Clarence Thomas attacks Brown v. Board ruling amid 70th anniversary

[Zincwarrior]

Its important as SCOTUS to attack the legal case that permitted you to go to school, and thus be on SCOTUS, don't you think? I am sure many posters on IMBD think ending educational racial segregation was a bad idea. What say you USMB?

https://www.axios.com/2024/05/23/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-racial-segregationClarence Thomas attacks Brown v. Board ruling amid 70th anniversary

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a strong rebuke of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling on Thursday, suggesting the court overreached its authority in the landmark decision that banned separating schoolchildren by race.
Why it matters: Thomas attacked the Brown decision in a concurrence opinion that allowed South Carolina to keep using a congressional map that critics say discriminated against Black voters.
Driving the news: The court "took a boundless view of equitable remedies" in the Brown ruling, wrote Thomas, who in 1991 replaced Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall — the first Black Supreme Court Justice and the lead lawyer in the Brown case.

• Those remedies came through "extravagant uses of judicial power" to end racial segregation in the 1950s and 60s, Thomas wrote.
• Federal courts have limited power to grant equitable relief, "not the flexible power to invent whatever new remedies may seem useful at the time," he said, justifying his opinion to keep a predominantly white congressional district in South Carolina.

 

[DGS49]

It is worth mentioning that the Constitutional basis of Brown v Board was very questionable. The Feds and the Court have no such power under the Constitution.

More important, the case has been a total failure. The belief that "inspired" the ruling was that "separate but equal" was allowing states and school districts to shortchange Negros, thus providing a less "equal" education than it provided to White kids. By demanding that schools be integrated, it was thought that Negro children would get a better education than they had been.

But this was a fatuous hope that has not proven itself valid in the ensuing seventy years. Schools were integrated, often by force, and yet the academic "achievement gap" remains, and it appears that Black parents would just as soon have their kids educated with other Black kids, if given the choice. Further, the White schools that had an influx of Black students suffered academically, with the only benefit being better basketball teams.

The VP's implicit claims that her education was enhanced significantly by being bused to a "Whiter" school are nothing but empty posturing. Having two highly-educated parents did her more good than any public school would have, regardless of its demographic profile.

Thank God we have justices like Justice Thomas, who knows the Constitution and knows how it is supposed to apply to American lives.

 

[Zincwarrior]

It is worth mentioning that the Constitutional basis of Brown v Board was very questionable. The Feds and the Court have no such power under the Constitution.

14th Amendment says hello.

 

[Missourian]

14th Amendment says hello.

Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

And separate but equal violates that implicitly.

 

[Missourian]

And separate but equal violates that implicitly.

How? If they are equal...they are equal.

 

[Zincwarrior]

How? If they are equal...they are equal.

They aren't equal.

Interesting. I have never seen anyone actually try to defend separate but equal before.

 

[Missourian]

They aren't equal.

Interesting. I have never seen anyone actually try to defend separate but equal before.

If they aren't equal...then it's not separate but equal.

You understand that, right?

We're talking law and the Constitution...not your or my opinions.

If the schools are equal, there is no constitutional issue.

 

[Zincwarrior]

If they aren't equal...then it's not separate but equal.

You understand that, right?

We're talking law and the Constitution...not your or my opinions.

If the schools are equal, there is no constitutional issue.

The Constitution says they are not equal on its face.

 

[Missourian]

The Constitution says they are not equal on its face.

Fake news. The Constitution DOES NOT say that.

Prove me wrong...from the words of the Constitution...or admit you are full of shit.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Fake news. The Constitution DOES NOT say that.

Prove me wrong...from the words of the Constitution...or admit you are full of shit.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Opinion; May 17, 1954; Records of the Supreme Court of the United States; Record Group 267; National Archives. View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog View Transcript In this milestone decision, the Supreme Court ruled...

www.archives.gov

 

[Missourian]

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Opinion; May 17, 1954; Records of the Supreme Court of the United States; Record Group 267; National Archives. View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog View Transcript In this milestone decision, the Supreme Court ruled...

www.archives.gov

That is NOT from the Constitution.

That is the very OPINION we are discussing.

Show me FROM THE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION where separate but equal is unconstitutional.

 

[Zincwarrior]

That is NOT from the Constitution.

That is the very OPINION we are discussing.

Show me FROM THE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION where separate but equal is unconstitutional.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Separate but equal is not equal protection of the laws. Can't believe you are trying to argue this.

 

[BackAgain]

Its important as SCOTUS to attack the legal case that permitted you to go to school, and thus be on SCOTUS, don't you think? I am sure many posters on IMBD think ending educational racial segregation was a bad idea. What say you USMB?

https://www.axios.com/2024/05/23/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-racial-segregationClarence Thomas attacks Brown v. Board ruling amid 70th anniversary

OP failed to offer proper link.

Editing the link (deleting the word “Clarence” helps). There we see that Axios didn’t even link or name the decision it was attempting to criticize.

Some digging led to this case:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-807_3e04.pdf

It is not until p. 64 that Justice Thomas even mentions Brown v. Board of Education in his concurring (in part) decision. Read meaningfully and honestly, his opinion is a reiteration of his insistence that the power of the Federal Courts is supposed to be limited to what the Constitution says.

I know. I know. That’s outrageous.

But to be a bit more bland about it:

Justice Thomas remains absolutely correct.

What he wrote even acknowledged that the Court might have authority to provide relief under circumstances such as the nonsensical “separate but equal” matter. But his lengthy concurring opinion was actually about limiting the scope of claimed-powers by the judiciary where the Constitution has already spoken. We are supposed to adhere to the Constitution.

 

[Missourian]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Separate but equal is not equal protection of the laws

If they are equal, no one has been deprived of anything.

Separate but equal is not equal protection of the laws. Can't believe you are trying to argue this.

^^^Tell me you can't defend your position without telling me you can't defend your position.

 

[Zincwarrior]

If they are equal, no one has been deprived of anything.



^^^Tell me you can't defend your position without telling me you can't defend your position.

My position is the 14th Amendment. Your position is Jim Crow. I respect your honesty.

 

[Missourian]

My position is the 14th Amendment. Your position is Jim Crow. I respect your honesty.

Fake News.

My position is that separate but equal is not unconstitutional.

Separate but unequal WOULD violate the 14th amendment...but separate but equal would not.

That's not an opinion...that is a fact.

Prove me wrong directly from the Constitution or STFU.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They aren't equal.

Interesting. I have never seen anyone actually try to defend separate but equal before.

The racist right has long defended separate and unequal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fake News.

My position is that separate but equal is not unconstitutional.

Separate but unequal WOULD violate the 14th amendment...but separate but equal would not.

That's not an opinion...that is a fact.

Prove me wrong directly from the Constitution or STFU.

No, it's true.

The racist right defends Jim Crow and segregation.

 

[BackAgain]

No, it's true.

The racist right defends Jim Crow and segregation.

No. You lie.

But that sentence is a redundancy.