Supreme Court rules against race quotas

[gocolts 300]

linkage

 

 

The Supreme Court ruled today that schools cannot take steps to assure racially mixed student populations, dealing a blow to so-called "affirmative action" programs.

 

In the 5-4 ruling, the high court ruled in favor of parents who were battling the criteria used to admit students to schools in two cities where whites and blacks live in mostly segregated neighborhoods.

 

The schools had argued that students should be assigned to different facilities, sometimes far from home, to ensure racial diversity.

 

"Simply because the school districts may seek a worthy goal doesn't mean that they are free to discriminate on the basis of race to achieve it," Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority decision.

 

 

This is outstanding news. THis has been a buch of BS from the time they started this. What some people don't relize is that if your child is sent to a school far from home just to try and achieve diversity, they are putting tremendous strains on those that have to go to schools far away from home. Alot of the poor people who have their kids school changed to a scholl that is far away, it makes it difficult to for the children to be involved in sports programs, amoung many other programs. They can't afford to go to school games and funtions. Thak God these people are starting to come to their senses.

[RLLD 4,230]

Good stuff. It's about time that racism was taken to task, good to see the Supreme Court stepping in...

[lechuza 0]

excellent news

[BudBro 182]

from the ny times... Don't Mourn Brown v. Board of Education

 

His response (Thurgood Marshall) was that seating black children next to white children in school had never been the point. It had been necessary only because all-white school boards were generously financing schools for white children while leaving black students in overcrowded, decrepit buildings with hand-me-down books and underpaid teachers. He had wanted black children to have the right to attend white schools as a point of leverage over the biased spending patterns of the segregationists who ran schools — both in the 17 states where racially separate schools were required by law and in other states where they were a matter of culture.

 

If black children had the right to be in schools with white children, Justice Marshall reasoned, then school board officials would have no choice but to equalize spending to protect the interests of their white children.

 

Racial malice is no longer the primary motive in shaping inferior schools for minority children. Many failing big city schools today are operated by black superintendents and mostly black school boards.

 

And today the argument that school reform should provide equal opportunity for children, or prepare them to live in a pluralistic society, is spent. The winning argument is that better schools are needed for all children — black, white, brown and every other hue — in order to foster a competitive workforce in a global economy.

 

Dealing with racism and the bitter fruit of slavery and “separate but equal” legal segregation was at the heart of the court’s brave decision 53 years ago. With Brown officially relegated to the past, the challenge for brave leaders now is to deliver on the promise of a good education for every child.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Also from the NY Times:

 

 

Resegregation Now

 

The Supreme Court ruled 53 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education that segregated education is inherently unequal, and it ordered the nation’s schools to integrate. Yesterday, the court switched sides and told two cities that they cannot take modest steps to bring public school students of different races together. It was a sad day for the court and for the ideal of racial equality.

 

Since 1954, the Supreme Court has been the nation’s driving force for integration. Its orders required segregated buses and public buildings, parks and playgrounds to open up to all Americans. It wasn’t always easy: governors, senators and angry mobs talked of massive resistance. But the court never wavered, and in many of the most important cases it spoke unanimously.

 

Yesterday, the court’s radical new majority turned its back on that proud tradition in a 5-4 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts. It has been some time since the court, which has grown more conservative by the year, did much to compel local governments to promote racial integration. But now it is moving in reverse, broadly ordering the public schools to become more segregated.

 

...

 

The nation is getting more diverse, but by many measures public schools are becoming more segregated. More than one in six black children now attend schools that are 99 to 100 percent minority. This resegregation is likely to get appreciably worse as a result of the court’s ruling.

 

There should be no mistaking just how radical this decision is. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said it was his “firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision.” He also noted the “cruel irony” of the court relying on Brown v. Board of Education while robbing that landmark ruling of much of its force and spirit. The citizens of Louisville and Seattle, and the rest of the nation, can ponder the majority’s kind words about Brown as they get to work today making their schools, and their cities, more segregated.

[BudBro 182]

so, let's work through it. one actually told the reasoning behind the opinion of thurgood marshall, to afford black students better books and buildings and teachers based on spending patterns, and the second didn't say anything, just that the new supreme court is bigoted and hates black people. it's typical of an emotional response that caters to a backwards way of thinking. times have caught up and so has funding for all public schooling, which lacks substance in every facet. whether black or white, public education is in a horrific state. people want a sense of community and less hassle to get their kids to school...why should they segregate and alienate? the democratic party has romanticized segregation and turned into something it no longer is. they're still living in the '60s,,, man.

