Empathetic or not?

[code1211]

None of you know jack shit about law.

Despite all the wailing and moaning from the right, we have judge made law in this country. Its called common law. Judges, in that vein, decide what the right rules should be to have the best effect on society at whole. Empathy is a necessary ingredient for this.

Any of you heard of Brown v. Board of Ed? That was judicial activism. Want to claim that somehow segregation is ok and the court shouldn't have struck it down?

Ever heard of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld? Thats the court case that ruled that Congress gave the President authority to hold prisoners via the AUMF. Where exactly in the AUMF does it mention holding prisoners? It doesn't. Judicial Activism. So why aren't you who are clamoring for "dispassionate" judges also clamoring for the closing of GITMO.

Activist judges has become an asinine buzzword for the right to mean "decisions we don't agree with".

Brown was good decision, but flew in the face of the previously very bad decisions. Even in the case of Brown, though, this was a measured progression away from the evils of the Slavery Laws that were somewhat drawn back by Dred Scott and other dreadfully bad decisions before it and after. What could the Constitutional justification be for a 3/5 man?

Empathy, as invoked by Obama, would not have allowed the decisions that made Brown a neccessity. The Constitution including the Bill of Rights as written, but not as intended by the Framers, also would not have allowed the Slavery Laws. The courts acted in violation of both of these in favor of expediency and preserving order.

The long tradition of Judicial behavior from Soloman forward dictates wisdom in exacting justice. We do need judges that can think and recognize justice in contrast to law. However, the scales of justice must be allowed to find their own balance. A robot reading a rule book is as bad as an agenda driven zealot pushing rigged outcomes.

A good judge can be a Constructionist and can be Liberal. Judges from either camp can and do respect those from the other camp. Scalia and Vader Ginsburg are very good friends and respect each other personnaly and professionally. Neither one is intrisically evil or intrinsically good due to their approach to justice. Both are pretty good justices and we will be losing a good one when either retires.

 

[DamnYankee]

Umm...common law as constrasted with statutory law. For a simple primer see this: Common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The US has a rich history of such law, and in fact much of our current property and contract law is common law. Do you want to throw out 500 years of tradition, 200 years of American jurisprudence, and a rich history of judge-made law? Why do you hate our traditions so much?

Incorrect. See the past 500 years of Ango-American jurisprudence. Again, why do you hate our American traditions?

It would be good if you made up your mind....

That being said, your reference (Wiki) not only has a "citations needed" section, but a "This article may be inaccurate or unbalanced in towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page." disclaimer.

Umm, made up my mind about what exactly? And the Wiki article is largely accurate.

Whether it's "500 years of tradition, 200 years of American jurisprudence" or "the past 500 years of Ango-American jurisprudence".

 

[Nik]

It would be good if you made up your mind....

That being said, your reference (Wiki) not only has a "citations needed" section, but a "This article may be inaccurate or unbalanced in towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page." disclaimer.

Umm, made up my mind about what exactly? And the Wiki article is largely accurate.

Whether it's "500 years of tradition, 200 years of American jurisprudence" or "the past 500 years of Ango-American jurisprudence".

Its all of them, moron. Those descriptors are all true. Let me fill clue you into a few basic facts about America.

1) Its existed for about 200 years (hence the 200 years of American tradition)
2) Before then we were an English colony, and got much of our jurisprudence from English traditions. I used past 500 years just as a rough estimate, but its likely much more than that.
3) The jurisprudence is a tradition, considering its been happening so long.

Are you really so fucking stupid that you can't comprehend the fact that more than one description about a thing could be true? "Wow...that guy has long hair AND has blue eyes...how is that POSSIBLE?????"

 

[Nik]

As long as there is good law behind the decision like Brown v. board of ed. had the 14th amendment you know the equal protection clause?

Sure and the court considered a bunch of gobbedly gook socialogical evidence to determine whether segregation was equal or not. After all, the court had already ruled that separate was ok, as long as it was separate but equal. The court in Brown said that separation was inherently unequal, no matter what the state of the two schools.

