SCOTUS & Race
June 29, 2007 on 8:25 pm | In Education, Main, National |I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling on behalf of those challenging desegregation plans in Seattle and Louisville. I was quite busy on Thursday and didn’t get a chance to gauge the reaction thoroughly until last night’s Democratic presidential candidates debate, which I blogged on in real time in the post below.
Check out Hillary’s comments yesterday afternoon before the debate:
Today, the Court turned its back on the promise of Brown vs. Board of Education that students of different racial backgrounds deserve an opportunity to attend school together … Once again, the Roberts Court has shown its willingness to erode core constitutional guarantees. It is a set back for all of us who are on the long march toward racial equality and the building of a stronger more unified America. As President, I will fight to restore Brown’s promise and create an education system where all children have an equal chance to learn and excel together.”
Hillary was no doubt greasing the skids for her solid performance last night at historically black Howard University. But even so, her hyperventilating reminded me of a phrase coined by one of my favorite public officials, the late Paul Tsongas, to describe Hillary’s husband during the 1992 presidential campaign: Pander Bear.
In trolling the Internet, it was no easy feat to find a clearly written news article that hit the main points: What were the plaintiffs complaining about in Seattle and Louisville and how specifically did the ruling address them?
Look no further than the Courant’s Robert Frahm, who not only cut to the chase, but did a great job explaining how the decision would not affect Sheff v. O’Neill, Connecticut’s landmark desegregation case, and the remedy that accompanied it.
Most of the accounts focus on Chief Justice Roberts’ comment that, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” But did the plaintiffs want to be in segregated schools? Were they motivated by racism or a desire to “turn back the clock on Brown?” Hardly. Frahm writes:
In Seattle, the school system allows students to choose among high schools and then relies on tiebreakers — including race — to decide who gets into schools that have more applicants than openings … In the Louisville case, a mother claimed that her son was denied entrance to a neighborhood school because he is white.
Right, no one is trying to “erode core constitutional guarantees,” as Hillary bloviated. Rather, they only want “an equal chance to learn and excel together (also Hillary’s words).
I have to say I agree with the high court’s ruling based on what I have read of it. Racial discrimination is wrong — period. This nation has an ugly history in that area, so any remedy that includes racial discrimination opens up more wounds and divides people further along racial lines.
If we practice affirmative action, let us base it on socioeconomics, not on a distinction involving skin color that spawned our only civil war and caused riots only 40 years ago. Giving a leg up to those less fortunate would still disproportionately benefit people of color, so much of the desired outcomes would remain, but without the debilitating stigma of race.
Now that I have unburdened myself, I am off to watch the fireworks at Lime Rock Park with my kids. Thanks for listening to this rant.
P.S. Courant columnist Rick Green, with whom I often agree, writes a somewhat puzzling column today. Is the problem racial or economic isolation, Rick? If it’s both, as you suggest, then how do we solve it? We can tinker around with magnet and charter schools, but there is no way to make wholesale change in the racial composition of schools without lots of busing — most likely forced busing. That’s not even a popular solution in the black community.
29 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
Having watched the SCOTUS decisions come across my screen in rapid succession yesterday, I (as a card-carrying liberal) had to cope with a feeling that things were going from terrible to disasterous. While the recent Court appointees all stated they were opposed to “judicial activism” when they were confirmed, the number of precedents overturned yesterday probably represented the biggest burst of judicial activism in recent history.
With that as background, was I surprised when, after all the shoes had dropped, SCOTUS announced they would hear the Habeas Corpus question about Guantanamo next court term! It was as though they were saying “We need to do SOMETHING to convince at least some of the people that the inmates are not fully in control of the asylum.”
Comment by Geoff Brown — June 30, 2007 #
SCOTUS & Race
Great title for this blog entry Terry.
No matter what you think of SCOTUS now…without it, people like Barrack Obama, Shirley Chism, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas (isnt that a joke), and more, would not have the opportunities that they have now. The American education system has never been equal (not do I think that it ever can be), but, that should not prevent us from trying!
If you thow SCOTUS out, then replace it with a better vehicle to make our education system more equal.
Put money into neighborhoods to make then safe and clean, better housing and services.
Then put money into schools in those neighborhoods to make them better..better teachers, better facilities, better resources..
Then there would be no need to bus or move students around!
