Before folks start commenting on the supreme court decision, go read today's new york times. I'm not suggesting this because of the editorial (which i agree with), but because they did a good job of covering the facts in the other articles.
The truth is that the "integration policy" of these two school districts did not displace that many students. I think the numbers were in the teens each year. Regardless, even if the stakes were much higher, I cannot see how you can argue against diversity. My mother teaches in a school that is 99% black and hispanic. That is not the real world, nor is the real world comprised of schools, such as the ones in this case, that were over 70% white. If districts can achieve diversity without uprooting entire communities, there can only be positive results in the grand scheme.
This case was certainly not about discrimination and Roberts insulted everyone's intelligence by comparing this case to Brown. Get serious. The goals of Brown have not been reached, we are still nowhere near equality in terms of education. Roberts was way too simplistic in his approach. This isn't about discriminating against someone based on race, its about trying to correct inequality, level the playing field, and achieving diversity.
To everyone who does not vote. These past few weeks of supreme court decisions are the equivalent, in the world of civil rights, to the disaster in iraq. Thank you red states.
Do the legal minds of the strut think this opinion will stand on its own, or be easily toppled?
There's no higher body to appeal to--in order to reverse, the same issue would have to be brought back before a court that no longer has a conservative majority.
This cadre of justices has shown little respect for precedent, so I don't see why a future court would feel compelled to respect their abberant decisions.
This cadre of justices has shown little respect for precedent, so I don't see why a future court would feel compelled to respect their abberant decisions.
puh-leeze.
its always activist when the other side is doing it.
Yes, by refusing to join Roberts' opinion, he does limit its impact by ensuring that it is not a majority opinion, but I don't see how you can say that his opinion (though more legally sound) is the one that really matters.
Roberts' opinion is the clearest indication of where these four justices are at ideologically, and if they get just one more partisan appointee, they won't even need to make any concessions to Kennedy in order to control the Court.
This is what I thought on first read (of the NYTimes, not the opinion).
this court has held that when an opinion of the court fails to garner the support of a majority of the justices, the meaning must be sought in the opinion of that justice who agreed on the narrowest of grounds.
it looks like the system was applied in an ad hoc manner, and therefore failed to satisfy strict scrutiny which is the accepted standard for racial classifications.
and in the second case, the court had a problem with the classifications of just "white" and "non-white" in a community that had much more diversity.
it looks like the system was applied in an ad hoc manner, and therefore failed to satisfy strict scrutiny which is the accepted standard for racial classifications.
it looks like the system was applied in an ad hoc manner, and therefore failed to satisfy strict scrutiny which is the accepted standard for racial classifications.
puh-leeze
hey, strict scrutiny is your guys's invention, live with it. You want to follow precedent, dont you.
ugh. not to derail the conversation, but what do the legal minds of the strut think of the lifting of the 96 EFFIN' YEAR OLD ban on minimum retail pricing? Personally, I think it's absolute bullshit. What's worse is these "economists" (excuse me while i HACK and cough) from the University of Chicago (which I understand, earned its prestige way back during the formation of neo-classical theory... yeah, all those guys are dead and gone, now replaced with partisan supply-siders) trying to actually convince me that the producers are better at pricing than retailers and competition will increase when pricing floors are set and the EFFING MARKET cannot find its own price equilibrium. radical. (i know this isn't the typical strut race related catnip that the other case is, but if you need a break from that, comment on this one)
Do the legal minds of the strut think this opinion will stand on its own, or be easily toppled?
If school districts are smart they will apply the identical policies but change them to be based on "economics" rather than race. Unfortunately (for the state of our country in 200-f*cking-7, an economic diversication system will have similar results (in terms of race).
ugh. not to derail the conversation, but what do the legal minds of the strut think of the lifting of the 96 EFFIN' YEAR OLD ban on minimum retail pricing? Personally, I think it's absolute bullshit. What's worse is these "economists" (excuse me while i HACK and cough) from the University of Chicago (which I understand, earned its prestige way back during the formation of neo-classical theory... yeah, all those guys are dead and gone, now replaced with partisan supply-siders) trying to actually convince me that the producers are better at pricing than retailers and competition will increase when pricing floors are set and the EFFING MARKET cannot find its own price equilibrium. radical. (i know this isn't the typical strut race related catnip that the other case is, but if you need a break from that, comment on this one)
When we elect a Democratic president in 2008, this person will appoint at least one justice. Maybe two?