Is this what you are referring to?
Brown v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The plaintiffs in Brown asserted that this system of racial separation, while masquerading as providing separate but relatively equal treatment of both white and black Americans, instead perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans. Racial segregation in education varied widely from the 17 states that required racial segregation to the 16 that prohibited it. Brown was influenced by UNESCO's 1950 Statement, signed by a wide variety of internationally renowned scholars, titled The Race Question.[3] This declaration denounced previous attempts at scientifically justifying racism as well as morally condemning racism. Another work that the Supreme Court cited was Gunnar Myrdal's An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944). Myrdal had been a signatory of the UNESCO declaration. The research performed by the educational psychologists Kenneth B. Clark and Mamie Phipps Clark also influenced the Court's decision.[4] The Clarks' "doll test" studies presented substantial arguments to the Supreme Court about how segregation had an impact on black schoolchildren's mental status.[5]

It proved that the school systems were not equal, I don't see social activism. SCOTUS, in effect gave all parties the same opportunity at an education, both blacks and whites, particularly blacks. Maybe you could explain, where you see social activism in this ruling?

No, Brown v. Board of ed said that separation was necessarily unequal. The thrust of the argument wasn't that the school systems were unequal, it was that by the very act of being separate, it made them unequal. In it, the court relied (as you've shown), on social science, international morals (UNESCO is not binding), and other social treatises which have nothing to do with the law.

 

[Nik]

None of you know jack shit about law.

Despite all the wailing and moaning from the right, we have judge made law in this country. Its called common law. Judges, in that vein, decide what the right rules should be to have the best effect on society at whole. Empathy is a necessary ingredient for this.

Any of you heard of Brown v. Board of Ed? That was judicial activism. Want to claim that somehow segregation is ok and the court shouldn't have struck it down?

Ever heard of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld? Thats the court case that ruled that Congress gave the President authority to hold prisoners via the AUMF. Where exactly in the AUMF does it mention holding prisoners? It doesn't. Judicial Activism. So why aren't you who are clamoring for "dispassionate" judges also clamoring for the closing of GITMO.

Activist judges has become an asinine buzzword for the right to mean "decisions we don't agree with".

Brown was good decision, but flew in the face of the previously very bad decisions. Even in the case of Brown, though, this was a measured progression away from the evils of the Slavery Laws that were somewhat drawn back by Dred Scott and other dreadfully bad decisions before it and after. What could the Constitutional justification be for a 3/5 man?

Well it depends what you consider "bad" and "good" Brown wasn't a great constitutional decision. Was it necessary? Yes. It really, really was. But was it a great legal decision? Nope. But it had to be done.

And the Constitutional justification for the 3/5 thing was....well, it was in the Constitution.

Empathy, as invoked by Obama, would not have allowed the decisions that made Brown a neccessity. The Constitution including the Bill of Rights as written, but not as intended by the Framers, also would not have allowed the Slavery Laws. The courts acted in violation of both of these in favor of expediency and preserving order.


The long tradition of Judicial behavior from Soloman forward dictates wisdom in exacting justice. We do need judges that can think and recognize justice in contrast to law. However, the scales of justice must be allowed to find their own balance. A robot reading a rule book is as bad as an agenda driven zealot pushing rigged outcomes.

A good judge can be a Constructionist and can be Liberal. Judges from either camp can and do respect those from the other camp. Scalia and Vader Ginsburg are very good friends and respect each other personnaly and professionally. Neither one is intrisically evil or intrinsically good due to their approach to justice. Both are pretty good justices and we will be losing a good one when either retires.

I agree. Well...Scalia is sort of a bitch, and I don't think he realizes the consequences of his thoughts, but at least he is a consistent bitch.

 

[jreeves]

Sure and the court considered a bunch of gobbedly gook socialogical evidence to determine whether segregation was equal or not. After all, the court had already ruled that separate was ok, as long as it was separate but equal. The court in Brown said that separation was inherently unequal, no matter what the state of the two schools.

