The Court has rendered its decision:

Concluding its current Term with a historic ruling on race in public policy, the Supreme Court divided 5-4 on Thursday in striking down voluntary integration plans in the public schools of Seattle and Louisville. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., wrote the majority opinion in the combined cases. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy did not join all of the majority opinion, but joined in the result.

IANAL but it appears to me that the Court is now prohibiting schools to do voluntarily what they used to be ordered to do. Unfortunately, it also appears this decision will negatively affect efforts to close the achievement gap between minority and white students.

So much for Roberts' respect for stare decisis. This court is undoing decades of precedent.

Adam B. over at Daily Kos has an excellent summary and assessment of why today's decision effectively guts Brown. v. Board of Education.

I do believe the actions of the Roberts Court equal Iraq as a compelling reason why Democrats must win the White House in 2008.

Here's a thought: Is John Roberts this century's Roger Taney?

The only thing that will render this case moot, or make the issue of discrimination a non-issue is for society as a whole to realize that there is no one superior race, or people in general within our society. Supremacy is the driving force behind discrimination, and it is the egocentric mind that assists a sense of superiority.

This is a sad day for out democracy, and also an awakening for what the Robert's Court is going to mean for the United States for the next thirty years. This is the main reason that conservatives knew that, hell, or high water, they had to have the executive branch in 2000 and 2004.

What I find the most interesting is that NPR, on its show "Fresh Air" Tues, June 26, did a long segment on two teachers who have been severely injured by black students in inner city schools.
While the situation is deplorable, and needs to be addressed pronto, don't you find the TIMING a little interesting? ^o^
Please visit StopBigMedia.com when you have a chance!

Just a thought...what if plans such as these were based primarily on economics rather than race? What school districts, are disadvantaged due to disproportionately small tax bases? Can some number of the students in those districts be given the advantage of the public schooling available in nearby, "better" school districts? And when the total number of students to be moved is determined, can their race distribution be commensurate with the distribution of race in the disadvantaged districts? Would the USSC then be able to decide that the way to end the disadvantages attendant to poverty is to "not discriminate on the basis of poverty?"

BaronScarpia on June 28, 2007 at 01:52 PM

Thanks for that thought! However, I'm not convinced that the USSC would define the disadvantages due to poverty as discriminatory because the people that live in poverty supposedly choose to live that way. Remember Ronald Reagan's analysis of homelessness, here? This is the egocentric point of view, and it is that point of view that needs to be confronted before we will make any major improvements for eliminating poverty. In my opinion...

eliminating poverty. In my opinion...

Posted by davidual on June 28, 2007 at 02:52 PM

I'm sorry I meant eliminating discrimination.

Just a thought...what if plans such as these were based primarily on economics rather than race? What school districts, are disadvantaged due to disproportionately small tax bases? Can some number of the students in those districts be given the advantage of the public schooling available in nearby, "better" school districts? And when the total number of students to be moved is determined, can their race distribution be commensurate with the distribution of race in the disadvantaged districts? Would the USSC then be able to decide that the way to end the disadvantages attendant to poverty is to "not discriminate on the basis of poverty?"

Soorry for the double post -

Davidual -

My thought is simply this...it is much harder to argue against giving kids special help, whether it is in the areas of education, health care, housing, etc...based on their impoverishment than on the basis of their race. Why give conservatives this easy argument (for them) to make...that it's "reverse discrimination?" Let them argue that it's discriminatory, and not in the interests of society, to help poor people better their lives by giving kids a shot at equal educcational opportunities. If it happens that the school district that needs the help is 85% black, then 85% of the kids who are bused should be black. After all, it would be discriminatory to make an effort to help poor people and then give disproportionate assistance to poor white people.

More bad 5-4 decisions from the Supreme Court today--this time they ruled against an antitrust rule that is almost a century old.

Say goodbye to Brown v. Board! This is a disgrace. Ironically, and even hypocritically, Justice Clarence Thomas voted against affirmative action even though he is on the Supreme Court because he is black and is conservative because it helps him with conservative people in power, like George H Bush. This is quite a tragic day for people of all races in America.

Say goodbye to Brown v. Board! This is a disgrace. Ironically, and even hypocritically, Justice Clarence Thomas voted against affirmative action even though he is on the Supreme Court because he is black and is conservative because it helps him with conservative people in power, like George H Bush. This is quite a tragic day for people of all races in America.

re: The Supreme Court's dicision on June 28th 2007
all I can say is YAHOO!

How many of us would be unhappy to live in the same neighborhood as Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Shaquille O'Neil, Barack Obama? How would you feel if one of them lived next door?

How would you feel if the government rented the house next door and installed a mother on welfare with six kids, three of them running with gangs, who broke windows, parked beat up old cars on the lawn, had three pit bulls chained to a tree in the front yard, and littered the yard with take-out food bags, wrappers, and beer cans?

What's at play, race, economics, or lifestyle?

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/matthewcrawford/Cq4G

Why are democrats still talking about Brown. v. Board of Education? That is a 40 year old decision that has no relevance to today's world. Juan Williams himself said it. All this started because a woman didn't want to drive 90 minutes to take her kids to school. Do you know why she had to drive 90 minutes one way when there was a perfectly good school 10 minutes away? Because of Brown v Board of Education. Schools were to have racial diversity, and had to keep a specific ratio of white kids, black kids, Asians etc so as not to harm the racial balance of the school population. Diversity has brought on more problems that it has solved. I'm not saying going back to pre-Brown, but we have to use our brains for a second. If there is a school down the road, the child should go to that school instead of traveling 90 minutes across town to another school all in the name of "diversity". That makes no sense and democrats make no sense.

By the way, jumbo, Clarence Thomas, who you observed is black, voted against Affirmative Action because he knows the value of hard work instead of having it handed to you because your black and think the "white" government owes you something. Affirmative Action is a farce. It says to the people that the government will just let you into Harvard or Yale because your black. You don't have to do anything EXCEPT be black. That's all Affirmative Action is; A handout program. Good for Clarence Thomas for voting it down. People need to work for what they want, not just wait for a handout.