They were referencing only what Roberts said about Brown v Board, particularly those that argued for the plaintiffs. I would say they're an authority on that subject...

 

If you accept what these guys say as "authority", I guess we can assume that you accept everything Bush says in the same vein. You surely didn't expect "those that argued for the plaintiffs" to say otherwise, did you?

The notion that Supreme Court Justices are unbiased is unfortunately off base.

 

From Warren's Court of lefties to Scalia and Thomas, Supreme Court Justices usually have their mind made up before hearing argument. (IMO)

 

Of course they are not unbiased. No one is unbiased. However, they are in the position of making the decision. That is why judicial appointments are so important.

 

The Democrats have done a much better job of nominating liberals than the Republicans have done in choosing conservatives. Remember that HW Bush stuck us with Souter.

From CNN.COM....

 

Reading his concurring opinion from the bench, the 70-year-old justice (KENNEDY) said, "This nation has a moral and ethical obligation to fulfill its historic commitment to creating an integrated society that ensures equal opportunity for all its children.

 

"A compelling interest exists in avoiding racial isolation, an interest that a school district, in its discretion and expertise, may choose to pursue."

 

But he added, "Crude measures of this sort [as illustrated in this case] threaten to reduce children to racial chits valued and traded according to one school's supply and another's demand."

 

Clearly, a majority of the Court still believes race CAN be a factor. The media should be ashamed for some of the headlines reporting this.

From CNN.COM....

 

Reading his concurring opinion from the bench, the 70-year-old justice (KENNEDY) said, "This nation has a moral and ethical obligation to fulfill its historic commitment to creating an integrated society that ensures equal opportunity for all its children.

 

"A compelling interest exists in avoiding racial isolation, an interest that a school district, in its discretion and expertise, may choose to pursue."

 

But he added, "Crude measures of this sort [as illustrated in this case] threaten to reduce children to racial chits valued and traded according to one school's supply and another's demand."

Clearly, a majority of the Court still believes race CAN be a factor. The media should be ashamed for some of the headlines reporting this.

:thumb: I absolutely agree there. Portraying this as a sweeping sea-change might get people to watch the special segment at 11, or log into the newspaper's forum to debate it, but it's a complete mischaracterization. I had to turn the TV off yesterday because I felt the coverage was deliberately deceptive and overly sensational.

 

I mean, look at the C-J's forums. Opponents of the race-based school assignments are writting things like "Thank God for this court, that we can finally have our neighborhood schools back." But that's not happening here.

 

It's just ignorance, and the media is taking part in it.

:thumb: I absolutely agree there. Portraying this as a sweeping sea-change might get people to watch the special segment at 11, or log into the newspaper's forum to debate it, but it's a complete mischaracterization. I had to turn the TV off yesterday because I felt the coverage was deliberately deceptive and overly sensational.

 

I mean, look at the C-J's forums. Opponents of the race-based school assignments are writting things like "Thank God for this court, that we can finally have our neighborhood schools back." But that's not happening here.

 

It's just ignorance, and the media is taking part in it.

 

Everyone spins to suit their personal viewpoint. The media is no different.

 

The decision is more important than some of you seem to want to believe. However, it is less important than those on the other side prefer. It is, nonetheless, a bump in the road for those who form all their opinions based upon race.

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

 

It's impossible to make you look bad RM.

So, surprised or not, how does this ruling change JCPS?

 

I'm asking honestly, because I could see several scenarios that could transpire. I'm thinking about long-term, not next school year.

 

 

RM...I actually asked on of JCPS teacher friends about this. I wanted to know if she supported it or not. She stated it would be better for JCPS overall because of certain programs they have in most schools under the current assignment policy. She stated that if the policy changes some schools could lose those programs.

 

I can only speak for myself and have to admit it was very frustrating when "Little Jonathan" did not get into a certain school after applying twice just because of the color of his skin.

In Brown v. Board, was the actual case for mandatory integration, or was it an issue of fairness regarding finance, because the black schools were getting substandard financing compared to their white counterparts?

Is Brown v Board a relic?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/opinion/29williams.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In Brown v. Board, was the actual case for mandatory integration, or was it an issue of fairness regarding finance, because the black schools were getting substandard financing compared to their white counterparts?

Is Brown v Board a relic?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/opinion/29williams.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

Brown vs Board overturned the "separate but equal clause" in Plessy v Ferguson when it came to public schools. Govt could not sponsor segregation. They ruled that even if the facilities were equal , it is inherently unfair to the black children.