Is this what you are referring to?
Brown v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The plaintiffs in Brown asserted that this system of racial separation, while masquerading as providing separate but relatively equal treatment of both white and black Americans, instead perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans. Racial segregation in education varied widely from the 17 states that required racial segregation to the 16 that prohibited it. Brown was influenced by UNESCO's 1950 Statement, signed by a wide variety of internationally renowned scholars, titled The Race Question.[3] This declaration denounced previous attempts at scientifically justifying racism as well as morally condemning racism. Another work that the Supreme Court cited was Gunnar Myrdal's An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944). Myrdal had been a signatory of the UNESCO declaration. The research performed by the educational psychologists Kenneth B. Clark and Mamie Phipps Clark also influenced the Court's decision.[4] The Clarks' "doll test" studies presented substantial arguments to the Supreme Court about how segregation had an impact on black schoolchildren's mental status.[5]

It proved that the school systems were not equal, I don't see social activism. SCOTUS, in effect gave all parties the same opportunity at an education, both blacks and whites, particularly blacks. Maybe you could explain, where you see social activism in this ruling?

No, Brown v. Board of ed said that separation was necessarily unequal. The thrust of the argument wasn't that the school systems were unequal, it was that by the very act of being separate, it made them unequal. In it, the court relied (as you've shown), on social science, international morals (UNESCO is not binding), and other social treatises which have nothing to do with the law.

Really I thought the reasoning for overturning Plessy v. Ferguson was due to the inequalities between the two school systems, correct?

 

[Annie]

Plessy was overturned for the right reasons. In that timeframe and ours:

From Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board of Education: The Supreme Court Rules on School Desegregation

Introduction: The Significance of Brown v. The Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas

The Supreme Court decision in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas has been credited with much significance. For some, it signaled the start of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, while for others, it represented the fall of segregation. Even in the footnotes of the decision, however, the Court raised questions as to how much authority it had and how to proceed toward getting compliance. In the brief summary of events that follows, I have drawn primarily from Kluger’s study, Simple Justice.
The Brown decision was a landmark because it overturned the legal policies established by the Plessy v. Ferguson decision that legalized the practices of “separate but equal”. In the Plessy decision, the 14th Amendment was interpreted in such a way that e quality in the law could be met through segregated facilities. Jim Crow laws were passed throughout the South and they established separate facilities for Blacks and Whites in everything from schools to restrooms, drinking fountains to witness stands in courtrooms.

For many years, the Civil Rights movement during the first 50 years of the 20th Century accepted this policy of “separate but equal” in its struggle for access into the society. It fought in many communities for equal pay for teachers and for equal school facilities. It fought for equal libraries, recreational facilities, and health services. Plessy defined the terms of the struggle.

The Brown decision came about after a series of Supreme Court decisions on specific educational challenges. The first was that universities must admit Blacks to graduate facilities if a desired course of study was not available in a Black institution. Then in Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, in 1948, the Court ruled that Blacks must be admitted to state universities because they offered many opportunities not available in Black institutions. In 1950 in Sweatt v. Painter, the Court ruled that a separate Black law school, established for Sweatt after he sued for admission to the University of Texas Law School, was unequal not only in physical facilities and curriculum but in reputation and opportunity for stimulating professional contact. In Laurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, also in 1950, the Court ruled that the state violated the “separate but equal” doctrine when it required isolated cafeteria and classroom seating for Black students because it produced unequal educational opport unity.

The Brown decision established that separate schools were ipso facto unequal. It allowed proponents for better opportunities for Blacks to fight for positive gains and full equality. But the fact that there were few means to implement these decisions became clear as it became obvious that few gains were being seen by 1960, the year that a new student Civil Rights movement was founded....

Here we go boys and girls. I'm a conservative with strong libertarian leanings. I was raised conservative, from JFK on. I'm very much a low tax, low fed, type of person. I'm for the funding of military, but not so much social programs for the fed. Most definitely not an Obamabot.

With that said, Introduction: The Significance of Brown v. The Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas

Here's what was decided:

From Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board of Education: The Supreme Court Rules on School Desegregation

The Supreme Court decision in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas has been credited with much significance. For some, it signaled the start of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, while for others, it represented the fall of segregation. Even in the footnotes of the decision, however, the Court raised questions as to how much authority it had and how to proceed toward getting compliance. In the brief summary of events that follows, I have drawn primarily from Kluger’s study, Simple Justice.
The Brown decision was a landmark because it overturned the legal policies established by the Plessy v. Ferguson decision that legalized the practices of “separate but equal”. In the Plessy decision, the 14th Amendment was interpreted in such a way that e quality in the law could be met through segregated facilities. Jim Crow laws were passed throughout the South and they established separate facilities for Blacks and Whites in everything from schools to restrooms, drinking fountains to witness stands in courtrooms.