 

let's face it, with all the attention paid to the mexicans by the left these days, blacks are being sent to back of the bus again, and by their own party. let's be intellectually honest and see whose jobs are mainly going to be affected by the influx of mexicans, blacks or whites? if you answered blacks, you're correct. you would think after all these years of empty promises by their party and now being relegated behind illegal mexicans, black voters would decide that it's insane to keep supporting the same do-nothings time and time again. the only thing keeping them "down" is the government that they are relying upon to prop them up. one party offers equal opportunity and the other wants equal outcome at any cost. blacks are just as capable as whites at owning a business or achieving prosperity...the left just doesn't want them to think that way. the mantra of the democratic party is "you're too stupid to think for yourselves, so we'll do it for you...just keep voting for us."

[IGotWorms 4,058]

I've heard that "the left is actually racist" line before, and its total crap. The issue here is whether diversity, in and of itself, is a goal which school districts should be allowed to work toward. School districts and cities don't HAVE to pursue the policies that the Court struck down--those particular cities chose to emphasize racial diversity in their schools. Why shouldn't they have that choice?

 

Its a hell of a thing that a bunch of right-wingers who tout federalism to no end apparently don't believe in local control. Similarly, the right cries and cries about activist judges, and yet that is exaclty what this new, hard-core conservative court has proven itself to be made up of. Its no surprise though, the right has always been fertile territory for liars and hypocrites. To be sure, you can find those types on the left too, but they sure seem to be much better represented amongst the conservatives.

[Ravens 03 0]

 

The issue here is whether diversity, in and of itself, is a goal which school districts have to adhere to.

 

 

This is the question and the answer is 'NO'.

 

HTH

[IndyTom 0]

so, let's work through it. one actually told the reasoning behind the opinion of thurgood marshall, to afford black students better books and buildings and teachers based on spending patterns, and the second didn't say anything, just that the new supreme court is bigoted and hates black people. it's typical of an emotional response that caters to a backwards way of thinking. times have caught up and so has funding for all public schooling, which lacks substance in every facet. whether black or white, public education is in a horrific state. people want a sense of community and less hassle to get their kids to school...why should they segregate and alienate? the democratic party has romanticized segregation and turned into something it no longer is. they're still living in the '60s,,, man.

 

let's face it, with all the attention paid to the mexicans by the left these days, blacks are being sent to back of the bus again, and by their own party. let's be intellectually honest and see whose jobs are mainly going to be affected by the influx of mexicans, blacks or whites? if you answered blacks, you're correct. you would think after all these years of empty promises by their party and now being relegated behind illegal mexicans, black voters would decide that it's insane to keep supporting the same do-nothings time and time again. the only thing keeping them "down" is the government that they are relying upon to prop them up. one party offers equal opportunity and the other wants equal outcome at any cost. blacks are just as capable as whites at owning a business or achieving prosperity...the left just doesn't want them to think that way. the mantra of the democratic party is "you're too stupid to think for yourselves, so we'll do it for you...just keep voting for us."

 

Bravo!

[Ravens 03 0]

so, let's work through it. one actually told the reasoning behind the opinion of thurgood marshall, to afford black students better books and buildings and teachers based on spending patterns, and the second didn't say anything, just that the new supreme court is bigoted and hates black people. it's typical of an emotional response that caters to a backwards way of thinking. times have caught up and so has funding for all public schooling, which lacks substance in every facet. whether black or white, public education is in a horrific state. people want a sense of community and less hassle to get their kids to school...why should they segregate and alienate? the democratic party has romanticized segregation and turned into something it no longer is. they're still living in the '60s,,, man.

 

let's face it, with all the attention paid to the mexicans by the left these days, blacks are being sent to back of the bus again, and by their own party. let's be intellectually honest and see whose jobs are mainly going to be affected by the influx of mexicans, blacks or whites? if you answered blacks, you're correct. you would think after all these years of empty promises by their party and now being relegated behind illegal mexicans, black voters would decide that it's insane to keep supporting the same do-nothings time and time again. the only thing keeping them "down" is the government that they are relying upon to prop them up. one party offers equal opportunity and the other wants equal outcome at any cost. blacks are just as capable as whites at owning a business or achieving prosperity...the left just doesn't want them to think that way. the mantra of the democratic party is "you're too stupid to think for yourselves, so we'll do it for you...just keep voting for us."