Where does the money come from? Hmm…
Lets see…
Lets start with the 700 billion dollars that we burned in Iraq.
Lets add the one billon dollars that will be spend in the next two years for two parties and possibly a third party to nominate and elect a President…
Throw in a couple of billion dollars in over run budgets at the Pentagon..
And you have a start!
If you are going to throw SCOTUS out to end reverse discrimination, or revamp the system, lets have somthing in place to assure an equal (or an equal as can be) eduation system.
Comment by Marshall Miles — June 30, 2007 #
More money for education. Pay the teachers more. give the unions more say. Let’s include everyone by excluding those that have “opportunites.”
BTW, if it were not for slavery, none of the people mentioned by Marshall would probably even exist in this country.
Now that I have your attention:
Geoff and Marshall, are you stating that blacks need preferential treatment, today, after 40 plus years of desegregation, etc because they cannot succeed without such help?
How do you square your opinions with those that advocate for all black schools? Yes, these racists may be a minority in more ways than one, but they do exist.
Racism is alive and well in this country, and it is fueled by Hillary, Jesse, Al, Geoff, Marshall, and others that don’t believe the underlying premise of the “I have a Dream” speech.
WHY do you continue to judge others on the basis of their skin color, and not the content of their character?
Life is not and will never be fair. Yet the race baiters of all levels in this country constantly and consistently decry any attempt to remove racism from any facet in life.
Why don’t you support vouchers for schools? How many families in any city in this country would be willing to use that money to defray the expense of education for their children in what the parent believes to be a better school?
How many more billions does education need, Marshall?
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — July 2, 2007 #
Marshall, you and I disagree on a fundamental point.
You view every societal problem as a potential solution for the government.
I believe that the government is the worst place to start looking for solutions to any societal problem.
In the 1950s, a public housing projects were built in my hometown, Bridgeport. Father Panik Village and The Terrace. Father Panik has been bulldozed and the citizens were forced to move because the Bridgeport housing authority did not renew any leases. Father Panik became a haven for unwed mothers, drugs, gangs, and any vice you could ever want to participate in. Rents were based on family income, there was a small grocery store in the project, laundry facilites, etc. The only solution for Father Panik was the wrecking ball. Today, the site is a parking lot.
The Terrace still stands. It belongs to the State of CT. My aunt and 9 cousins lived in a 3 bedroom apartment there. I learned to fight for my life, with my bare hands there, in the mid 60s. I was 12 the first time I was cut with a knife in a fight. Today, I have no reason to visit; If I drive through the area, my doors are locked. The rent on that 3 bedroom apartment is $400 per month, today. They are patrolled by Bridgeport Police and the Terrace’s own constable force. Drugs, guns, hookers, you name it, it is there. Everyone knows, including the cops. The residents know who to finger. Life goes on. Money is not the solution. It never has been. The typical liberal knee jerk of mo money is a rapper’s cry. Your solution is no better than those proposed by rappers and the wannabe posers that emulate their lifestyle.
You want to give people fish to eat, rather than teaching them to fish. Simplistic solutions to complex problems just might get you elected to political office, but nothing will change. What happened to the promises of the Dems in the last election? Oh, yeah. They won and life goes on.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — July 2, 2007 #
Paul…your post is more of the same “attack” bs that circulates as political commentary. I do not see anywhere in my post, just referiing to “blacks”. My psot is, simply, that if SCOTUS did not exist, lots of people who were discriminated against, would not be in the positions they are in today.
I did not endorse or reject it. I simply stated that if you get rid of SCOTUS, you need somthing to replace it.
Comment by Marshall Miles — July 2, 2007 #
Marshall,
Do you mean get rid of the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS)? Or get rid of Brown v BOE? Are we talking about the same thing?
Comment by Terry — July 2, 2007 #
Work on both of them, they go hand in hand
Comment by Marshall Miles — July 2, 2007 #
Terry…its Brown vs BOE…
BUT
SCOTUS also need to be looked at…
as I understand it, and I could be wrong!
SCOTUS is there not to make or interpet the law, but to make sure laws are enforced correctly..
I think their mission has changed over the past thirty years, and not for the better.
So both issues to me go hand in hand.