For many years, the Civil Rights movement during the first 50 years of the 20th Century accepted this policy of “separate but equal” in its struggle for access into the society. It fought in many communities for equal pay for teachers and for equal school facilities. It fought for equal libraries, recreational facilities, and health services. Plessy defined the terms of the struggle.

The Brown decision came about after a series of Supreme Court decisions on specific educational challenges. The first was that universities must admit Blacks to graduate facilities if a desired course of study was not available in a Black institution. Then in Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, in 1948, the Court ruled that Blacks must be admitted to state universities because they offered many opportunities not available in Black institutions. In 1950 in Sweatt v. Painter, the Court ruled that a separate Black law school, established for Sweatt after he sued for admission to the University of Texas Law School, was unequal not only in physical facilities and curriculum but in reputation and opportunity for stimulating professional contact. In Laurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, also in 1950, the Court ruled that the state violated the “separate but equal” doctrine when it required isolated cafeteria and classroom seating for Black students because it produced unequal educational opport unity.

The Brown decision established that separate schools were ipso facto unequal. It allowed proponents for better opportunities for Blacks to fight for positive gains and full equality. But the fact that there were few means to implement these decisions became clear as it became obvious that few gains were being seen by 1960, the year that a new student Civil Rights movement was founded.

I back that, indeed.

 

[jreeves]

Plessy was overturned for the right reasons. In that timeframe and ours:

From Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board of Education: The Supreme Court Rules on School Desegregation

Introduction: The Significance of Brown v. The Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas

The Supreme Court decision in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas has been credited with much significance. For some, it signaled the start of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, while for others, it represented the fall of segregation. Even in the footnotes of the decision, however, the Court raised questions as to how much authority it had and how to proceed toward getting compliance. In the brief summary of events that follows, I have drawn primarily from Kluger’s study, Simple Justice.
The Brown decision was a landmark because it overturned the legal policies established by the Plessy v. Ferguson decision that legalized the practices of “separate but equal”. In the Plessy decision, the 14th Amendment was interpreted in such a way that e quality in the law could be met through segregated facilities. Jim Crow laws were passed throughout the South and they established separate facilities for Blacks and Whites in everything from schools to restrooms, drinking fountains to witness stands in courtrooms.

For many years, the Civil Rights movement during the first 50 years of the 20th Century accepted this policy of “separate but equal” in its struggle for access into the society. It fought in many communities for equal pay for teachers and for equal school facilities. It fought for equal libraries, recreational facilities, and health services. Plessy defined the terms of the struggle.

The Brown decision came about after a series of Supreme Court decisions on specific educational challenges. The first was that universities must admit Blacks to graduate facilities if a desired course of study was not available in a Black institution. Then in Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, in 1948, the Court ruled that Blacks must be admitted to state universities because they offered many opportunities not available in Black institutions. In 1950 in Sweatt v. Painter, the Court ruled that a separate Black law school, established for Sweatt after he sued for admission to the University of Texas Law School, was unequal not only in physical facilities and curriculum but in reputation and opportunity for stimulating professional contact. In Laurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, also in 1950, the Court ruled that the state violated the “separate but equal” doctrine when it required isolated cafeteria and classroom seating for Black students because it produced unequal educational opport unity.

The Brown decision established that separate schools were ipso facto unequal. It allowed proponents for better opportunities for Blacks to fight for positive gains and full equality. But the fact that there were few means to implement these decisions became clear as it became obvious that few gains were being seen by 1960, the year that a new student Civil Rights movement was founded....

Here we go boys and girls. I'm a conservative with strong libertarian leanings. I was raised conservative, from JFK on. I'm very much a low tax, low fed, type of person. I'm for the funding of military, but not so much social programs for the fed. Most definitely not an Obamabot.

