Voting Rights Act (Sort of) Upheld by SCOTUS

The New York Times article about the recent near-unanimous decision concerning the Voting Rights Act of 1965:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, declaring that there was no need at the moment to decide whether that provision was still constitutional in light of the fundamental changes that have swept across the South in recent decades.

In an 8-to-1 ruling in perhaps the most important case of its term, the court said that passing judgment on an act of Congress is “the gravest and most delicate duty that this court is called upon to perform,” and that it need not undertake that momentous duty at this time. But the court stated pointedly that “the act also differentiates between the states in ways that may no longer be justified.”

At stake was Section 5 of the act, which requires a number of states and many local governments, mostly in the South, to seek federal permission before changing their voting procedures. That section was reauthorized by Congress for 25 years in 2006, even though the lawmakers relied on practices that have all but disappeared and voting data from decades ago.

“The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court. “When it was first passed, unconstitutional discrimination was rampant and the ‘registration of voting-age whites ran roughly 50 percentage points or more ahead’ of black registration in many covered states,” he noted, quoting from an earlier ruling involving the Voting Rights Act.

But while not striking down Section 5, the court ruled that a small Texas water district whose challenge to Section 5 led to Monday’s ruling — and by implication some other political units as well — should have an easier time applying for and obtaining exemption, or getting a “bail out,” from Section 5 provisions. So Monday’s ruling was a victory for the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One in its suit, backed by a conservative group, against the United States.

More important, the court noted: “Since 1982, only 17 jurisdictions — out of the more than 12,000 covered political subdivisions — have successfully bailed out of the act. It is unlikely that Congress intended the provision to have such limited effect.” Exactly which political units will be able to “bail out” of Section 5 will probably require detailed examination.

Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented Monday, stating that he thought it inappropriate to sidestep the constitutional question in Northwest Austin Municipal District Number One v. Holder, No. 08-322, and that he thinks Section 5 is no longer constitutional.

Those who want the Voting Rights Act to remain intact greeted Monday’s ruling more with relief than exultation.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund issued a statement calling Section 5 “critical to our democracy” and saying it was pleased that “however grudgingly, the court acknowledges that in its opinion.”

Debo P. Adegbile, the organization’s director of litigation, called the Voting Rights Act “one of Congress’s greatest legacies.”

“The utility district brought this case to tear out the heart of the Voting Rights Act,” said Mr. Adegbile, who argued the case before the high court. “Today, it failed.”

Jerry H. Goldfeder, adjunct professor of election law at Fordham Law School, said the court “has essentially granted the Voting Rights Act a stay.” Since the court sidestepped the issue of constitutionality, “the law’s continuing viability is assured for the foreseeable future,” said Mr. Goldfeder, who is special counsel at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan and the chairman of the Election Law Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued a statement expressing relief at the ruling and saying that if the court had overturned Section 5, it would have been guilty of “judicial activism.”

“However, I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court that Congress’s reauthorization of Section 5 poses serious constitutional concerns,” Mr. Leahy said. “There is no more explicit constitutional grant of power to the Congress than in the second section of the 15th Amendment, to protect the right to vote.”

When the case was argued on April 29, the questions posed by several justices hinted at a willingness to find Section 5 unconstitutional. But Chief Justice Roberts used language that every member of the court, including Justice Thomas in part, was able to embrace. Referring to the Voting Rights Act in its entirety, the chief justice wrote, “In part due to the success of that legislation, we are now a very different nation.”

How different can be appreciated, as some of those associated with the case have pointed out, with the presence of a black man in the White House and many black elected officials in what used to be the Confederacy, including Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, who was beaten by Alabama police officers in a civil rights march in 1965.

~ ~ ~

plez sez: even though, i have not read the entire ruling, a few things come to mind:

1. what the HELL is wrong with clarence thomas?!? how does he look at himself in the mirror every morning when he so clearly hates the skin he's in.
   
   
2. what the HELL was the point of the ruling? section 5 of the voting rights act is either unconstitutional or it isn't. why did scalia and alito abandon thomas on this ruling, or did thomas not get the memo?
   
