Supreme Court rejects school assignment policy

What happens to JCPS now?

 

They could use some factor that is closely correlated to race but not explicitly race. Or they could make race a less significant factor in admissions to optional/magnet programs. The Supreme Court ruling didn't say using race as a determinant in admissions was expressly forbidden, just that it was given too much weight in the admissions process.

That describes almost every city.

 

 

It sure does just drive through any town.

This decision is a small step toward correcting some of the idiotic decisions handed down by liberal controlled courts since 1954. I feel sure the framers of our constitution would be shocked at what has been frivilously added to their document. Maybe a little sanity has finally seeped into those hallowed halls.

This decision is a small step toward correcting some of the idiotic decisions handed down by liberal controlled courts since 1954. I feel sure the framers of our constitution would be shocked at what has been frivilously added to their document. Maybe a little sanity has finally seeped into those hallowed halls.

Like Brown v Board?

RM, I'm confused. Your first post is presented as a "quote", then you provide a link just below that post. Interestingly enough, I clicked on your link to the CJ article. I noticed that the 1st paragraph of your "quote" is pretty much what the CJ article said. Same with the 3rd paragraph of your "quote". However, I read the article 3 times and missed where the CJ mentioned "the conservative-leaning court". Writers embellishment perhaps? If the court had 5 liberals and had ruled in the other direction (aka what RM wanted:D ), would you have mentioned a left-leaning court? Just curious.

 

:confused: :confused: :confused:

 

I copied the quote directly from the article that was posted at the time I started the thread. Obviously, it was "breaking news", and more was added later.

 

And, the reason I put it in as a quote, is because it was directly copied from the C-J article.

 

I made no mention of the leanings of the court, nor have I made a public statement regarding what "RM wanted".

 

The truth about this particular issue and my "leanings" is that I don't really have a "leaning". I want what's best for the kids, and to make sure that the achievements of the JCPS are not set-back. If that means we can achieve our goals while ensuring that race is not a factor, I'm all for it. I, for one, believe we can because of the nature of our school system.

 

Nice try to slam me for something I never said, never even implied.

 

I posted this because it's big news here in Louisville, and has national influence as well.

 

Should I only post articles that I have a political interest in? Because frankly, race & education aren't two (or one if combined) issues from which I base my opinions on politically.

In defense of the liberal, commie, pinko "rockmom", the article in the CJ was updated after she posted. The update may have decided to remove the line you mentioned.

 

Don't worry Rmom, I've got your back.

 

Thanks. I was really ticked off way too early today! :lol: :thumb:

My semi-unwavering faith in RM has been restored. :D Thanks.

 

Somehow, I feel you'll find another way to try and make me look bad.

Like Brown v Board?

 

If you will read my post, I said "since 1954". Brown was argued on December 08, 1953 and the decision was forthcoming on May 17, 1954.

 

I am obviously talkng about some of the ridiculous gyrations used in many of these later cases. To find some of these rights and remedies in the U,S. Constitution requires more than a vivid imagination.

 

However, the result of all of this does partially explain the present sad state of our public schools and the popularity of private schools. It is obvious why liberals in general and public school people in particular want nothing to do with a broad system of school vouchers.

 

You cannot by by legal fiat legislate equality. All are not equal. All will never be equal. Some will drive Cadillacs and some will ride bicycles. Mrs. Ginsberg and Mr. Souter can't and won't change that. On the other hand, I suppose we could consider socialism.

If you will read my post, I said "since 1954". Brown was argued on December 08, 1953 and the decision was forthcoming on May 17, 1954.

And how does that not jive with 'decisions handed down since 1954?' I think it fits, and I think it's appropriate to reference Brown v Board, since the justices did so many times yesterday... even though the lawyers who argued for the plaintiffs in that case say the court's decision got their positions very, very wrong.

I am obviously talkng about some of the ridiculous gyrations used in many of these later cases. To find some of these rights and remedies in the U,S. Constitution requires more than a vivid imagination.

 

However, the result of all of this does partially explain the present sad state of our public schools and the popularity of private schools. It is obvious why liberals in general and public school people in particular want nothing to do with a broad system of school vouchers.

 

You cannot by by legal fiat legislate equality. All are not equal. All will never be equal. Some will drive Cadillacs and some will ride bicycles. Mrs. Ginsberg and Mr. Souter can't and won't change that. On the other hand, I suppose we could consider socialism.

So just come out and say it: those black kids in the West End will get an inferior education and learn to like it.