With that said, Introduction: The Significance of Brown v. The Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas

Here's what was decided:

From Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board of Education: The Supreme Court Rules on School Desegregation

The Supreme Court decision in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas has been credited with much significance. For some, it signaled the start of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, while for others, it represented the fall of segregation. Even in the footnotes of the decision, however, the Court raised questions as to how much authority it had and how to proceed toward getting compliance. In the brief summary of events that follows, I have drawn primarily from Kluger’s study, Simple Justice.
The Brown decision was a landmark because it overturned the legal policies established by the Plessy v. Ferguson decision that legalized the practices of “separate but equal”. In the Plessy decision, the 14th Amendment was interpreted in such a way that e quality in the law could be met through segregated facilities. Jim Crow laws were passed throughout the South and they established separate facilities for Blacks and Whites in everything from schools to restrooms, drinking fountains to witness stands in courtrooms.

For many years, the Civil Rights movement during the first 50 years of the 20th Century accepted this policy of “separate but equal” in its struggle for access into the society. It fought in many communities for equal pay for teachers and for equal school facilities. It fought for equal libraries, recreational facilities, and health services. Plessy defined the terms of the struggle.

The Brown decision came about after a series of Supreme Court decisions on specific educational challenges. The first was that universities must admit Blacks to graduate facilities if a desired course of study was not available in a Black institution. Then in Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, in 1948, the Court ruled that Blacks must be admitted to state universities because they offered many opportunities not available in Black institutions. In 1950 in Sweatt v. Painter, the Court ruled that a separate Black law school, established for Sweatt after he sued for admission to the University of Texas Law School, was unequal not only in physical facilities and curriculum but in reputation and opportunity for stimulating professional contact. In Laurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, also in 1950, the Court ruled that the state violated the “separate but equal” doctrine when it required isolated cafeteria and classroom seating for Black students because it produced unequal educational opport unity.

The Brown decision established that separate schools were ipso facto unequal. It allowed proponents for better opportunities for Blacks to fight for positive gains and full equality. But the fact that there were few means to implement these decisions became clear as it became obvious that few gains were being seen by 1960, the year that a new student Civil Rights movement was founded.

I back that, indeed.

In summary, the white children received more opportunity of a good education than did black children. I concur with the Brown v. board of education...

 

[Nik]

Is this what you are referring to?
Brown v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The plaintiffs in Brown asserted that this system of racial separation, while masquerading as providing separate but relatively equal treatment of both white and black Americans, instead perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans. Racial segregation in education varied widely from the 17 states that required racial segregation to the 16 that prohibited it. Brown was influenced by UNESCO's 1950 Statement, signed by a wide variety of internationally renowned scholars, titled The Race Question.[3] This declaration denounced previous attempts at scientifically justifying racism as well as morally condemning racism. Another work that the Supreme Court cited was Gunnar Myrdal's An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944). Myrdal had been a signatory of the UNESCO declaration. The research performed by the educational psychologists Kenneth B. Clark and Mamie Phipps Clark also influenced the Court's decision.[4] The Clarks' "doll test" studies presented substantial arguments to the Supreme Court about how segregation had an impact on black schoolchildren's mental status.[5]

It proved that the school systems were not equal, I don't see social activism. SCOTUS, in effect gave all parties the same opportunity at an education, both blacks and whites, particularly blacks. Maybe you could explain, where you see social activism in this ruling?

No, Brown v. Board of ed said that separation was necessarily unequal. The thrust of the argument wasn't that the school systems were unequal, it was that by the very act of being separate, it made them unequal. In it, the court relied (as you've shown), on social science, international morals (UNESCO is not binding), and other social treatises which have nothing to do with the law.

Really I thought the reasoning for overturning Plessy v. Ferguson was due to the inequalities between the two school systems, correct?

As you can see from Annies link, its because they were ipso facto inequal. It wasn't that the school systems that existed were unequal, it was because school systems that were segregated were necessarily unequal. Separate but equal wasn't equal, in part, because it wasn't equal in fact (blacks got shitty schools), but the thrust of the decision was that even if they were equal in fact, they were still unequal. Their very existence as separate schools make them unequal.