   
3. how much longer can a race-based criteria for federal oversight continue in the south when there is a Black man sitting in the oval office? this must've been deemed such a volatile issue (like roe v. wade) that no high court will ever have the cajones to address it.

~ ~ Citations ~ ~

Read the New York Times article about the latest Voting Rights Act rescue.

Read the Washington Post article about Voting Rights Act upheld.

Read the CNN.com article about narrow decision on Voting Rights Act.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Obama Picks Sotomayor for SCOTUS

An official announcement is planned for later this morning, but it appears that President Barack Obama is poised to name the first person of Hispanic descent to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Read the AJC.com report:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama tapped U.S. Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, officials said, making her the first Hispanic in history picked to wear the robes of a justice.

If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor, 54, would succeed retiring Justice David Souter. Two officials described Obama's decision on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement had been made.

Administration officials say Sotomayor would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice confirmed in the past 70 years.

A formal announcement was expected at midmorning.

Obama had said publicly he wanted a justice who combined intellect and empathy — the ability to understand the troubles of everyday Americans.

Democrats hold a large majority in the Senate, and barring the unexpected, Sotomayor's confirmation should be assured.

If approved, she would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the current court.

___

May 26, 2009 - 8:36 a.m. EDT

~ ~ ~

When the retirement of David Souter was announced, Sotomayor's name was floated as a possible nominee in a Huffington Post article.

plez sez: from reading sotomayor's background, it appears that she is an accomplished jurist with a background that will allow her to empathize with "the people." she was raised in ruff-and-tumble bronx, yet made it out of her environment to attend princeton and yale.

as a "moderate liberal" she is a perfect replacement for the moderate david souter.

if there is any unease with this selection in plezWorld, it is Obama's over-reliance on the ivy league connection for so many of his appointments. but if that's the way of the world, i guess i better work alittle harder on making sure the SugarPlum gets into an ivy league school!

~ ~ Citations ~ ~

Read the AJC.com article about President Obama naming Souter's replacement to the Supreme Court.

Read the New York Times article about Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court.

Read the Washington Post article about Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's nominee for Supreme Court.

Read the CNN.com article about US Circuit Court Judge and Obama Nominee to the Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor.

Read the Huffington Post article about Sotomayor's background.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Justice David Souter to Retire, Obama Gets First SCOTUS Appointment

All of the major news organizations are reporting the Supreme Court Justice David Souter - appointed by George H. W. Bush - has decided to step down the end of this current term, which ends in June. President Barack Obama will get to appoint his replacement.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After more than 18 years on the nation's highest court, Supreme Court Justice David Souter is retiring, a source close to Souter told CNN Thursday.

Souter will leave after the current court term recesses in June, the source said.

Filling Souter's seat would be President Barack Obama's first Supreme Court appointment -- and the first since George W. Bush's picks of Samuel Alito in 2006 and Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005.

Souter, 69, was tapped for the court by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, but disappointed many conservatives when he turned out to be a typical old-fashioned Yankee Republican -- a moderate, with an independent, even quirky streak.

Souter's departure will leave the two oldest justices -- and the most liberal -- still on the bench. Retirements for John Paul Stevens, 89, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 76, have been rumored for years, with many expecting that one or the other would be the first to give a new Democratic president a Supreme Court vacancy.

Souter's decision came as something of a surprise, although he has long been known to prefer the quiet of his New Hampshire farmhouse to the bustle of the nation's capital.

~ ~ ~

plez sez: the two oldest justices - john paul stevens and ruth bader ginsburg - are still hanging in there, but it will only be a matter of time before Obama will be tasked with replacing them (ginsburg returned to the bench this year after a bout with cancer). all told, Obama's appointments to SCOTUS will probably be the lasting legacy of his presidency. he will appoint at least three justices to the nine person bench.

SCOTUS appointments last far longer than the presidency, since they are appointed for life. and a relatively young justice, like clarence thomas when he was appointed, can remain on the bench for 30 to 40 years!

i can see Obama calling someone like bill clinton to bench, or reaching into the federal bench to find a hispanic or asian american to fill the open seat. your thoughts?