 

Equality in education SHOULD be a reality. Allowing the JCPS school system to sink back to schools with minimal mixing of white and black students will harm the realization of that ideal. Luckily, Kennedy left the door open to prevent that.

And before we hear that the education will be just as good since they're in the same system, I will say again: seperate is inherently unequal. If we went back to pure neigborhood school assignment (which thank the good Lord we won't) seperate and inherently unequal is what we would get due to defacto resegregation.

Both of you are engaging in gross oversimplification of the legal question, and I have watched both of you post here many times and know that you know better.

 

02Ram, I don't think I comprehend your last paragraph. Are you claiming that Teddy Gordon said the U.S. Supreme Court misconstrued his position, or are you saying that Teddy Gordon argued to the Supremes that the Brown decision was wrong?

Come now, 02Rams54, don't revert to emotion. Stick to truth. The truth is that, regardless of how many of these "crutch rights" your liberals create, there will never be equal education opportunity in this country.

 

There will always be haves and have nots. All men are created equal in that all are born into this world. To believe that it guarantees equal life opportunities for all is ridiculous. Short of socialism, it won't happen.

 

To try to give the have nots a better shot at moving up on the ladder is admirable. However, it cannot succeed by taking rights away from others just because they are higher on that ladder.

 

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to everyone- haves and have nots. Regardless of what you may think, it is not the intent of the framers that protection be removed from some to provide a crutch to others.

 

God obviously did not create a world in which all are treated equal or in which all are endowed with the same abilities. I seriously doubt that a liberal court will be able to do anything to remedy the perceived inequality.

 

Life is not fair and it goes far deeper than educational opportunity. You don't like it and I don't like it but that is the real world.

 

Liberals like to say that we cannot legislate morality. We also cannot legislate, even by activist courts, equal education results.

Come now, 02Rams54, don't revert to emotion. Stick to truth. The truth is that, regardless of how many of these "crutch rights" your liberals create, there will never be equal education opportunity in this country.

 

There will always be haves and haves and have nots. All men are created equal in that all are born into this world. To believe that it guarantees equal life opportunities for all is ridiculous.

 

To try to give the have nots a better shot at moving up on the ladder is admirable. However, it cannot succeed by taking rights away from others just because they are higher on that ladder.

 

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to everyone- haves and have nots. Regardless of what you may think, it is not the intent of the framers that protection be removed from some to provide a crutch to others.

 

God obviously did not create a world in which all are treated equal or in which all are endowed with the same abilities. I seriously doubt that a liberal court will be able to do anything to remedy the perceived inequality.

 

Life is not fair and it goes far deeper than educational opportunity. You don't like it and I don't like it but that is the real world.

 

Liberals like to say that we cannot legislate morality. We also cannot legislate, even by activist courts, equal education results.

 

Yes, we can. I disagree with a policy of affirmative action, but this is the kind of sanctimonious response and lack of respect for the tradition of law that has gotten us to the point we are in today. I, for one, am not going to engage you.

And how does that not jive with 'decisions handed down since 1954?' I think it fits, and I think it's appropriate to reference Brown v Board, since the justices did so many times yesterday... even though the lawyers who argued for the plaintiffs in that case say the court's decision got their positions very, very wrong.

So just come out and say it: those black kids in the West End will get an inferior education and learn to like it.

 

Equality in education SHOULD be a reality. Allowing the JCPS school system to sink back to schools with minimal mixing of white and black students will harm the realization of that ideal. Luckily, Kennedy left the door open to prevent that.

The bolded should be edited to say Equality in educational opportunity should be a reality.

 

Unless you are going to say take the kids away from the parents who don't place an emphasis on education and put them in homes of parents who do.

 

Too much of a child's education is laid at the feet of the parents to blame inequality of education completely on the school.

 

The school can assign homework, ask the parents to read with their child each night, help them memorize their multiplication tables but if it is not being done at home, the kid's education will suffer.

One very important point that may have been mentioned above. (I did not read the entire thread) I have also not read the entire opinion, but I think the following is correct:

 

Only FOUR Justices said "race cannot be used as a factor" (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia)

 

Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment (because the plan was not narrowly tailored), but was not willing to go so far as to say race cannot be a factor. Thus, the Bakke case and other cases holding race CAN be used as a factor, is seemingly still GOOD LAW.

 

The signal, as I understand now (without reading every word of the opinion), is clear. Justice Kennedy told Jefferson County to do a better job "tailoring" their plan. Kennedy basically said, re-work it and send it back to me and if its a "better" plan, I will switch sides.

 

Does anyone agree?