 

[jreeves]

No, Brown v. Board of ed said that separation was necessarily unequal. The thrust of the argument wasn't that the school systems were unequal, it was that by the very act of being separate, it made them unequal. In it, the court relied (as you've shown), on social science, international morals (UNESCO is not binding), and other social treatises which have nothing to do with the law.

Really I thought the reasoning for overturning Plessy v. Ferguson was due to the inequalities between the two school systems, correct?

As you can see from Annies link, its because they were ipso facto inequal. It wasn't that the school systems that existed were unequal, it was because school systems that were segregated were necessarily unequal. Separate but equal wasn't equal, in part, because it wasn't equal in fact (blacks got shitty schools), but the thrust of the decision was that even if they were equal in fact, they were still unequal. Their very existence as separate schools make them unequal.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka -- Opinion -- 387 U.S. 483
Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession."
Page 494
Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system." [10]

Yes the two systems couldn't be equal, if one race was made inferior through segregation. This is a case of inequality not empathy, if this is social activism I have no problem with it. If on the other hand, the SCOTUS was to make an already equal relationship unequal for the purpose of social activism then I would have a problem with that type of ruling.

 

[Nik]

Really I thought the reasoning for overturning Plessy v. Ferguson was due to the inequalities between the two school systems, correct?

As you can see from Annies link, its because they were ipso facto inequal. It wasn't that the school systems that existed were unequal, it was because school systems that were segregated were necessarily unequal. Separate but equal wasn't equal, in part, because it wasn't equal in fact (blacks got shitty schools), but the thrust of the decision was that even if they were equal in fact, they were still unequal. Their very existence as separate schools make them unequal.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka -- Opinion -- 387 U.S. 483
Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession."
Page 494
Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system." [10]

Yes the two systems couldn't be equal, if one race was made inferior through segregation. This is a case of inequality not empathy, if this is social activism I have no problem with it. If on the other hand, the SCOTUS was to make an already equal relationship unequal for the purpose of social activism then I would have a problem with that type of ruling.

No, its a case of empathy. There is nothing in the 14th amendment that says that everyone has to feel equal. The court in Brown said, as you highlighted, that it doesn't matter if the facilities are equal. It doesn't matter if all of the tangibles are equal. The separation makes blacks feel unequal, and is therefore unconstitutional.

 

[jreeves]

As you can see from Annies link, its because they were ipso facto inequal. It wasn't that the school systems that existed were unequal, it was because school systems that were segregated were necessarily unequal. Separate but equal wasn't equal, in part, because it wasn't equal in fact (blacks got shitty schools), but the thrust of the decision was that even if they were equal in fact, they were still unequal. Their very existence as separate schools make them unequal.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka -- Opinion -- 387 U.S. 483
Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession."
Page 494
Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system." [10]

Yes the two systems couldn't be equal, if one race was made inferior through segregation. This is a case of inequality not empathy, if this is social activism I have no problem with it. If on the other hand, the SCOTUS was to make an already equal relationship unequal for the purpose of social activism then I would have a problem with that type of ruling.

No, its a case of empathy. There is nothing in the 14th amendment that says that everyone has to feel equal. The court in Brown said, as you highlighted, that it doesn't matter if the facilities are equal. It doesn't matter if all of the tangibles are equal. The separation makes blacks feel unequal, and is therefore unconstitutional.

The court did a good job in my opinion of removing themselves from the "moment". Segregation was commonplace they eliminated an injustice that existed. There was no reason for segregation, it was something that existed that naturally was wrong.

 

[Nik]

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka -- Opinion -- 387 U.S. 483
Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession."
Page 494
Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system." [10]

Yes the two systems couldn't be equal, if one race was made inferior through segregation. This is a case of inequality not empathy, if this is social activism I have no problem with it. If on the other hand, the SCOTUS was to make an already equal relationship unequal for the purpose of social activism then I would have a problem with that type of ruling.

No, its a case of empathy. There is nothing in the 14th amendment that says that everyone has to feel equal. The court in Brown said, as you highlighted, that it doesn't matter if the facilities are equal. It doesn't matter if all of the tangibles are equal. The separation makes blacks feel unequal, and is therefore unconstitutional.

