Supremes get another racial-discrimination case

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
10,025
Reaction score
2,404
Points
290
Location
San Diego, CA
A few years ago, the Supreme Court announced that racial discrimination was OK in some forms of school admissions policy, despite the 14th amendment's flat prohibition of any such discrimination. Justice Sandra O'Connor came up with a bizarre interpretation that even included a timetable for phasing out the racial discrimination, though neither the discrimination nor the timetable had any Constitutional foundation whatsoever. Her attempts at judicial legislation are joined by those of Justice Ginsburg, who wonders if it is "safe" to get rid of racial discrimination while ignoring that it is Constitutionally required.

Now O'Connor is gone, replaced by Samuel Alito, who has shown little tendencey to use the law to "improve" society in ways that he might think are nice. Alito clings to the antiquated view that it's the legislature's job to make law to improve society, not the court's.

Should be interesting to see how these new cases come out... and whether the case from a few years ago, gets re-heard.

Probably the best part of George W. Bush's checkered legacy, will be the appointment of two law-abiding judges to the Supreme Court, and many more such to lower courts. We are starting to feel the effects already.

-------------------------------------

http://OpinionJournal.com

from "Best of the Web Today"
By JAMES TARANTO

Dec. 5, 2006

How 'Integration' Became Discrimination

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/w...00&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

The New York Times reports on an important case the Supreme Court heard yesterday:

*** QUOTE ***

By the time the Supreme Court finished hearing arguments on Monday on the student-assignment plans that two urban school systems use to maintain racial integration, the only question was how far the court would go in ruling such plans unconstitutional.

There seemed little prospect that either the Louisville, Ky., or Seattle plans would survive the hostile scrutiny of the court's new majority. In each system, students are offered a choice of schools but can be denied admission based on their race if enrolling at a particular school would upset the racial balance.

At its most profound, the debate among the justices was over whether measures designed to maintain or achieve integration should be subjected to the same harsh scrutiny to which Brown v. Board of Education subjected the regime of official segregation. In the view of the conservative majority, the answer was yes.

*** END QUOTE ***

But liberal justices disagreed:

*** QUOTE ***

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg tried unsuccessfully to turn the chief justice's colloquy with [Seattle lawyer Michael] Madden in a different direction. The question of whether "using racial integration is the same as segregation," she said, was "pretty far from the kind of headlines that attended the Brown decision."

Bringing "white and black children together on the same school bench," Justice Ginsburg continued, "seems to be worlds apart from saying we'll separate them."

*** END QUOTE ***

The fundamental dispute is whether antidiscrimination laws--the 14th Amendment and, by implication, the Civil Rights Act of 1964--ban discrimination altogether, or only in the pursuit of invidious ends. Broadly stated, the "conservative" position is that these laws protect individuals from discrimination, whereas the "liberal" position is that discrimination is fine in the pursuit of "diversity" or integration but not of white supremacy.

Liberals, in other words, are much more apt to say that the ends justify the means. As Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in University of California v. Bakke
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=438&invol=265 , "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. . . . And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."

That was in 1978. Twenty-five years later, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in Grutter v. Bollinger http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-241 , upheld some racial discrimination in higher education, but wrote that she expects the need for them to have passed in another 25 years. Justice Ginsburg made a point of disagreeing, saying that one may only "hope" that it will be "safe to sunset affirmative action."

There is a curious disconnect here. "Affirmative action" is politically unpopular, having been banned by initiative in three liberal states (California, Michigan and Washington). With Justice Samuel Alito having replaced O'Connor, its legal status is shaky.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
A few years ago, the Supreme Court announced that racial discrimination was OK in some forms of school admissions policy, despite the 14th amendment's flat prohibition of any such discrimination. Justice Sandra O'Connor came up with a bizarre interpretation that even included a timetable for phasing out the racial discrimination, though neither the discrimination nor the timetable had any Constitutional foundation whatsoever. Her attempts at judicial legislation are joined by those of Justice Ginsburg, who wonders if it is "safe" to get rid of racial discrimination while ignoring that it is Constitutionally required.

Now O'Connor is gone, replaced by Samuel Alito, who has shown little tendencey to use the law to "improve" society in ways that he might think are nice. Alito clings to the antiquated view that it's the legislature's job to make law to improve society, not the court's.

Should be interesting to see how these new cases come out... and whether the case from a few years ago, gets re-heard.

Probably the best part of George W. Bush's checkered legacy, will be the appointment of two law-abiding judges to the Supreme Court, and many more such to lower courts. We are starting to feel the effects already.

