FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
I have these questions for you....1) Which side of the case did this administration submit a "Friend of the Court" brief in support of? ANSWER THAT
.
2) The next question I have for you and the entertainer on EIB is..... Who is argueing the case in front of the nine Justices of the SCOTUS?
.
And 3) Next..... Do you think the nine justices heard the speech Bush gave on this subject?
.
The answers are:
1) The Students
2) The lawyers for the Students
3)Yes they did, Loud and clear
I saw Ann Coulter on some cable new channel last night and she too referred to the 14th amendment and even elaborated that "race" was the main aspect of it but I can't find it.
The closest thing I can find is this clause from the first Article: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...</>
Actually, Plessy v. Furgeson (1896) did, and the 14th Amendment... and the Bill of Rights... Anyway, Brown is a great American statement, the first major correction of the vile Plessy that legalized segregation (in rail cars, the specific subject). To my mind, the ultimate statement of Plessy came when Nat King Cole took a dive into a casino swimming pool in Vegas. It was against policy. In fact, most black entertainers weren’t allowed to stay at the casinos where they performed. Cole’s swim so offended the patrons that the hotel drained the pool and refilled it with "clean" water.
It’s easy to forget what segregation meant.
When the modern conservative reads Brown, he will find nothing alien. The departure is where Brown was next taken, to busing, to affirmative action, to minority preferences in public contracts, etc. Here is the origin of it all, and the danger, in Brown: In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession." [347 U.S. 483, 494] Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:
We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.
Anyone see the Michigan preferences system in that? I sure don’t, although I see how it was concieved. By admitting that segregation is wrong despite equality in facilities and services, the Court infered that inequality in facilities and services constituted segregation. With that inference, such things as busing and affirmative action were adopted as a means of creating equality of condition. "Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system."
It is wrong. We cannot assume that the Court meant anything further than its statement on segregation. The Court did not demand that schools be constituted of mixed races. The Court said that exposure to a multiplicity of views is a good thing. It affirmed McLaurin v Oklahoma State Regents that "intangible considerations" assist a student to excel where those "considerations" might not be available (i.e. in segregated, or, we can infer, schools made up of students of a single race).
Yet, we cannot assume that the Court meant that schools must have racially integrated student bodies. We can only understand that the Court stated that “negroes” would have better education were they exposed to “white” schools. The Court never stated that the law required that “white” schools admit “negroes” beyond where “separate but equal” laws were in effect. In fact, the Court stated the opposite: equality of condition is not a measure of equality. Equality is only measured by equal application of the law.
Unravelling all this will take time. The President's speech, and the amicus brief, go a long way towards it. Both are directed and effective.
Rush is wrong.
Worst duplicate thread created by same poster ever!