 

 

I agree.

 

Well said.

[Angry White Male 0]

[MisanthropicAnthropoid 0]

The issue here is whether diversity, in and of itself, is a goal which school districts should be allowed to work toward. School districts and cities don't HAVE to pursue the policies that the Court struck down--those particular cities chose to emphasize racial diversity in their schools. Why shouldn't they have that choice?

 

 

That's not the sole question. The question is also whether the means (discriminating based on race, likely sending kids to schools far from home that they don't want to attend) justify the ends (diversity). I see a clear "no" here.

[lickin_starfish 1,937]

My brother-in-law taught in a Syracuse intermediate school. He said the niggie kids would show up unprepared, get in trouble in an effort to get kicked out of school, and were very rude.

[RLLD 4,230]

so, let's work through it. one actually told the reasoning behind the opinion of thurgood marshall, to afford black students better books and buildings and teachers based on spending patterns, and the second didn't say anything, just that the new supreme court is bigoted and hates black people. it's typical of an emotional response that caters to a backwards way of thinking. times have caught up and so has funding for all public schooling, which lacks substance in every facet. whether black or white, public education is in a horrific state. people want a sense of community and less hassle to get their kids to school...why should they segregate and alienate? the democratic party has romanticized segregation and turned into something it no longer is. they're still living in the '60s,,, man.

 

let's face it, with all the attention paid to the mexicans by the left these days, blacks are being sent to back of the bus again, and by their own party. let's be intellectually honest and see whose jobs are mainly going to be affected by the influx of mexicans, blacks or whites? if you answered blacks, you're correct. you would think after all these years of empty promises by their party and now being relegated behind illegal mexicans, black voters would decide that it's insane to keep supporting the same do-nothings time and time again. the only thing keeping them "down" is the government that they are relying upon to prop them up. one party offers equal opportunity and the other wants equal outcome at any cost. blacks are just as capable as whites at owning a business or achieving prosperity...the left just doesn't want them to think that way. the mantra of the democratic party is "you're too stupid to think for yourselves, so we'll do it for you...just keep voting for us."

 

Wow, well stated....

[Brown Eyed Girl 1]

Good stuff. It's about time that racism was taken to task, good to see the Supreme Court stepping in...

 

[Angry White Male 0]

Good stuff. It's about time that racism was taken to task, good to see the Supreme Court stepping in...

My brother-in-law taught in a Syracuse intermediate school. He said the niggie kids would show up unprepared, get in trouble in an effort to get kicked out of school, and were very rude.

[Voltaire 5,316]

While the new SC makes me nervous, this is one thing I wholeheartedly applaud. It's about time that AA was taken care of. I just wish the University of Michigan case from 2003 was before this court instead of the last one. We sh*tcanned affirmative action in Michigan public universites by way of a referendum this past election, but it would be nice to sh*tcan it all across the country.

 

As for this ruling, it's great. I'm hopeful the SCOTUS will scrap AA completly and make us truely race neutral one of these years. These busing options are inconvienent, especially for kids (families) that don't want to participate. Artificially looking at race to determine some bereaucrat's ideal mix of population is bunk. Just let people go to their neigborhood schools.

[BudBro 182]

I've heard that "the left is actually racist" line before, and its total crap. The issue here is whether diversity, in and of itself, is a goal which school districts should be allowed to work toward. School districts and cities don't HAVE to pursue the policies that the Court struck down--those particular cities chose to emphasize racial diversity in their schools. Why shouldn't they have that choice?

 

Its a hell of a thing that a bunch of right-wingers who tout federalism to no end apparently don't believe in local control. Similarly, the right cries and cries about activist judges, and yet that is exaclty what this new, hard-core conservative court has proven itself to be made up of. Its no surprise though, the right has always been fertile territory for liars and hypocrites. To be sure, you can find those types on the left too, but they sure seem to be much better represented amongst the conservatives.