-------------------------------------

http://OpinionJournal.com

from "Best of the Web Today"
By JAMES TARANTO

Dec. 5, 2006

How 'Integration' Became Discrimination

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/w...00&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

The New York Times reports on an important case the Supreme Court heard yesterday:

*** QUOTE ***

By the time the Supreme Court finished hearing arguments on Monday on the student-assignment plans that two urban school systems use to maintain racial integration, the only question was how far the court would go in ruling such plans unconstitutional.

There seemed little prospect that either the Louisville, Ky., or Seattle plans would survive the hostile scrutiny of the court's new majority. In each system, students are offered a choice of schools but can be denied admission based on their race if enrolling at a particular school would upset the racial balance.

At its most profound, the debate among the justices was over whether measures designed to maintain or achieve integration should be subjected to the same harsh scrutiny to which Brown v. Board of Education subjected the regime of official segregation. In the view of the conservative majority, the answer was yes.

*** END QUOTE ***

But liberal justices disagreed:

*** QUOTE ***

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg tried unsuccessfully to turn the chief justice's colloquy with [Seattle lawyer Michael] Madden in a different direction. The question of whether "using racial integration is the same as segregation," she said, was "pretty far from the kind of headlines that attended the Brown decision."

Bringing "white and black children together on the same school bench," Justice Ginsburg continued, "seems to be worlds apart from saying we'll separate them."

*** END QUOTE ***

The fundamental dispute is whether antidiscrimination laws--the 14th Amendment and, by implication, the Civil Rights Act of 1964--ban discrimination altogether, or only in the pursuit of invidious ends. Broadly stated, the "conservative" position is that these laws protect individuals from discrimination, whereas the "liberal" position is that discrimination is fine in the pursuit of "diversity" or integration but not of white supremacy.

Liberals, in other words, are much more apt to say that the ends justify the means. As Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in University of California v. Bakke
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=438&invol=265 , "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. . . . And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."

That was in 1978. Twenty-five years later, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in Grutter v. Bollinger http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-241 , upheld some racial discrimination in higher education, but wrote that she expects the need for them to have passed in another 25 years. Justice Ginsburg made a point of disagreeing, saying that one may only "hope" that it will be "safe to sunset affirmative action."

There is a curious disconnect here. "Affirmative action" is politically unpopular, having been banned by initiative in three liberal states (California, Michigan and Washington). With Justice Samuel Alito having replaced O'Connor, its legal status is shaky.
The exchange between Bryer and Scalia was something to behold! Talk about rapier words, Scalia rocks! Which of course, the NY Times leaves out in toto:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/w...00&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Where can we find text or a copy of that exchange?
I've been looking, no luck so far. I heard a tape of their exchanges. My guess, Thomas or findlaw will have it up first.
 

flaja

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
363
Reaction score
10
Points
16
I fully support the intended goal of the Brown decision. Racial discrimination is morally wrong even if it is part and parcel of human nature.

However, the root cause of the problems that made the Brown decision necessary cannot be addressed by the Court and were not rectifiable by the Court’s solution, i.e., forced busing. Jim Crow laws were only part of the school segregation problem. Segregated neighborhoods had as much to do with segregated schools as legal racial discrimination did.

As for the Court’s solution: any benefit gained by integration was lost by the physical effects of busing and the destruction of our neighborhoods (your local elementary school should function as a social/political hub of your neighborhood, but this is made impossible when students and their families have no other connection to the neighborhood where the children attend school.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
I fully support the intended goal of the Brown decision. Racial discrimination is morally wrong even if it is part and parcel of human nature.

However, the root cause of the problems that made the Brown decision necessary cannot be addressed by the Court and were not rectifiable by the Court’s solution, i.e., forced busing. Jim Crow laws were only part of the school segregation problem. Segregated neighborhoods had as much to do with segregated schools as legal racial discrimination did.

As for the Court’s solution: any benefit gained by integration was lost by the physical effects of busing and the destruction of our neighborhoods (your local elementary school should function as a social/political hub of your neighborhood, but this is made impossible when students and their families have no other connection to the neighborhood where the children attend school.
Yeah, forced integration is much better.:rolleyes:
 

flaja

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
363
Reaction score
10
Points
16
Yeah, forced integration is much better.:rolleyes:
When it comes in the form of things like fair housing laws (buying rather than renting), yes. Of course this is something that bigots cannot understand.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
When it comes in the form of things like fair housing laws (buying rather than renting), yes. Of course this is something that bigots cannot understand.
How about housing based on what you can get off your fat ass and earn? Yeah, I AM a bigot against lazy freakin' people sitting around sponging off taxpayers dollars, but I really don't give-a-damn WHAT color they are, where they come from, nor who their mommies are.