~ ~ Citations ~ ~

Read the MyDD.com article about whether Souter plans to retire.

Read the AJC.com article about Souter's plans to retire in June.

Read the Washington Post article about Souter's plans to retire.

Read the CNN.com article about Justice Souter plans to retire.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

SCOTUS Strikes Down D.C. Handgun Ban

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In 1976, Washington, DC passed the following law which banned handguns in the District: "The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns. It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited. See D. C. Code §§7–2501.01(12), 7–2502.01(a), 7–2502.02(a)(4) (2001). Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for 1-year periods. See §§22–4504(a), 22–4506. District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms, such as registered long guns, “unloaded and disassembled
or bound by a trigger lock or similar device” unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities."

Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard, was recruited to challenge the D.C. law, his lawsuit made its way to this session of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handgun possession, deciding for the first time in the nation's history that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the Court's opinion and was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. The opinion reads in part, "We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. [The Second Amendment] surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

Justice Stephen Breyer writing for the minority said, "[this decision] threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States [and this is a] formidable and potentially dangerous" [mission for the courts to undertake]." He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Sen. John McCain (AZ), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee quickly put out a statement endorsing the decision, calling it a "landmark victory" for Second Amendment rights. "Today's ruling . . . makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans," McCain said.

Sen. Barack Obama (IL), the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee issued a statement saying that "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe."

Read and download the entire SCOTUS decision on District of Columbia v. Heller here.

Read the entire Washington Post article on the SCOTUS decision here.


plez sez: it's been said before, "plezWorld doesn't like guns, because they are used to kill people." i don't have any in my house and i try to stay away from people who carry them.

some have taken my stance to think that i don't believe in the second amendment. i concur with the "right to bear arms," but i feel the application and misuse of the second amendment has wrought enough misery on the US over the past 230 years. i'm no jurist, i'm no lawyer, but i can read and it seems pretty obvious that the framers of the constitution were of a mindset when this amendment was published that has little or no relevance during modern times.

first, they had just run off the redcoats with their muskets. they formed local militias to fend fight off the british. the british swept through communities during the revolutionary war and confiscated guns and ammunition. therefore to ward off a strong federal government (if it grew big and powerful enough to behave like king george iii) the james madison (the amendment's author) wrote a provision into the constitution that each State would have a "well regulated" militia with militia men who were able "to bear arms." it seems pretty clear to plezWorld this provision applied to those who were trained as part of a militia group (i.e. the national guard, etc.).

upon reading scalia's opinion, it is obvious that he played loosey goosey with the State and meaning behind "well regulated militia."

historically, these state militias have done more harm to individual rights (see the civil rights movement during the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's) than any federal intervention (except for the civil war, which by the way was started when a - you got it - a state militia in south carolina fired on the federal government!

Colbert King opines in the Washington Post that the thugs that roam the mean streets of the district have long maintained their second amendment rights in light of the 32 year ban on handguns. excerpts of his opion follow:

There's one group of District residents absolutely unfazed by today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling shooting down the District's strict handgun ban: the dudes who have been blowing away their fellow citizens with abandon since the law was put on the books 32 years ago.

Operating under the notion that it's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission, our shooters long ago decided not to wait for the high court's thoughts on the matter. They simply arrogated to themselves the right to keep and bear arms and, with that right, license to shoot and kill, with impunity, whatever and whenever the evil spirits moved them.

The record will show that our home-grown shooters have blown through the city's so-called strict handgun ban like John Riggins going up the middle. Over the past 20 years, there have been more than 6,500 homicides in the nation's capital, most committed with firearms, predominantly handguns. In 1976, the year the ban was put in place, the District had 135 gun-related murders, according to CNN. Last year, the number reached 143. Thus far this year, we've had 85 murders.

in 1770's, the arms were muskets and long rifles, arms that were good at close range and could only fire one shot at a time. they didn't imagine semi-automatic guns and revolvers. there needs to be some kind of regulation and rules to limit gun ownership to ensure that any "tom, dick, or dirty harry" can be packing (anyone remember columbine and virginia tech?).

this decision by the court is reckless. i would've much rather seen them require the district to change the unrealistic handgun ban rather than open the floodgates to assaults on gun laws around the country by the emboldened NRA. heaven help us!