 

i didn't call you or the left racist, that's the one you use on us when you don't have any substance to your argument, as you did at the end of your diatribe that didn't say anything. if you feel the need to justify that in your mind, that's your emotional baggage to deal with. the left feels we're all too stupid to think for ourselves...black, white, or brown. the issue here isn't diversity, it's now about educating every kid so that they have the opportunity to prosper in this society. the reasoning behind overturning the court case is based upon the fact that property taxes that fund our schools are more evenly gained and apportioned and all schools are capable of providing every kid the chance to become somebody (they don't really teach them anything, but they have the capability).

 

everyone thinks this immigration bill would be gwb's legacy, but it's not. the fact that he was elected to this second term and was able to nominate conservative judges to the supreme court is his legacy. he turned the tide of forty or fifty years away from democrats being able to legislate through the court system, instead of having to garner votes for their stupid ideas. nobody votes for abortion, and nobody votes that gay rights go above and beyond everyone elses, and nobody votes that people should get jobs they aren't qualified to have, and nobody votes that you don't say god in the pledge of allegiance, and nobody votes that nativity scenes should be banned from the public square, and there are billion others, yet the judicial branch has somehow worked them into the weave of our lives. the good news is, the next few years will see most of that unconstitutional law making reversed. with any luck at all, gwb will get to appoint another judge to the bench before he leaves the office. that way, dems will have to come to the table with substance and ask us to vote on their plans...and 9 times out of 10, they will lose because they don't have any good ideas. one of the few things standing in the way of america becoming a socialist society is a conservative supreme court. thank you gwb.

[Voltaire 5,316]

Through the 1960s, conservatives have been really steamed by activist liberal court judges. Well that's changed over the years. Now it looks like the shoe is on the other foot with activist conservative judges. I'm really worried about where this court is headed but it looks to stay conservative for a while. Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy are all young. Scalia is 71 but is in good health and looks to have many more years in him.

 

John Paul Stephens is 87 years old and (((my speculation, he's never hinted at this to my knowledge))) is likely just waiting for Bush to leave office to retire. I don't know if he's moved left or if he's stayed in place as the whole court moved right.

[peenie 1,915]

the issue should not be about blacks, mexicans, democrats or republicans (or niggles, which is extrememly offensive! f-u btw), it's about proper funding for public schools.

where is the money going to come from to make sure all public schools are equally preparing students?

 

in nj many years ago our governor tried to funnel money into the poorer schools from the richer neighborhoods and they practically pulled the governor out of his mansion and burned him.

basically, those that had said, "it doesn't make sense to give to "them" our money because they're so stupid, no amount of money will help them. they already have the teachers with the highest paid salaries...."

the best teachers don't go to the inner city schools to teach no matter how much they're paid.

 

i agree with the supreme court decision.

i just hope someone continues to run with the ball and not let it drop right where it is.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

everyone thinks this immigration bill would be gwb's legacy, but it's not. the fact that he was elected to this second term and was able to nominate conservative judges to the supreme court is his legacy. he turned the tide of forty or fifty years away from democrats being able to legislate through the court system, instead of having to garner votes for their stupid ideas. nobody votes for abortion, and nobody votes that gay rights go above and beyond everyone elses, and nobody votes that people should get jobs they aren't qualified to have, and nobody votes that you don't say god in the pledge of allegiance, and nobody votes that nativity scenes should be banned from the public square, and there are billion others, yet the judicial branch has somehow worked them into the weave of our lives. the good news is, the next few years will see most of that unconstitutional law making reversed. with any luck at all, gwb will get to appoint another judge to the bench before he leaves the office. that way, dems will have to come to the table with substance and ask us to vote on their plans...and 9 times out of 10, they will lose because they don't have any good ideas. one of the few things standing in the way of america becoming a socialist society is a conservative supreme court. thank you gwb.

 

 

Some of us think that the Court should not be politicized one way or the other. GWB and all other conservative presidents since Reagan have been stacking the court with hard-core right wing ideologues. They also make sure to get them on there when they are young, so that they can impose their fundamentalist ideology on society for 30+ years before the incontinence gets to be too much.

 

Its a damn shame to stack the court in that manner. The right doesn't care about precedence or the rule of law. All they want to do is legislate from the bench.

