What did you think of the most recent supreme court ruling regarding school segregation??

Question

Please answer the question and give your reasoning, and if you could I would appreciate it if you indicate whether you tend to vote more Democratic or more Republican.

Thank you

Answer 1

It's a lot more complex than the "right-wig" pretends it is. To see why, you have to go back tothe 1954 "Brown" decision. There, the court ruled that the "Jim Crow" segregation laws (re schools) were' inherantly unequal--and thus unconstitutional. BUT--the Court also left it to the states to work out the means and timetable to end segregation--the phrase used wias "with all deliberate speed."

Well, 14 years later, very few of the offending school disctricts had done a damn thing--and clearly didn't intend to change. At that point the Court lost patience and, through a series of decision, essntially forced the schools to integrate--and would brook no more excuses or delay. One of the things they choose to allow--in the light of the open defiance of the law by numerious school districts--was mandatory busing to achieve racial balance.

That actually goes against the general approach the courts have taken. While they will alow limited consideration of race (or ethnicity or gender), the main thrust has always been to focus on what is generally called "affirmative action" (what it actually is, not the political hype)--meaning targeting resources to poor school districts, programs to mentor students, efforts to redress inadequate facilities, etc.

Now--the recent decision is very narrow--it overturns the right of individual school districts to impose busing (assignments to specific schools) based soley on race. That's in line with the general thrust of constitutional law in this country--and its probably overdue--such programs have pretty much outlived their usefulness.

BUT--note--this does NOT disallow other forms of affirmative action (Kennedy's opinion was clear on that). Nor does it prevent a court from imposing mandatory busing if it is warrented.

I tend to be more-or-less liberal--but as you may guess, I don't have a problem with this decision--to me it makes sense legally--and isn't going to hurt the many affirmative action strategies that, frankly, are a lot more effective anyway.

The possible downside, however, is obvious. The right-wig (neoconservatives, not real conservatives) are going to try to use this as a steppingsone to dismantle as much of the legal protections that counter discrimination as they can. And, the sad truth is that we as a society have not made enough progress yet for that to be practical-Justice O'Conner in a decision shortly before she retired noted this--pointing out that affirmative action programs generally wwere still needed and suggesting the court revisit the mattter in 25 years or so.

Answer 2

I approve of the decision. The logic is a little shaky, and had I been on the bench I probably would have concurred in the result, without joining the majority opinion.

The basic holding was that racial discrimination always requires strict scrutiny, and that affirmative action doesn't always meet the burden of strict scrutiny.

I don't approve of affirmative action, because I oppose all forms of discrimination, whether motivated by a desire to help or a desire to harm.

Case holding linked below.

Answer 3

I tend to vote more democratic

I feel that the decision was maybe 20 to 30 years to early. We need to bring diversity to schools and at the primary way to do this is to base it off ethnicity. It does come a time however that race needs to elminated. The biggest challenge facing a democracy is that conflict between classes our focus needs to shift towards diversity between the rich poor and middle class but until minorities are EQUALLY represented in each class we need to focus on a more direct approach to diversity.

Answer 4

I think it was right.

And I know it wasn't anything new, they've said this dozens of times since Bakke in '79, they're just upholding existing law. This was our moot court issue in law school - you can like it or dislike it but the Court didn't change the law and it wasn't dealing with a question it hasn't dealt with dozens of times.

I'm a Libertarian who usually votes Republican - I disagree with the GOP on most social issues but economic issues are more important to me.

Answer 5

I think it's a correct choice. What they are saying is that admittance rules need to be color blind, rather than to have quotas (which was created not by law, but by the actual administration of the law). That was the essence of the law.

Tend to vote Republican, but I have a harder conservative streak within me on certain issues.

Answer 6

I agree with the decision. I am a conservative and vote for conservative candidates.