," which implied rigid limits, were wrong but "targets," which implied "pretty much somewhere around this number," were acceptable. By your own account, the "quotas" in Seattle could vary by 15%.
No, as Justice Powell Stated, Quotas insulate minorities from competing with the majority of students for the same seats. That's not equal protection under the law. You need individual consideration of students, absent in this case.
Moreover, what the University of Michigan does is check its numbers over time, which O'Connor found to be not a quota. But, even O'Connor would have sided with the majority on this case because the Seattle School District did exactly the opposite what O'Connor said was required in her prior decision.
"No, as Justice Powell Stated, Quotas insulate minorities from competing with the majority of students for the same seats."
Conservatives don't seem to understand that it's not an equal playing field so the competition is rigged in favor of some people naturally. And quotas don't necessarily insulate minorities from competing for seats. There are only enough seats for a set number of people, so there is competition for those seats."Conservatives don't seem to understand that it's not an equal playing field so the competition is rigged in favor of some people naturally. And quotas don't necessarily insulate minorities from competing for seats. There are only enough seats for a set number of people, so there is competition for those seats."
Copious, maybe you shouldn't refer to the University of Michigan until you actually read about it. And I don't mean from right wing sources either. Read the whole story, maybe you will see how that Andrew guy was just a whiny little punk, who cried when he didn't get in because his grades were terrible, so of course it was race based. Now we, the people of Michigan, are losing vital programs (women's programs, minority assistance programs, etc), which is hurting our already damaged economy.
How about this one.
A law student in Massachusetts is suing the Mass Bar Association. Why, you may ask? Because they included a question about same sex marriage in the exam. He claims this violated his first amendment rights and was attacking his religious beliefs. Because he believes same sex marriage should be illegal and chose to practice law in the only state where it is legal. So he refused to answer the question.
Minimum score to pass 170, he scored 168, by not even answering the question.
A. Why not put something down even if you dislike the question.
B. He is not that bright, if he only scored 168. That would basically mean he failed at least 3-4 other questions.
C. Do we want some one that stupid practicing law?
What about the question of access versus engineering an illusion of balance. Secondary education isn't the same thing as higher education, why should a person be forced far outside their communities at such young vulnerable age; do their parents have any familiarity with the influences and conditions somewhere else?
I think domain is a tacit protection also, that people shouldn't become trading tokens the same way their electoral system has been debauched.
The issue is open access for the elective choice of school, and no obstruction to admission based on race, gender, ethnicity or other discriminative classification.
Guardians do have primacy over the safety and proximity of their children, if a school fluoridates its water on site, it should not only be refused but be shut down until hazardous substance cleanup can restore it for public habitation and facilities. There are also demographics of higher crime, predation on youth, issues with security, guns in the schools and gang warfare. Communities are going to have to find their own stregth to enforce their standards, in the process achieving more self esteem for what they have built, creating a school for the appreciation and advancement of knowledge instead of one where the overload is based on a tense, unnatural social complexity of over-competitive posturing pressures.
Otherwise, groups who are in a caste minority because of language and origins dissent against rigid local authority, hang out in the halls and parking lots and flunk all their classes on purpose or fail to graduate. They can't get first language instruction and have no role models to shape them up--because they will not be lectured to by a 'gabacho', especially not since White symbols of power have only equated with miscarriage of human rights and rampant corruption.
Forced integration can disorrient and bewilder components of multicultural America who would get more from familiar surroundings and symbols of their own cultural pride. But none of those judges on the Supreme Court would ever have the background to have such experience or make those observations.
Again the law is playing catch-all expert and polymath scientist, yet the training of lawyers and jurists is perhaps the weakest in terms of any applied science content. Were any education specialists or child development and culture theorists brough in to help weigh the mighty decision? No. Again the system is defunct and outdated, from a time when the lawyers were basically the only ones assumed to be able to read and write or use arithmatic. It's all antique and will continue to wind down until it breaks, as it already has. Support a Scientific Supplement to Title Constitution in the United States Code, and help break the Amendment bottleneck.
From your own, modestly-plugged web site --where, as you put it (again, very modestly) "educate" people--: "Dick Durban ... and other traitors to the Constitution".
With death being the ultimate penalty for traitors, you might at least get Senator Durbin's name right before you proceed with your execution.
I've seen the spelling "an," it is now corrected. Thanks.
In Vietnam, "in order to save the village, we had to destroy it." In Seattle, in order to prevent natural segregation, we must institute government enforced segregation? No thanks.
The Supreme Court should not be stacked from the appointments of political party bosses, here is a throwback flaw in the Constitution, drafted before the courts really evolved into such an important, equal and tripartitioning role. There would be no problem holding elections for judges, decided by the American people.
This old bunk in the system is a lot of the problem, look at how much time gets wasted putting on the big show of a president handing down his nominees, then the Senate hearings. That is valuable time for process by the Senate that should be spent impeaching the highest crimes in office, not waiting on it hand and foot. In a sense it is more preferential justice costuming, like the Plame Game. The crook is pleased to be choosing the nation's highest jurists. Don't stay up for the late shows, you can get plenty of laughs out of what is passed off for legit.
To play the act out even longer, a hoax nomination is forwarded just to provide more runaround and acrimony, Harriet Meyer. Roberts is a Stepford cyborg. Schumer should still see that he gets impeached for his records obstruction.
Again, when you demonstrate that you have any clue about the Seattle case, then I can actuallly provide you with a meaningful reaspose.
