Saturday, June 30, 2007

"Racist" Supremes?

Reacting to the insinuations of the MSM (and the damn-near-overt racialism of Olberman), an attorney writes to NewsBusters.

In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Plessy v. Ferguson in which the Court made the regrettable decision to maintain segregated public facilities though its “separate but equal” doctrine. In 1954, the Supreme Court reversed its prior ruling in the famous case of Brown v. Board of Education, where the Court found that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” In the 53 years since Brown v. Board of Education, public school districts across the country have employed various policies in order to guarantee racial integration, which brings us to the Supreme Court case decided this week.

(Side note: You'll hear a lot of sanctimonious blather about stare decisis when the topic is Roe v. Wade--which talk generally supports retaining the Roe decision because, after all, it was A Decision. You will NOT hear so much about reversing Plessy. Draw your own conclusions.)

The public school districts in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle, Wash., employed elaborate integration policies which included the school district’s ability to assign students to schools solely upon the basis of race, when all the other policies failed to achieve the desired integration.

In other words, after all the students were assigned to schools, the school districts could shuffle a few white kids here, and a few “non-white” kids there, in order to achieve optimal integration.

...In the plainest terms possible, the Court found that the spirit of Brown v. Board of Education was that public schools can not make classifications based upon race, and the Louisville and Seattle policies (no matter how well-intentioned) were at their core classifications based solely upon race.

The bottom line: The Supreme Court’s decision was a pure and passionate defense of Brown v. Board of Education, not a rebuke

Whereas some decisions (like the curious application of the 14th Amendment which makes babies born to Illegals into US citizens without regard for whether the alien was "subject to" the US--) are full of legal shilly-shallying and wordplay, THIS decision is straightforward, down-the-pipe common sense.

HT: NewsBusters


Billiam said...

You're forgetting that Roberts and Alito were appointed by BUSH. So, those with BDS will never accept their decisions as valid. Just like there are those who still say Bush stole the election of 2000.

Karen Marie said...

And illegal can't birth a baby --- it's not even a noun. Human beings have babies. Who are just as much human beings as any other babies, and just as much citizens as any other baby born here.

As was argued during the debates on the declaration of independence, when they disputed whether owned people were people, or citizens; B Franklin set the qualifications for being a USAian --- "they are human, they are here, there's never been any other qualifications"

Dad29 said...


The situation before, say, 1950 was a bit different than it is today.

The Supremes have, in effect, made a 'citizenship' decision on behalf of the children of Illegals.

Quite an arrogation, but not a surprise; they have also arrogated to themselves the contravention of Natural Law in Roe.

The 14th was not written in contemplation of massive invasion, but by the logic of the Supremes, US citizenship would be granted to children of occupying soldiers (were such a thing possible.)

I do not hold that the illegals are hostile, nor enemies. But there is no room for distinction under the Supremes' decision.

Silly? Yup.