[Strike 5,553]

Some of us think that the Court should not be politicized one way or the other. GWB and all other conservative presidents since Reagan have been stacking the court with hard-core right wing ideologues. They also make sure to get them on there when they are young, so that they can impose their fundamentalist ideology on society for 30+ years before the incontinence gets to be too much.

 

Its a damn shame to stack the court in that manner. The right doesn't care about precedence or the rule of law. All they want to do is legislate from the bench.

 

You don't think Clinton did this?

[Isotopes 1]

the issue should not be about blacks, mexicans, democrats or republicans (or niggles, which is extrememly offensive! f-u btw), it's about proper funding for public schools.

where is the money going to come from to make sure all public schools are equally preparing students?

 

in nj many years ago our governor tried to funnel money into the poorer schools from the richer neighborhoods and they practically pulled the governor out of his mansion and burned him.

basically, those that had said, "it doesn't make sense to give to "them" our money because they're so stupid, no amount of money will help them. they already have the teachers with the highest paid salaries...."

the best teachers don't go to the inner city schools to teach no matter how much they're paid.

 

i agree with the supreme court decision.

i just hope someone continues to run with the ball and not let it drop right where it is.

 

People in the "rich" neighborhoods pay school taxes. If you start spreading all the money evenly no districts will pass school levies and everyone will suffer.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

You don't think Clinton did this?

 

How did Clinton do this?

 

He appointed Ruth Bayder Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Both are moderate, and both were 60-plus at the time of their appointment.

 

Try again.

[Strike 5,553]

How did Clinton do this?

 

He appointed Ruth Bayder Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Both are moderate, and both were 60-plus at the time of their appointment.

 

Try again.

 

I wasn't referring to age but ideology. While they were considered somewhat moderate I don't think anyone believes they weren't chosen for ideological reasons. Here's a quote:

 

In the end, despite their reservations, most Republican senators approved of Breyer's nomination because, as Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) put it, they "take the view that Breyer is the best justice - ideologically speaking - they can expect President Clinton to nominate."

 

Sounds kinda familiar......

[gocolts 300]

How did Clinton do this?

 

He appointed Ruth Bayder Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Both are moderate,

 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a moderate.

 

It is pretty sad when gocolts corrects someones spelling.

 

Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg (born March 15, 1933, Brooklyn, New York) is an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to joining the Court, a litigator for the American Civil Liberties Union. During much of her life, she has been active in the women's rights movement, and is today considered one of the Court's more liberal justices.

 

Ruth a moderate. that is the most funny thing I have read on here in a week.

[BudBro 182]

Some of us think that the Court should not be politicized one way or the other. GWB and all other conservative presidents since Reagan have been stacking the court with hard-core right wing ideologues. They also make sure to get them on there when they are young, so that they can impose their fundamentalist ideology on society for 30+ years before the incontinence gets to be too much.

 

Its a damn shame to stack the court in that manner. The right doesn't care about precedence or the rule of law. All they want to do is legislate from the bench.

 

reagan appointed o'conner, who was not conservative and barely moderate, and couldn't even play center on the warren court because it was so liberal. i have trouble following your train of thought in exactly all of your posts. it's almost as if you don't read the post you're reacting to. the left has been legislating from the bench since before you were born, or maybe before your parents were born, judging by your history lesson above. the right probably doesn't care about precedence when we are bound by laws like brown v board from 1953 and they no longer apply to our world. the welfare act and laws need to go next. roe v wade may have a short future as well. current income tax laws are antiquated as well. we're progressive, dude, it's an advanced and enlightened world we're livin in, catch on up.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

I wasn't referring to age but ideology. While they were considered somewhat moderate I don't think anyone believes they weren't chosen for ideological reasons. Here's a quote:

 

In the end, despite their reservations, most Republican senators approved of Breyer's nomination because, as Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) put it, they "take the view that Breyer is the best justice - ideologically speaking - they can expect President Clinton to nominate."

 

Sounds kinda familiar......

 

First of all, my point was that the conservatives have been stacking the court with young ideologues. The young component is an important one, because it means these people can serve for 30+ years.

 

Try to follow me here. If you appoint a 67 year old guy to the Supreme Court (as Clinton did with Breyer), he probably has 15 years tops before he will be replaced (possibly by a conservative president). On the other hand, if you appoint a 50 year old guy (as George W. did with Roberts), he will probably have 25-30 years on the court before he will be replaced.