The court did a good job in my opinion of removing themselves from the "moment". Segregation was commonplace they eliminated an injustice that existed. There was no reason for segregation, it was something that existed that naturally was wrong.

Yes I agree, but it also wasn't Unconstitutional. It was an activist ruling, just like tons of others that people have no problem with. Its just when they see a decision they don't like they freak out about activist judges.

When did you see anyone on the right last complain that the USSC found an implied suspension of the great writ via the AUMF? That bit of bullshit was the justices making it up as they went along. But its A OK with the right, cause it fit their end goals.

 

[jreeves]

No, its a case of empathy. There is nothing in the 14th amendment that says that everyone has to feel equal. The court in Brown said, as you highlighted, that it doesn't matter if the facilities are equal. It doesn't matter if all of the tangibles are equal. The separation makes blacks feel unequal, and is therefore unconstitutional.

The court did a good job in my opinion of removing themselves from the "moment". Segregation was commonplace they eliminated an injustice that existed. There was no reason for segregation, it was something that existed that naturally was wrong.

Yes I agree, but it also wasn't Unconstitutional. It was an activist ruling, just like tons of others that people have no problem with. Its just when they see a decision they don't like they freak out about activist judges.

When did you see anyone on the right last complain that the USSC found an implied suspension of the great writ via the AUMF? That bit of bullshit was the justices making it up as they went along. But its A OK with the right, cause it fit their end goals.

Segregation was unconstitutional it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Like I said I have no problem with equal protection for all under our Constitutionality and yes that would include gays. I don't necessarily agree with the lifestyle but it is the same situation. No one's rights should be restricted, unless they are infringing on others rights.

 

[Nik]

The court did a good job in my opinion of removing themselves from the "moment". Segregation was commonplace they eliminated an injustice that existed. There was no reason for segregation, it was something that existed that naturally was wrong.

Yes I agree, but it also wasn't Unconstitutional. It was an activist ruling, just like tons of others that people have no problem with. Its just when they see a decision they don't like they freak out about activist judges.

When did you see anyone on the right last complain that the USSC found an implied suspension of the great writ via the AUMF? That bit of bullshit was the justices making it up as they went along. But its A OK with the right, cause it fit their end goals.

Segregation was unconstitutional it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Like I said I have no problem with equal protection for all under our Constitutionality and yes that would include gays. I don't necessarily agree with the lifestyle but it is the same situation. No one's rights should be restricted, unless they are infringing on others rights.

It doesn't violate it, unless you add sociology and feelings to it. As I said, theres nothing in the 14th that says that people can't feel inferior, merely that they can't be treated unequally. And having separate, equal facilities is not treating them unequally. By the way, this is just a textual reading of the 14th amendment. I don't actually view the Constitution as a stale, unchanging document.

Anyway I've made this point several times now, and you haven't responded to it.

 

[jreeves]

Yes I agree, but it also wasn't Unconstitutional. It was an activist ruling, just like tons of others that people have no problem with. Its just when they see a decision they don't like they freak out about activist judges.

When did you see anyone on the right last complain that the USSC found an implied suspension of the great writ via the AUMF? That bit of bullshit was the justices making it up as they went along. But its A OK with the right, cause it fit their end goals.

Segregation was unconstitutional it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Like I said I have no problem with equal protection for all under our Constitutionality and yes that would include gays. I don't necessarily agree with the lifestyle but it is the same situation. No one's rights should be restricted, unless they are infringing on others rights.

It doesn't violate it, unless you add sociology and feelings to it. As I said, theres nothing in the 14th that says that people can't feel inferior, merely that they can't be treated unequally. And having separate, equal facilities is not treating them unequally. By the way, this is just a textual reading of the 14th amendment. I don't actually view the Constitution as a stale, unchanging document.

Anyway I've made this point several times now, and you haven't responded to it.

Ok so it creates equality when you segregate? I think sociology played into their rulings but feelings didn't have anything to do with the decision. You are not equal if you are inferior, right?

 

[Nik]

Segregation was unconstitutional it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Like I said I have no problem with equal protection for all under our Constitutionality and yes that would include gays. I don't necessarily agree with the lifestyle but it is the same situation. No one's rights should be restricted, unless they are infringing on others rights.