Rescue the Constitution!

Media Matters reports that Fox News has refused to air an ad produced by the Center for Constitutional Rights that criticizes the Bush administration for "destroying the Constitution" by the use of renditions, torture, and other tactics. The ad, "Rescue the Constitution," which is narrated by actor Danny Glover, can be viewed below:

In an email provided to Media Matters for America by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), Fox News account executive Erin Kelly told Owen Henkel, CCR's e-communications manager, that Fox would not run the ad:

Hi Owen --

We cannot approve the spot with it being Danny Glover's opinion that the Bush Administration is destroying the Constitution. If you have documentation that it is indeed being destroyed, we can look at that.

Sorry about that,

Erin

You can read the entire Media Matters article here.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) was founded 40 years ago CCR in order to provide legal support for the activists during the civil rights movement.

You can read more about the Center for Constitutional Rights here.

plez sez: the Fake News Network distributes so much misinformation and half-truths on a daily basis it boggles the mind... i guess if this ad were in support of the Bush Administration, there'd be little hesitation in running it.

Clarence Thomas - The Bitter Justice

Clarence Thomas is back in the news. Not only has the Supreme Court begun the fall docket, but he has released a new book, "My Grandfather's Son," for sale. Justice Thomas is doing the obligatory book tour to tout the book in hopes that millions of Americans run out to buy it. I haven't read the book, but if his interview on 60 Minutes and other articles on the matter are any indication, this book will be quite a read.

I ran across a very interesting article on Reason Online entitled "Native Son, Why A Black Supreme Court Justice Has No Rights A White Man Need Respect." It was in 1857 during the Dred Scott case when the question was raised as to whether Blacks were or were not property and therefore if they had or had no rights as a human being. Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney is quoted as saying, "A Negro has no rights which a white man need respect." This article (dated February 1992) gives an in depth analysis as to how Clarence Thomas was the victim of a very old idea called racism:

One of the major reasons for the persistent problem is that millions of white adult Americans define "racism" as its most pathological manifestations: wearing white gowns and hoods, burning crosses, tarring and feathering blacks, hunting them down with dogs. Because those same millions of white Americans would not dream of committing such atrocities; because they vote for political representatives who pass civil-rights bills; because they applauded Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall; because they respect the changing nomenclature by which certain blacks wish to be addressed, they imagine themselves to be free of racism.

What they have never learned is that racism is an idea, a very old and intransigent idea. That idea exists on an unbroken continuum -- all the way from a form that is fully conscious to a form that is unconscious. Its manifestations can range from the most grossly offensive and scornful invective to a compulsive noblesse oblige that cannot permit itself to make any criticisms at all. But whatever the degree or kind of racism, it invariably contains a double standard: The racist simply does not treat black individuals the same way he treats whites.

The effect of stereotypes on blacks is a sense of being unseen, as in Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man. The effect on whites is the corollary: They do not perceive blacks as real or make the same fine discriminations among blacks that they habitually make among whites. In the last analysis, they do not perceive black individuals; they perceive black skins. And this remains true at every step of the continuum.

It should not, therefore, come as an insuperable shock that the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court were a racist phenomenon. The "nice" kind; no Simon Legrees or fiery crosses here. But racist nonetheless. Setting aside old segregationist Strom Thurmond, who conscientiously counterfeited a dead man and may, for all I know, actually have been dead, the other senators participated, singly and collectively -- and unwittingly -- in a process that ceaselessly generated negative stereotypes about Thomas.

The author goes on to lay out the racist stereotypes that were applied Thomas from the day he was nominated by President George Bush (the first) until the day he was confirmed by the Senate:

The Nomination President Bush LIED when he told the nation that Clarence Thomas was the "best" candidate and that he was not chosen because he was Black. Everyone knew that there were other candidates as qualified as (or more qualified than) Clarence Thomas and he was only nominated because he was Black. The nomination was an affirmative action move to maintain a Black seat on the Supreme Court by a party who was against affirmative action.