This was not about equal access. This was not about segregation. The schools weren't segregated. Every school had diverse groups of, as the school termed it, Whites and Non-whites.
Read the Record on appeal, the 9th Circuit Dissent, and listen to the oral arguments and get back to me.
If anyone can't wade through copiousdissent's mumbo jumbo posts here it is in simple english, copiousdissent is applauding the racist ruling of the Supreme Court.
The ruling is anti-integration. What the ruling does is put the schools in jeoprady of being sued if they attempt to carry out integration plans.
The ruling is more than that. In my community one side of town is predominately black. Intergration makes it possible to create a plural school enviornment. The ruling will know create a segregated school enviornment because it is through integration policies that makes it possible for many blacks to attend predominately white schools.
It is a ruling that pleases only racists.
Our country is being demoralized by Bush and the mean spirited closet KKK members of the Supreme Court. Their robes look black, but it is white in practice; all it needs is a hood.
Evidently you care not about the facts.
“the District estimated that without the race-based tiebreaker, the nonwhite populations of the 2000-01 ninth grade class at Franklin High School would have been 79.2 percent, at Hale High School 30.5 percent, at Ballard High School 33 percent and at Roosevelt High School 41.1 percent. Using the race-based tiebreaker, the actual nonwhite populations of the ninth grade classes at the same schools respectively were 59.5 percent, 40.6 percent, 54.2 percent and 55.3 percent.” 426 F.3d 1162, 1170-71.
Did you catch that?? Since when is segregation defined as having a school with a 30% nonwhite student body?? Why is there a compelling interest to reach the arbitrary 60/40 ratio?? Where is the evidence that 60/40 is optimal for learning??
Moreover, the fact that you mention the KKK demonstrates abject ignorance and weak arguments about how the Court actually ruled.
copiusdissent,
I could care less about Seattle. What I care more about is the fact that we have a dishonest judge on the bench and that is not good for this country.
Roberts had pledged in his Senate confirmation hearings to honor precedent; he broke that pledge.
Roberts reversed Brown vs Board of Education. His explaination for doing so amounts to smacking a square peg into a round hole. In other words more dishonesty on the part of Roberts.
We are a nation in peril. We have a run amuck administration that has put itself above law above the Constitution, has violated the Constitution, Bush has violated his oath and Roberts is no longer a man of his word. This is not good for our nation to have rouges in power.
Segregation will become a way of life in our Nation just how the racist Conservatives want it. Jim Crow has returned are you proud of yourself now?
Actually I think you've put forward a pretty good argument CD. Baring that last post. Loonz has given back better than I could on the legal front. The Seattle schools have I believe dropped the racial deciding factor about a year ago. The system makes an effort to work towards sustaining and inproving the situation. The complaintant is getting several million dollars, or whats left after the lawyers are paid, I assume.
They're trying in Seattle. Elsewhere are they or will they try. Or will as has been intimated on a few posts will minorities find less and less for them in the public school systems?
This is my concern, legal niceties matter more to me than most of the people in the current national administration. Still its our kids future. If this is sucessfully used to put a serious dent in some of our childrens potential futures. We all lose.
Then again, Just checked to see firedodlakes take on this was.
How did we know segregation in schools exsisted? The government counted the students.
How did we know that progress was being made? The government counted the students.
What did the supreme court just declare unconstitutional? Counting the students.
Someone tell me this isn't a pretty radical desicion. Could it be used to declare gathering other kinds of infomation, as decided by the court, as unconstitutional?
Oh, the insufferably pious Judge Roberts, LYING HIS ASS OFF when asked about how he would view precedent and "established law". Oh, lordy, he had the utmost respect for stare decisis, and he wouldn't be imposing his own view to cancel out decisons of decades' endurance ... BULLCORN!
He LIED, knowing full well he had a conservative "wish list" of decisions which favored minorities, women, workers, average Americans and their RIGHTS and EQUALITY ... all marked for being overturned. Simply because the Rightwing thinks all law should favor the "ELITES" as decided by money, the "correct" race, the "correct" religion, and TO HELL with the rights of "the people". And TO HELL with the Constitution.
Did anyone notice in Ann Coulter's latest tirade, where she insulted and smeared the American People, doing their duty as jurors? She called them "illiterate". In other words, the unwashed, the "commoners" who don't have enough sense for self rule, and CERTAINLY should not be deciding the fate of their BETTERS.
This is the Rightwing view, and Roberts has brought it to the Supreme Court ... to undo decades if not CENTURIES of progress, and instead to tip the scales to SCREW the average citizen, while providing aid and comfort only to the wealthy, the bigot, the racist, and the "profit taking" greedhead ... i.e. the Republican core constituency.
Talk about "illiterate", these "conservative" justices of the Roberts court are continuing the trend shown by Bush v Gore, and IGNORING the Constitution. Again and again, America is harmed, and how many decades will average Americans suffer from this "legal" establishment of special privileges for ONLY the elites?
Uh, why are people going to this spammers blog? Just wonderin'. He hasn't gotten any traction until this evening. I think he needs to be ignored as a spammer, imo. In any case I'm flagging him.
I was thinking about this all weekend. There needs to be a blog where people can place their predictions as to what these justices will do in cases that are upcoming and why.
I find it amusing that many on this board feel there are no wrong answers by the judges they support. For example, many posters who have said on other threads they are "Pro Free Speech" have not spoken one way or another on the Bong Hits case. Was that one decided correctly? Would you have predicted the outcome?
It would be fun to see people's opinions in foresight and see how they compare to actual results. That way, none of us could say we automatically agreed with the results.