Likely. But Ginsburg and Stevens are the two justices closest to retirement, so it won't result in any kind of ideological reconfiguration. Kennedy is the swing vote right now, and I don't think he has any plans to retire soon... though that may change over the next 4 or 8 years.
When we elect a Democratic president in 2008, this person will appoint at least one justice. Maybe two?
Likely. But Ginsburg and Stevens are the two justices closest to retirement, so it won't result in any kind of ideological configuration. Kennedy is the swing vote right now, and I don't think he has any plans to retire soon... though that may change over the next 4 or 8 years.
all i know is stevens is 88 so his ass better hold on to life for another two years
This is what I thought on first read (of the NYTimes, not the opinion).
this court has held that when an opinion of the court fails to garner the support of a majority of the justices, the meaning must be sought in the opinion of that justice who agreed on the narrowest of grounds.
I don't think that's strictly true. Or at least it's misleadingly phrased. You seek meaning in the points of concurrence and the limiting factor is usually going to be found in the opinion of the justice who concurred on the narrowest grounds. It doesn't mean that the meaning is derived from that justice's opinion as a whole. So here, yes, Kennedy's opinion is the limiting factor.
But what's significant here is not just the outcome, but that you have such a radically worded opinion being signed onto by four justices--it reads like one of Scalia's ass-hurt dissents of days past.
When we elect a Democratic president in 2008, this person will appoint at least one justice. Maybe two?
Likely. But Ginsburg and Stevens are the two justices closest to retirement, so it won't result in any kind of ideological configuration. Kennedy is the swing vote right now, and I don't think he has any plans to retire soon... though that may change over the next 4 or 8 years.
all i know is stevens is 88 so his ass better hold on to life for another two years
I believe he feels the same way and is determined to hang on for as long as he can. Barring his health taking an extreme turn for the worse, he'll be with us through the regime change.
This is what I thought on first read (of the NYTimes, not the opinion).
this court has held that when an opinion of the court fails to garner the support of a majority of the justices, the meaning must be sought in the opinion of that justice who agreed on the narrowest of grounds.
I don't think that's strictly true. Or at least it's misleadingly phrased. You seek meaning in the points of concurrence and the limiting factor is usually going to be found in the opinion of the justice who concurred on the narrowest grounds. It doesn't mean that the meaning is derived from that justice's opinion as a whole. So here, yes, Kennedy's opinion is the limiting factor.
But what's significant here is not just the outcome, but that you have such a radically worded opinion being signed onto by four justices--it reads like one of Scalia's ass-hurt dissents of days past.
you are right, the exact phrase is "when a fragmented court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoyus the assent of five justices, the holding of the court may be viewed as that position taken by those members who concurred in the judgment on the narrowest of grounds." a subtel distinction that you are totally correct about. Gregg v. Georgia.
This is what I thought on first read (of the NYTimes, not the opinion).
this court has held that when an opinion of the court fails to garner the support of a majority of the justices, the meaning must be sought in the opinion of that justice who agreed on the narrowest of grounds.
I don't think that's strictly true. Or at least it's misleadingly phrased. You seek meaning in the points of concurrence and the limiting factor is usually going to be found in the opinion of the justice who concurred on the narrowest grounds. It doesn't mean that the meaning is derived from that justice's opinion as a whole. So here, yes, Kennedy's opinion is the limiting factor.
But what's significant here is not just the outcome, but that you have such a radically worded opinion being signed onto by four justices--it reads like one of Scalia's ass-hurt dissents of days past.
you are right, the exact phrase is "when a fragmented court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoyus the assent of five justices, the holding of the court may be viewed as that position taken by those members who concurred in the judgment on the narrowest of grounds." a subtel distinction that you are totally correct about. Gregg v. Georgia.
No, I am not at all mad that I am not spending my summer immersed in preparation for the bar.
i think that scalia is a gifted satirist, but someone recently said that its getting to the point where he treats these cases like taking a bucket of golf balls to the driving range.
i think that scalia is a gifted satirist, but someone recently said that its getting to the point where he treats these cases like taking a bucket of golf balls to the driving range.
One thing that's always struck me about Scalia's opinions is that he seems incapable of restraint. For example, if he's writing a dissent and the majority opinion was authored by Kennedy, he can't help but vicously ridicule Kennedy even though he knows he's gonna need Kennedy if he's going to prevail next time around.