The Art of Evasion Supreme Court nominees normally do not answer questions about how they will rule on specific situations that may come before them on the bench (i.e. abortion, affirmative action, death penalty, etc.). This works well for white candidates, but when a Black man is evasive, he comes off as being dumb! This label of being not as well-versed on the issues has dogged Justice Thomas since he took his seat on the bench. To this day, it has been implied (and explicitly expressed) that Thomas is a dim-witted right-wing puppet with no original ideas.

The Character Issue Thomas was held up as a clean, obedient, yes-man for the Republican party, he had a "mentor" in Senator John Danforth who had to vouch for Thomas's impeccable credentials as a lawyer and judge. Although, Thomas had a career outside his short time clerking for Danforth, it was essential that he had a white man who could stand for him and "assure" the Senate Committee that this was "a good one"!

The Abortion Issue Thomas was asked almost 100 times to explain what his legal and political opinions would be on any upcoming abortion case. Since no Supreme Court nominee would touch that question with a ten foot pole, Thomas ended up taking the Fifth over 100 times... see the Art of Evasion above!

Anita Hill The article states that Thomas's favorite book is Richard Wright's Native Son, the story of Bigger Thomas, a young Black man who is wrongly accused of the rape and murder of a white woman in the South in the 1940's. The biggest fear of any Black man during that time was to be accused of even looking a white person in the eye, much less, being accused of a sex crime and murder against a white woman! Any Black man was a dead man. Fast forward to 1991 and imagine the horror (and irony) of Clarence Thomas being accused of a sex crime (harassment), a "he said-she said" crime where he could never ever prove his innocence. As with Bigger Thomas, Clarence Thomas was subjected to a "high tech lynching."

Black-on-Black Blacks were turned against Clarence Thomas on Day One and he was NEVER given the opportunity of redemption. He was introduced as a conservative, Black Republican, a devotee of Ronald Reagan and everything liberal, Black Democrats were against... so he has carried that House Nigger title without ever being given the benefit of the doubt. To my way of thinking, this is probably the most damning and most egregious form of racism... turning one Black man against another because of politics. This has divided us and conquered us at every turn since our shackled ancestors walked off that very first slave ship.

Another article of note is from the Washington Post. As a result of a hard life, Justice Thomas lashes out at just about everyone in his new book. The article states that "Justice Clarence Thomas settles scores in an angry and vivid forthcoming memoir, scathingly condemning the media, the Democratic senators who opposed his nomination to the Supreme Court, and the "mob" of liberal elites and activist groups that he says desecrated his life." The article (and 60 Minutes interview) shed some light on why he is so bitter:

Family Life Abandoned by his parents and raised by a stern and authoritarian grandfather, it appears that Thomas never felt loved or wanted by anyone. When he dropped out of seminary school, his grandfather kicked him out.

The Segregated South The blatant racism with which he was raised always looms over his relationships with Blacks and whites.

Religion Thomas had plans on becoming a priest, but disparaging remarks by priests concerning the MLK assassination made him question his religion and was the impetus of him dropping out of the seminary.

Law Degree Although, he received a law degree from Yale, he credits affirmative action for diminishing the value of the degree thus making it difficult for him to find a job after graduation, more than anything, this appears to be the reason why he is against affirmative action and quotas. To this day, people talk about how he was the benefactor of affirmative action, but his counter is the double edged sword that casts doubts on the value or worth of those who benefit from it.

Senate Confirmation Hearings Everyone is familiar with him lashing out at the Senators with his "high tech lynching" comment. The process left such a bad taste in his mouth that he credits that process with ruining his life and he frankly hoped that he did not get confirmed.

Self Hate It appears that he doesn't understand why every Black person does not get up and work like HELL to uplift the race like the grandfather who raised him. I think he looks out at Black America and sees (by and large) a group of lazy and shiftless niggers! It seems to me that he is ashamed to be a member of this race.

View and read the transcript of the 60 Minutes interview here.

plez sez:I watched 60 Minutes on Sunday evening and discussed the Clarence Thomas interview with my wife. We both agreed that he has to be the most bitter man alive. He is so filled with disgust about his life and how that shred of a life that he had was utterly destroyed during his Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings.