Comment by Marshall Miles — July 2, 2007 #
Marshall,
I disagree. Courts of appeal such as SCOTUS are indeed there to interpret law. In SCOTUS’s case to interpret the Constitution. But not to make law. Enforcement is up to authorities such as prosecutors and police.
Comment by Terry — July 2, 2007 #
TC,
I don’t know what “forced busing” means except that it’s pretty good code language. I do know duplicating school districts in every town in the state is a waste of tax dollars. However, it does preserve our separate-but-unequal education system quite effectively.
Best wishes,
Rick
Comment by RIck Green — July 2, 2007 #
Tery:
I do not see any explination of “interpetation” in this description of the Supreme Court from their own web site!
Supreme Court - the highest court in the judicial branch of the United States government, and the only court specifically mentioned in the Constitution. It consists of a Chief Justice and eight other Associate Justices. The Supreme Court is the “court of last resort” for appeals-the final authority on any questions dealing with the Constitution, acts of Congress, and treaties of the United States.
The Court does not, or should not “INTERRPET the Constitution or law. If a law is deemed unconstitutional, then strike it completly, and Congress will write a new one.
Comment by Marshall Miles — July 2, 2007 #
The last phrase is my view of the Court, not from their web site!(you can tell by the spelling!)
Comment by Marshall Miles — July 2, 2007 #
I guess it’s just a matter of what the word “interpret” means to you. Deciding that a law is unconstitutional and throwing it out strikes me as interpreting the Constitution, which is our ultimate law. At any rate, it sounds like we essentially agree.
Comment by Terry — July 2, 2007 #
I’m still waiting for someone to speak to the judicial activism SCOTUS displayed in throwing out 40 years of judicial precedent.
Seems to me it was not too many months ago that the Republicans were screaming their heads off about the evils of “judicial activism”.
Now we get utter silence from those folks who were complaining just a few months ago. Funny thing how this works, especially when it’s their own judicial activists now in the saddle.
Comment by Geoff Brown — July 2, 2007 #
Judicial Activism? Roe v Wade. McCain-Feingold. NFA 34. “Assault Weapons” laws. 30 years? I think y’all missed by a few decades.
Boys, read the Constitution. It is the law of the land, as written. Any deviation from what it says is judicial activism.
There are more “rights” enacted in this country due to judicial activism than any sort of congressional action.
Marshall, my “attack bs” to use your term, is based on your typical call for mo money for anything and everything you see as wrong. Where is the personal responsibility? As I said, life is not and never will be fair. Current song on the Country charts talks about a different world not just a different life when we were growing up. You are willing to accept a nanny state to keep you safe. Remember 9/11/2001? Catastrophic failure. Safety is an illusion peddled by the nannys. Life is dangerous and deadly.
Nice lefty touch: pick on one phrase, poorly chosen and ignore the other facts that you choose not to answer.
Try this: all the people you mentioned are blacks that have succeeded in this country. I don’t think racial preferences played as significant a part in their lives as you believe. Should I ask them? You brought up the subject and did not even notice it. The soft bigotry of low expectations. And I thought that once the dems controlled congress things would get better. Boy, am I disappointed….
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — July 2, 2007 #
So, Marshall, how would you remove 1/3 of our government? What would you replace it with?
Personally, I think we could do away with Congress and get along much better.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — July 2, 2007 #
Since we are on the topic, what about George Washington Carver? How did he succeed?
What about Jack Johnson(?), the entrepreneur that brought us Ebony, Jet, Soul Train, etc. He began before the Civil Rights era, and was quite successful.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — July 2, 2007 #
From the Constitution:
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
I guess “judicial activism” is in the eye of the beholder. IF you believe the Constitution, IF you think the 14th amendment is valid, preferences of any sort, race, gender, ad nauseum, is illegal. That is my belief.
People are trying to legislate ethics and morality. Want to buy a bridge? Never will happen. How about that cell phone law!! Works real well, doesn’t it? What about mandatory recycling and deposit bottles and cans? Great job there as well! Mandatory auto insurance? War on Drugs? War on Poverty? Social Security? Medicare? The 911 Address law? Anyone know of any government program that works as promised, at or under budget? Hell, I’ll even allow way over budget. You cannot legislate the morals and ethics of people.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — July 2, 2007 #
Geoff,
Paul is right on at least one count: “I guess ‘judicial activism’ is in the eye of the beholder.” This recent SCOTUS decision may not have pleased you, but as I have amply demonstrated in this post, it did not throw “out 40 years of judicial precedent” any more than Brown v BOE or Roe did.
