Posted on 12/04/2006 1:24:16 PM PST by NinoFan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A justice who may cast the decisive vote on the closely divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sharply criticized using race to decide where students go to school.
"You're characterizing each student by reason of the color of his or her skin," Justice Anthony Kennedy told a lawyer for one of two school districts arguing before the high court.
"It seems to me that that should only be, if ever allowed, allowed as a last resort."
The Supreme Court justices considered the two cases that could affect millions of students nationwide by deciding whether the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equality allows public elementary and secondary schools to use race as a factor in admissions.
Kennedy, widely believed to have the controlling vote on the nine-member court closely divided between liberals and conservatives, said the justices never have upheld such race-based plans voluntarily adopted to attain racial diversity.
"That takes us on a very perilous course," he said in calling it "a troubling case."
Kennedy, a moderate conservative, expressed concern that a school board "may want to use race for political advantage."
The cases will add to a long line of rulings by the Supreme Court dating back to its historic Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 that outlawed racial segregation in the nation's public schools.
As the justices spent two hours confronting the important legal issues, hundreds of civil rights supporters marched outside the building in cold weather, carrying signs saying "Save Brown v. Board of Education" and chanting "We won't go to the back of the bus."
The court seemed split along predictable lines.
Conservatives, such as Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the court's two newest members appointed by President George W. Bush, asked questions that appeared critical of the plans.
WHAT IS THE LOGICAL END POINT?
"What is the logical end point in this plan?" Roberts asked one of the school board's lawyers. He expressed concern that students "are being denied admission to the school of their choice."
The court's only black member, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, followed his usual practice and did not ask any questions. But Thomas in the past has strongly opposed any government preferences for racial minorities.
The liberals, Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, all appeared sympathetic to using race to keep schools integrated.
Sharply questioning the Bush administration lawyer who opposed the race-based plans, Breyer seemed concerned that schools once again will become segregated.
"It seems to me from what I read that there is a terrible problem in the country. The problem is that there are lots and lots of school districts that are becoming more and more segregated," Breyer said.
he Supreme Court last addressed similar issues when it ruled by a 5-4 vote in 2003 that racial preferences can be used in university admission decisions. But since then, Alito replaced the author of the opinion, the more moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
In one case before the high court, Seattle used race as a tie-breaking factor in deciding who gets into certain public high schools when too many students seek admission.
In the other case, the Louisville, Kentucky-area school district used similar racial guidelines to keep black student enrollment at most elementary, middle and high schools between 15 percent and 50 percent to maintain diversity.
A ruling in both cases is expected by the end of June.
Thank heaven this man has regained his senses. Breyer's contention that the Court should be meddling in integration in the schools is repugnant.
It is a travesty and a tragedy for America that the Supreme Court has turned into a political circus, as opposed to a body dedicated to upholding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I am stunned that something from the mainstream media (Reuters in this case) accurately labeled the the four liberals on the Sup Court as such! Often times, in examples of both bias and comedy, any one or more of the Breyer/Souter/Ginsburg trifecta will be described as 'moderates.'
Where, oh where, in the U.S. Constitution does the USSC get empowered to correct some wrong in this country that is NOT part of the Constitution itself?
This is Judicial Activism of the worst kind; where a Judge acts to implement his own perception of what's right and wrong in this country, as opposed to determining the Constitutionally-provided application to a particular case.
These acts are LEGISLATIVE in nature, and NOT Judicial when they make NEW LAW, and he ought to be impeached!
I'm really sick and tired of race favoritism at the expense of innocent others.Racism by any other name is still racism.
Breyer and his ilk believe that the Court should get involved whenever the proper and legitimate democratic processes reach a decision they don't approve of. He's a disgrace, and its a shame that someone championing such a perverted role for the Courts would even be considered for the federal judiciary.
"I have a dream..." kind of says it all for me.
Since Jesse Jackson wants to ban the N word I want to ban the R word,"racism". No one is stopping anyone from moving into any neighborhood and since local property taxes pay for school that should be something someone looks at when picking out a property. If it's that they don't make enough money then barrow for an education for a higher paying job and then do like most Americans do, spend a lifetime paying back the loan.
I don't want to ban the WORD racism, I want to ban the PRACTICE of racism.
As you correctly point out, no one is stopping anyone from moving into any neighborhood... but there are people getting extra credit on entrance exams and other academic tests SOLEY BY VIRTUE OF THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN.
If this isn't racism, then Nazis didn't build gas chambers.
Idiot reporter. How could Kennedy's vote be in any way decisive? The only thing unknown about this case's outcome is how many of the leftists will join the 5 conservatives. This case is so far out there, a 9-0 decision wouldn't surprise me a bit.
As if school boards using race as a criterion for anything else would be okay.
Oral argument suggests that the four liberals will in fact vote in favor of at least the Louisville plan and quite possibly the Seattle plan too. Justice Breyer especially seemed in favor of the plan and actually spent some time defending it which is odd given his choice to do like O'Connor and split-the-baby in the affirmative action cases back in 2003, but apparently he's gone even more to the Left when it comes to the issue of race since then.
The questions asked didn't seem like Devil's advocate questions either, so I am expecting a sharply divided Court. It's depressing and if my prediction holds true than it just goes to show the liberals joined O'Connor's opinion upholding the law school program in full for no reason other than to get her vote and thus they didn't really believe in what it said. Their promise that racial balancing would of course be unconstitutional seems to have been nothing more than a lie.
The 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans discrimination by race. The Supreme court is being asked to judge the constitutionality of laws that discriminate students by race.
Breyer and Ginsburg are two of the most ignorant justices in our time. It's beyond ideology, it's utter stupidity.
Breyer is such a bigot he thinks black children can't learn unless they're sitting next to a white child in the classroom.
I'm fine with that issue....
My problem is with a Justice that thinks that he is ruling on what is good for America, in his opinion, as opposed to how the case comports with the U.S. Constituion and the equal protection afforded even WHITE people in the case.
Someone who believes in conservatism half the time I guess.
It's a shame....back in the '80s and early '90s he was pretty conservative...then he spent most of this decade overturning his own rulings.
But I think we will win this time.
That makes perfect sense, really. With no chance of picking up a fifth vote, the libs can let it all hang out now. Should be quite revealing (and fun in a twisted way).
You have it backwards. They're not stupid at all, Breyer at least is a very intellectual person.
They just have an ideology, and coupled with intelligence, a way to force it through from the courts.
I wonder. Can you be considered "dishonest" with your race?
You mean if someone tries to get their kids classified as minorities to get them into a local school? I'm surprised this hasn't happened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.