As a moderate, plezWorld has taken a vastly different approach to Clarence Thomas as evidenced in my Clarence Thomas: American Hero post. For some reason, I've been able to muster up some empathy for the misunderstood and sad man who is Clarence Thomas, only the second Black Supreme Court Justice.

In his book, Thomas writes of his Senate Confirmation Hearings, "The mob I now faced carried no ropes or guns. Its weapons were smooth-tongued lies spoken into microphones and printed on the front pages of America's newspapers. But it was a mob all the same, and its purpose -- to keep the black man in his place -- was unchanged." It is obvious that he understands that he was a victim of racism, I don't think he understands that the Republicans who propped him up where as racist as the Democrats who attacked him.

Clarence Thomas is a sad and bitter man who appears to find no joy in being a member of the highest court in the land. In the television interview, he had a difficult time even referring to himself as a Black man. To me that was the saddest revelation of all: he hates life, he hates what life has done to him, and above all, he hates himself. That is sad...

SCOTUS Ruling Limits Use of Race for Diversity in Schools

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that earlier today (in another 5-4 ruling), the Supreme Court rejected integration plans at public school districts in Louisville, Kentucky and Seattle, Washington. The decision restricted how public school systems may attain racial diversity.

The AJC article contains the following excerpts from select Justices:

The court split, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court's judgment, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Yet Justice Anthony Kennedy left the door ajar for the use of race and would not go as far as the other four conservative justices, saying in a concurring opinion that race may be a component of school plans designed to achieve diversity. He said, "A district may consider it a compelling interest to achieve a diverse student population. Race may be one component of that diversity."

Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's only black member, wrote a separate opinion endorsing the ruling and taking issue with the dissenters' view of the Brown case. Thomas said, "What was wrong in 1954 cannot be right today. The plans before us base school assignment decisions on students' race. Because 'our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens,' such race-based decisionmaking is unconstitutional."

Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissent joined by the other liberals on the court, said Roberts' opinion undermined the promise of integrated schools that the court laid out 53 years ago in its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. "To invalidate the plans under review is to threaten the promise of Brown," Breyer said.

Read the entire AJC article here.

plez sez: it's not like i didn't expect such a ruling from this Court, but it still hit me like a blow to the gut! talking about turning back the clock on race relations in this country... well, this does it!

and now it's time to start making some lemonade with all these lemons that the SCOTUS has been tossing from the ivory tower! in one week, the Supreme Court has given big business unfettered access to the election process (campaign ad funding), restricted first amendment rights of students (bong hits 4 jesus), and restricted the use of race for student diversity in public schools.

on its face Brown v. Board of Education was what this country needed to get past its racist past, but what that ruling left out was equal access to quality education for all students. busing brought about racial diversity (in some cases), but never brought the funds necessary to lift those communities which were left behind. i will contend that i did not need to sit beside white students to learn, what i needed was the same educational resources (books, equipment, teachers) that was readily available in the white communities.

after 50-something years, i guess it is time to move on from application of Brown and take responsibility for the spirit of Brown in our children's education and our public schools. instead of busing our children to majority white districts, let's lobby our school boards to incent better and more established teachers to come teach in our communities, let's ensure that our curriculum enhances our children's education, let's get our Black boys out of these special ed classes, and let's make sure that dollar-for-dollar, our kids are getting the quality education that our taxes are paying for.

after today's ruling, the rules have changed and they're not changing back. today's Supreme Court consists of right-wing activists who will consistently push a conservative agenda for the next 20 years! i am sure that Roe v. Wade will fall during the next session which begins in October.

now, i do have some choice words for some of the opinions that were rendered:

1. Roberts implies that the spirit of Brown v. Board of Education was not for integration of public schools; so if not, what was the spirit of the 1954 ruling?
2. Thomas is ALL WRONG to imply that Brown v. Board of Education was wrong in 1954; what planet was this dude living on in 1954 when his BLACK ASS couldn't go to a good school where he was raised in segregated Georgia?!? and since when was the Constitution colorblind? since when was this country colorblind?
3. why did Kennedy vote with the majority when he believes that race can be a component used for racial diversity? doesn't that contradict the ruling?
   