SCOTUS justices of all idealogical stripes are perfectly willing to throw out precedent if they think that precedent was baseless or poorly argued. And they should, if that’s what they believe.
This recent SCOTUS ruling was narrow and I think was a correct interpretation of the Constitution, but what do I know? I was a drama major!
Comment by Terry — July 2, 2007 #
Terry…
Your right, Paul is right on at least one account!
That put’s his batting average at .086, with no HR, or RBI’s.
Not even minor league stats!
In broadcasting, we call what Paul does “narrowcasting”!
Keep banging that drum Paul, sooner or later I guess youll hit one out of the park…IF you take time to really listen to the other side!!!
Comment by Marshall Miles — July 3, 2007 #
NO, but I could play in the major leagues.
Where am I wrong Marshall? You advocate spending money. Has that not been tried before? Has it ever succeeded?
I cite the failures of your approach.
Your criticize my citations with no facts to refute my position.
Respond to my questions and posts with facts and we can have a discussion. Or are you running for some political office and practicing your campaign here?
I am not broadcasting, I am offering my opinion on a topic on this blog. Do you think that since I disagree with you I should not comment? Sounds like McCain-Feingold to me. What should we call it? Marshallism?
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — July 3, 2007 #
Terry, you have hit the problem. The law is not what you “believe” or “feel” it should be. It is what it is and interpretation should be based on that alone.
A judge may be personally opposed to Roe v Wade. But, as long as it is the law of the land, until the Roe Effect takes hold and a future SCOTUS overturns it, that judge is duty bound to honor the law or recuse himself from the decision.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — July 3, 2007 #
Paul…
SOmetimes your comments have gone from sublime to ridiculous!
You can keep beating your chest, and bang your wardrums. I feel no need to, nor have I ever advocated you to stop posting or giving your opinions. To the contrary.
Some of your opinions I agree with, some I find absurd, but, I still think your the same Paul that I have come to know and like over the years…
Its just that some times, your a little to black and white for me (not enough greys!)(no pun intended)
Comment by Marshall Miles — July 3, 2007 #
Marshall, I pose a question to you and others about shades of gray:
If you keep modifying what you believe in, at what point have you surrendered your original belief?
I am black and white. My wife hates it, so be it. For more years than anyone cares to remember, we, in the form of government, have thrown billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars at problems with no end or resolution in sight. As I cited: War on Poverty, War on Drugs, Urban Blight, ad nauseum. The missing key is the involvement, or lack thereof, of the people we are supposed to be helping. How many generations of people know only welfare as a way of life?
IF I were to give you all the money you needed for your CATV/Radio stations, you would probably stop fund raising and grant seeking. IF I, in the form of government, grant you housing, food, medical care and education, what is the incentive to better yourself? Socialism and Communism are doomed to failure because they don’t reward personal initiative. Welfare does the same; so do racial/ethnic quotas, whether in education or business. There is no need to improve because if you wait long enough, you will be rewarded, simply for seniority. Very much the way Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, the msm’s bs was chest beating raised to an art.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — July 3, 2007 #
the msm’s bs was chest beating raised to an art.
See, you can get it right Paul!!!!
Comment by Marshall Miles — July 3, 2007 #
As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissenting opinion, the majority opinion “reverses course and reaches the wrong conclusion. In doing so, it distorts precedent, it misapplies the relevant constitutional principles, it announces legal rules that will obstruct efforts by state and local governments to deal effectively with the growing resegregation of public schools, it threatens to substitute for present calm a disruptive round of race-related litigation.”
Comment by Tom Cowgill — July 3, 2007 #
Yes, Tom. “Judicial Activism” is in the eye of the beholder. No one has ever thought Stevens to be anything but a “progressive” thinker.
IF Stevens had concurred, now THAT would have reversed precedent.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — July 4, 2007 #
Substituting “present calm [for] a disruptive round of … litigation†is exactly what many landmark cases have done, Justice Stevens. Trading a little liberty for a little safety is rarely a wise thing (paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin).
Comment by Terry — July 4, 2007 #
Amen, Brother. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!!
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — July 5, 2007 #