Comments
The truth is that the "integration policy" of these two school districts did not displace that many students. I think the numbers were in the teens each year. Regardless, even if the stakes were much higher, I cannot see how you can argue against diversity. My mother teaches in a school that is 99% black and hispanic. That is not the real world, nor is the real world comprised of schools, such as the ones in this case, that were over 70% white. If districts can achieve diversity without uprooting entire communities, there can only be positive results in the grand scheme.
This case was certainly not about discrimination and Roberts insulted everyone's intelligence by comparing this case to Brown. Get serious. The goals of Brown have not been reached, we are still nowhere near equality in terms of education. Roberts was way too simplistic in his approach. This isn't about discriminating against someone based on race, its about trying to correct inequality, level the playing field, and achieving diversity.
To everyone who does not vote. These past few weeks of supreme court decisions are the equivalent, in the world of civil rights, to the disaster in iraq. Thank you red states.
Pay me in rekkids, Now.
why not actually read the opnion and form one of your own?
http://scotusblog.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/05-908.pdf
There is a lot of gratuitous language in that opinion--it is clearly intended as an ideological statement.
There's no higher body to appeal to--in order to reverse, the same issue would have to be brought back before a court that no longer has a conservative majority.
This cadre of justices has shown little respect for precedent, so I don't see why a future court would feel compelled to respect their abberant decisions.
This is what I thought on first read (of the NYTimes, not the opinion).
puh-leeze.
its always activist when the other side is doing it.
How you figure?
Yes, by refusing to join Roberts' opinion, he does limit its impact by ensuring that it is not a majority opinion, but I don't see how you can say that his opinion (though more legally sound) is the one that really matters.
Roberts' opinion is the clearest indication of where these four justices are at ideologically, and if they get just one more partisan appointee, they won't even need to make any concessions to Kennedy in order to control the Court.
this court has held that when an opinion of the court fails to garner the support of a majority of the justices, the meaning must be sought in the opinion of that justice who agreed on the narrowest of grounds.
that was in my oral argument.
and in the second case, the court had a problem with the classifications of just "white" and "non-white" in a community that had much more diversity.
hey, strict scrutiny is your guys's invention, live with it. You want to follow precedent, dont you.
not to derail the conversation, but what do the legal minds of the strut think of the lifting of the 96 EFFIN' YEAR OLD ban on minimum retail pricing?
Personally, I think it's absolute bullshit.
What's worse is these "economists" (excuse me while i HACK and cough) from the University of Chicago (which I understand, earned its prestige way back during the formation of neo-classical theory... yeah, all those guys are dead and gone, now replaced with partisan supply-siders) trying to actually convince me that the producers are better at pricing than retailers and competition will increase when pricing floors are set and the EFFING MARKET cannot find its own price equilibrium.
radical.
(i know this isn't the typical strut race related catnip that the other case is, but if you need a break from that, comment on this one)
If school districts are smart they will apply the identical policies but change them to be based on "economics" rather than race. Unfortunately (for the state of our country in 200-f*cking-7, an economic diversication system will have similar results (in terms of race).
all the antitrust laws are getting chipped at.
Likely. But Ginsburg and Stevens are the two justices closest to retirement, so it won't result in any kind of ideological reconfiguration. Kennedy is the swing vote right now, and I don't think he has any plans to retire soon... though that may change over the next 4 or 8 years.
I don't think that's strictly true. Or at least it's misleadingly phrased. You seek meaning in the points of concurrence and the limiting factor is usually going to be found in the opinion of the justice who concurred on the narrowest grounds. It doesn't mean that the meaning is derived from that justice's opinion as a whole. So here, yes, Kennedy's opinion is the limiting factor.
But what's significant here is not just the outcome, but that you have such a radically worded opinion being signed onto by four justices--it reads like one of Scalia's ass-hurt dissents of days past.
I believe he feels the same way and is determined to hang on for as long as he can. Barring his health taking an extreme turn for the worse, he'll be with us through the regime change.
you are right, the exact phrase is "when a fragmented court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoyus the assent of five justices, the holding of the court may be viewed as that position taken by those members who concurred in the judgment on the narrowest of grounds." a subtel distinction that you are totally correct about. Gregg v. Georgia.
No, I am not at all mad that I am not spending my summer immersed in preparation for the bar.
One thing that's always struck me about Scalia's opinions is that he seems incapable of restraint. For example, if he's writing a dissent and the majority opinion was authored by Kennedy, he can't help but vicously ridicule Kennedy even though he knows he's gonna need Kennedy if he's going to prevail next time around.