It doesn't violate it, unless you add sociology and feelings to it. As I said, theres nothing in the 14th that says that people can't feel inferior, merely that they can't be treated unequally. And having separate, equal facilities is not treating them unequally. By the way, this is just a textual reading of the 14th amendment. I don't actually view the Constitution as a stale, unchanging document.

Anyway I've made this point several times now, and you haven't responded to it.

Ok so it creates equality when you segregate? I think sociology played into their rulings but feelings didn't have anything to do with the decision. You are not equal if you are inferior, right?

No, it doesn't create equality when you segregate. Nor does it necessarily create inequality when you segregate. Men and women are segregated, do you think thats unequal?

 

[jreeves]

It doesn't violate it, unless you add sociology and feelings to it. As I said, theres nothing in the 14th that says that people can't feel inferior, merely that they can't be treated unequally. And having separate, equal facilities is not treating them unequally. By the way, this is just a textual reading of the 14th amendment. I don't actually view the Constitution as a stale, unchanging document.

Anyway I've made this point several times now, and you haven't responded to it.

Ok so it creates equality when you segregate? I think sociology played into their rulings but feelings didn't have anything to do with the decision. You are not equal if you are inferior, right?

No, it doesn't create equality when you segregate. Nor does it necessarily create inequality when you segregate. Men and women are segregated, do you think thats unequal?

Sociology rears its ugly head again. There is societal expectations about women and men. In other words when a woman enters a bathroom, she doesn't expect to see a man pissing in a urinal.....

 

[Nik]

Ok so it creates equality when you segregate? I think sociology played into their rulings but feelings didn't have anything to do with the decision. You are not equal if you are inferior, right?

No, it doesn't create equality when you segregate. Nor does it necessarily create inequality when you segregate. Men and women are segregated, do you think thats unequal?

Sociology rears its ugly head again. There is societal expectations about women and men. In other words when a woman enters a bathroom, she doesn't expect to see a man pissing in a urinal.....

Exactly. The entire decision was predicated upon sociological facts. And those facts by themselves don't make the law constitutional, or unconstitutional. After all, one is supposed to read the plan text, blah, blah, blah, right?

This is the current argument against affirmative action, and its one you see everywhere in conservative circles. "Treat everyone exactly the same, and its A OK". Well, no, actually, its not. Because blacks suffer from inferiority complexes, because our society is still racist, its not ok. In fact, its rather problematic.

Again, Brown v. board is an example of "activist" judges, that nobody calls activist because activist judges is just a euphemism for "decisions we don't agree with".

I notice you've ignored my AUMF example as well. Thats another decision of, obviously, activist judges that conservatives are A OK with because it fits in with their worldview. To his credit, Scalia really tears apart that case, actually. And Thomas shows what a douchebag he really is.

 

[jreeves]

No, it doesn't create equality when you segregate. Nor does it necessarily create inequality when you segregate. Men and women are segregated, do you think thats unequal?

Sociology rears its ugly head again. There is societal expectations about women and men. In other words when a woman enters a bathroom, she doesn't expect to see a man pissing in a urinal.....

Exactly. The entire decision was predicated upon sociological facts. And those facts by themselves don't make the law constitutional, or unconstitutional. After all, one is supposed to read the plan text, blah, blah, blah, right?

This is the current argument against affirmative action, and its one you see everywhere in conservative circles. "Treat everyone exactly the same, and its A OK". Well, no, actually, its not. Because blacks suffer from inferiority complexes, because our society is still racist, its not ok. In fact, its rather problematic.

Again, Brown v. board is an example of "activist" judges, that nobody calls activist because activist judges is just a euphemism for "decisions we don't agree with".

I notice you've ignored my AUMF example as well. Thats another decision of, obviously, activist judges that conservatives are A OK with because it fits in with their worldview. To his credit, Scalia really tears apart that case, actually. And Thomas shows what a douchebag he really is.

A link with your activism shown in the AUMF, please? Affirmative action is in fact, reverse discrimination, in most cases. Blacks are no longer segregated or owned, so therefore they shouldn't receive preferential treatment. Brown v. board isn't an example of activist judges, it is a case of unequal status by members of our society.