Forcing people to racially integrate just to prove the government is not biased is absolute bullshit. It's just like your stupid idea for mass transportation ..... I'll choose who I socialize with, and I don't need you nor the government trying to choose for me.
 

Yurt

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
25,603
Reaction score
3,599
Points
270
Location
Hot air ballon
This is such BS. It makes me ashamed of the legal profession... at times, other than that, it is a good profession.

I had a prof who, on MLK day, made us listen to a guest speaker talk about the upcoming Michigan U case and how blacks should be given preference. We had no choice, if we left, we got an absence, which you only got four a semester. So we were basically forced to listen to this, oh, and no prior notice, ie, you could not plan your absences around this.

Only one guy got up and left. And older fellow, he actually stood up and said this is crap, if the prof wants to push his political agenda, it should not be force on us, and then he left. 120 students, 119 were too chicken to leave. Why? Because we would be called racists.

The laws on race are sketchy at best. If you can show certain things that prove that this party/company/whatever, has a history of racism and knows and intends that racism, then can you make race a factor because it rectifies it. Not here to argue that though.

In this case, it has no merit. There is no forced racism, there is no intent. If it comes down to neighborhoods as one poster above mentioned, that is economic discrimination, not racial. Economic gets the very minimal scrutiny. Yeah, I am going to the courts right now and argue that because I grew up in downtown San Diego that I was prejudiced because my junior high had the second highest F's in the whole county and because of that they had to decrease the academic standards just to pass us. Where is my right to sue? Whites made up only 20% of that school. Where is my right to sue?

I won't. Because it was simply economics. And, I never used that as a crutch.

Amazing.


off rant....
 

flaja

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
363
Reaction score
10
Points
16
How about housing based on what you can get off your fat ass and earn? Yeah, I AM a bigot against lazy freakin' people sitting around sponging off taxpayers dollars, but I really don't give-a-damn WHAT color they are, where they come from, nor who their mommies are.
It doesn’t matter how much a black person (or a Jew, Hispanic et cetera) can earn if the laws are made in such a way that they cannot legally buy a house in certain neighborhoods or if land owners refuse to sell to them. To this day there are certain neighborhoods where I live that have real estate agents who refuse to show a house to black people because they know if they do their career in real estate will be over because the neighborhoods they work in are still full of bigots.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
27,228
Reaction score
6,982
Points
280
Location
Arizona
It doesn’t matter how much a black person (or a Jew, Hispanic et cetera) can earn if the laws are made in such a way that they cannot legally buy a house in certain neighborhoods or if land owners refuse to sell to them. To this day there are certain neighborhoods where I live that have real estate agents who refuse to show a house to black people because they know if they do their career in real estate will be over because the neighborhoods they work in are still full of bigots.
What laws make it so blacks or jews cannot legally buy a house in certain neighborhoods?




:bsflag:
 

flaja

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
363
Reaction score
10
Points
16
What laws make it so blacks or jews cannot legally buy a house in certain neighborhoods?
Such laws no longer exist because of fair housing regulations.

Jews have never been legally excluded, but they have been subject to private discrimination, i.e., there was a time when property owners in certain places would not rent or sell houses to Jews.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/collins.fair.housing

“Before the Civil Rights Movement, housing market discrimination was common and blatant, especially against African Americans but also against Jews and other minority groups.”

“Around mid-century, many barriers inhibited African Americans’ residential mobility, including racially restrictive covenants among white property owners, biased lending practices of banks and government institutions, strong social norms against selling or renting property to blacks outside established black neighborhoods, and harassment of blacks seeking residence in otherwise white neighborhoods (Myrdal 1944, Abrams 1955, Meyer 2000).”

Similar practices were in place to target Jews and other minorities.
 

Rico

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Messages
223
Reaction score
38
Points
16
It is Blackmun's opinion here in cited that is at the core of the problem.

And I will additionally quote George Orwell from the Tenth Chapter of Animal Farm


"It was Clover (A cart horse). Her old eyes looked dimmer than ever. Without saying anything, she tugged gently at his mane and led him round to the end of the big barn, where the Seven Commandments were written. For a minute or two they stood gazing at the tatted wall with its white lettering.
""My sight is failing," she said finally. "Even when I was young I could not have read what was written there. But it appears to me that that wall looks different. Are the Seven Commandments the same as they used to be, Benjamin?"

For once Benjamin (A donkey) consented to break his rule, and he read out to her what was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran:

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS



Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in University of California v. Bakke
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=438&invol=265 , "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. . . . And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Such laws no longer exist because of fair housing regulations.