   
4. lastly, i can pray that this ruling is a catalyst for self-reliance and self-motivation to demand quality public school education in the Black community.

SCOTUS Ruling Limits Student Free Speech Rights

In 2002, high school student Joseph Frederick unfurled a 14-foot banner during the Winter Olympics Relay in Juneau, Alaska which read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The principal of his school (Deborah Morse) took exception to the reference to drugs on banner, ripped it down, and suspended Frederick from school for 10 days. Of course, the student sued the principal... and somehow this crazy case made it all the way to the Supreme Court!

Earlier today in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled (Morse vs. Frederick) that schools could that restrict student speech when the message seems to advocate illegal drug use. The majority decision (written by Chief Justice Roberts) goes to great length to specify that the court's opinion "goes no further" than speech interpreted as dealing with illegal drug use.

The article on Yahoo! news continues:

"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Chief Justice John Roberts said. But the school principal who suspended him "thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one," Roberts said in the majority opinion.

Read the entire Yahoo! article here.

plez sez: hmmmmm... so our Supreme Court had NOTHING better to do than to take up their valuable time (they are about to recess until October within the next week) ruling on a crazy case like this!

i agree with the ruling, but isn't this common sense: a school cannot allow its students to display banners advocating drug use. maybe i'm missing something here, but there are limits to free speech: hate speech, yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, promoting drugs and alcohol to minors, sexually explicit speech and images around minors, kiddie porn, etc.

since i'm not a lawyer, i have a few questions for my more learned readers:

1. how in the HELL did a frivolous lawsuit like this make it to the Supreme Court?
2. what in the HELL were the Justices who voted in favor of the high school student thinking?

SCOTUS Ruling Limits Suits on Pay Discrimination

The George Bush-tainted Supreme Court (with his addition of Roberts and Alito) has delivered another blow to workers' rights. The New York Times reports that on Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that employees may not bring suit under the principal federal anti-discrimination law unless they have filed a formal complaint with a federal agency within 180 days after their pay was set.

The decision came in a case involving a supervisor at a Goodyear Tire plant in Gadsden, Ala., the only woman among 16 men at the same management level, who was paid less than any of her colleagues, including those with less seniority. She learned that fact late in a career of nearly 20 years — too late, according to the Supreme Court’s majority.

The New York Times article continues:

In a vigorous dissenting opinion that she read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the majority opinion “overlooks common characteristics of pay discrimination.” She said that given the secrecy in most workplaces about salaries, many employees would have no idea within 180 days that they had received a lower raise than others.

An initial disparity, even if known to the employee, might be small, Justice Ginsburg said, leading an employee, particularly a woman or a member of a minority group “trying to succeed in a nontraditional environment” to avoid “making waves.” Justice Ginsburg noted that even a small differential “will expand exponentially over an employee’s working life if raises are set as a percentage of prior pay.”

Ms. Ledbetter’s salary was initially the same as that of her male colleagues. But over time, as she received smaller raises, a substantial disparity grew. By the time she brought suit in 1998, her salary fell short by as much as 40 percent; she was making $3,727 a month, while the lowest-paid man was making $4,286

plez sez: this ruling would seem to have a devastating effect on women and minorities in industries where their numbers have traditionally been under-represented (financial sector, technology sector, upper-level management, c-level management, etc.). we live in a culture where a tremendous amount of ego and self is associated with one's salary; there is an unwritten rule that people do not talk about their salary. as illustrated by this case, Ledbetter was at Goodyear for close to 20 years, drawing far less in salary to her male counterparts. i'll be honest, i have no idea what the counterparts at my job are currently making, and i'd be well past the 180 day mark if i chose to contest it.

this is different from those (like the Justices) who are employed by the government, because those salaries are common knowledge; it is much less common in private industry for salaries to be divulged or discussed. this SCOTUS ruling (the 180 day rule) gives workers a clear disadvantage when it comes to uncovering disparity in pay. we can only hope that Congress will address this issue in upcoming legislation.