Jews have never been legally excluded, but they have been subject to private discrimination, i.e., there was a time when property owners in certain places would not rent or sell houses to Jews.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/collins.fair.housing

“Before the Civil Rights Movement, housing market discrimination was common and blatant, especially against African Americans but also against Jews and other minority groups.”

“Around mid-century, many barriers inhibited African Americans’ residential mobility, including racially restrictive covenants among white property owners, biased lending practices of banks and government institutions, strong social norms against selling or renting property to blacks outside established black neighborhoods, and harassment of blacks seeking residence in otherwise white neighborhoods (Myrdal 1944, Abrams 1955, Meyer 2000).”

Similar practices were in place to target Jews and other minorities.
So what was your point over the past posts? Duh?
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
It doesn’t matter how much a black person (or a Jew, Hispanic et cetera) can earn if the laws are made in such a way that they cannot legally buy a house in certain neighborhoods or if land owners refuse to sell to them. To this day there are certain neighborhoods where I live that have real estate agents who refuse to show a house to black people because they know if they do their career in real estate will be over because the neighborhoods they work in are still full of bigots.
So how do you weigh the rights of those who wish to impose themselves on others against the rights of those who are being imposed on? You thump the drum for only one side of the argument while completely ignoring the rights of the other side. And the very second anyone says anything to the contrary, you're quickdraw the racist label. An intellectually dishonest stance, to say the least.

People who wish to live among only those of their own race have rights too. Rights you are more than willing to trample attempting to force integrated socialization.

You want to afford rights to fags, radical Muslims, illegal aliens, but Heaven forbid people who don't see things YOUR secular progressive way get their slice of the pie. You're just as discriminatory in your own way as the worst racist.
 

flaja

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
363
Reaction score
10
Points
16
So what was your point over the past posts? Duh?
My point is that there are still bigots in this country who see nothing wrong in racial discrimination and that it took government action, i.e., law, to combat discrimination- contrary to what libertarians think.
 

flaja

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
363
Reaction score
10
Points
16
So how do you weigh the rights of those who wish to impose themselves on others against the rights of those who are being imposed on?
How would you protect the rights of the people who are being imposed upon? Are you saying some people have a right to infect society with the moral cancer of bigotry?

And note that it was not always private individuals who were doing the imposing. Consider things like riding in the back of the bus or being refused admission to a tax payer supported school being either written into statutory law or tacitly enforced by the majority. The majority has no right to use the law to implement their bigotry.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
How would you protect the rights of the people who are being imposed upon? Are you saying some people have a right to infect society with the moral cancer of bigotry?

As I said, if you don't agree with it, out comes the "racist" label. Perhaps those "bigots" believe it is you and your ilk that are infecting society with the moral cancer of enforced integration and multiculturalism.
And note that it was not always private individuals who were doing the imposing. Consider things like riding in the back of the bus or being refused admission to a tax payer supported school being either written into statutory law or tacitly enforced by the majority. The majority has no right to use the law to implement their bigotry.
Nor does the minority have the right to impose its wishes on the majority. I notice you keep bringing up age-old civil rights issues that haven't even been a factor during YOUR lifetime. Some of us grew up during the 60s and were there.

The fact is, inequality under the law, BY LAW, was taken care of 40 years ago. Your examples are irrelevant. You might want to consider getting with the times.

It is my opinion that white supremacists have as much a right to freedom of speech as Louis Farrakham and/or any other minority hatemonger, and if they wish to live separately they should be allowed to.
 

flaja

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
363
Reaction score
10
Points
16
Nor does the minority have the right to impose its wishes on the majority. I notice you keep bringing up age-old civil rights issues that haven't even been a factor during YOUR lifetime. Some of us grew up during the 60s and were there.

The fact is, inequality under the law, BY LAW, was taken care of 40 years ago. Your examples are irrelevant. You might want to consider getting with the times.

It is my opinion that white supremacists have as much a right to freedom of speech as Louis Farrakham and/or any other minority hatemonger, and if they wish to live separately they should be allowed to.
For all the complaints you people lodged at me for not using quotes to your satisfaction, I note that you have botched the quotes in this post.

Does a minority have a right to be treated equally by society?

I am very current with the times. I am merely continuing the fight that was begun 50 years ago. The fact that bigots, like you, insist that the fight is no longer necessary shows just how necessary the fight is.

We have changed the laws and we have made great strides towards equality. But we still have not stamped bigotry out of the hearts of bigots
 

BaronVonBigmeat

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
163
Points
48
Flaja, would you support a law that imposed fines and/or jail time for customers who patronized a particular business and not another simply because of the demographics of the owners or sales staff?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top