 

This is what the conservatives have been practicing. They are stacking the court with guys who have 30 year appointments and can impose their ideological will on the public through those positions. I'm not saying Democrats don't lean toward liberal judges, but I would argue that their appointees are far less ideological and are not appointed mainly because they are young enough to stay on the court 30 years.

[kpbuckeye 3]

First of all, my point was that the conservatives have been stacking the court with young ideologues. The young component is an important one, because it means these people can serve for 30+ years.

 

Try to follow me here. If you appoint a 67 year old guy to the Supreme Court (as Clinton did with Breyer), he probably has 15 years tops before he will be replaced (possibly by a conservative president). On the other hand, if you appoint a 50 year old guy (as George W. did with Roberts), he will probably have 25-30 years on the court before he will be replaced.

 

This is what the conservatives have been practicing. They are stacking the court with guys who have 30 year appointments and can impose their ideological will on the public through those positions. I'm not saying Democrats don't lean toward liberal judges, but I would argue that their appointees are far less ideological and are not appointed mainly because they are young enough to stay on the court 30 years.

 

if you could stop whining about conservatives and the right for two seconds, you would prob realize how ignorant your argument sounds. HTH.

[gocolts 300]

Some of us think that the Court should not be politicized one way or the other. GWB and all other conservative presidents since Reagan have been stacking the court with hard-core right wing ideologues. They also make sure to get them on there when they are young, so that they can impose their fundamentalist ideology on society for 30+ years before the incontinence gets to be too much.

 

Its a damn shame to stack the court in that manner. The right doesn't care about precedence or the rule of law. All they want to do is legislate from the bench.

Which backfired once Ruth Bader Ginsburg got on the court. Sandra O'Conner turned out to be a freakin liberal.

 

Alot of things have changed since some of these rulings were forced on us. For example, Abortion. There is a lot of new technology that shows how wrong we were back when this was decided. We now know a baby in the womb is developed much more than we knew when this decision was made. A baby in the first trimester can feel pain, has fingerprints, amoung many other things. Not to mention the woman who was credited in this fight has came out in recent years and said she lied to the court.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

if you could stop whining about conservatives and the right for two seconds, you would prob realize how ignorant your argument sounds. HTH.

 

Why don't you enlighten me then? Why is my argument "ignorant"? Or are you only capable of piss-poor thinly veiled barbs?

[kpbuckeye 3]

Why don't you enlighten me then? Why is my argument "ignorant"? Or are you only capable of piss-poor thinly veiled barbs?

 

You whining about the right and how the left is not nearly as bad pretty much sewed my case up.

 

 

 

This is what the conservatives have been practicing. They are stacking the court with guys who have 30 year appointments and can impose their ideological will on the public through those positions. I'm not saying Democrats don't lean toward liberal judges, but I would argue that their appointees are far less ideological and are not appointed mainly because they are young enough to stay on the court 30 years.

 

this one was quite funny. Bush appointed a guy bc he knew he would be there for a very long time, now the dems are above that kind of stuff the dems are ethical politicians who would never do anything like this huh? guess what leroy, they are all politicians hence they are all dirtbags.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

this one was quite funny. Bush appointed a guy bc he knew he would be there for a very long time, now the dems are above that kind of stuff the dems are ethical politicians who would never do anything like this huh? guess what leroy, they are all politicians hence they are all dirtbags.

 

Jesus Christ, you are going pretty far on the extrapolation there. Becuase I think that Dems have been much more responsible in appointing Supreme Court Justices than Republicans means that I think Dems NEVER do anything unethical?

 

Give me one instance in which a democrat appointed a "young" Supreme Court Justice. Just one.

[Vikings4ever 550]

Try to follow me here. If you appoint a 67 year old guy to the Supreme Court (as Clinton did with Breyer), he probably has 15 years tops before he will be replaced (possibly by a conservative president).

You might want to do some research before you post. Breyer is 68 now. He was 55 when he assumed his position.

[kpbuckeye 3]

Jesus Christ, you are going pretty far on the extrapolation there. Becuase I think that Dems have been much more responsible in appointing Supreme Court Justices than Republicans means that I think Dems NEVER do anything unethical?

 

Give me one instance in which a democrat appointed a "young" Supreme Court Justice. Just one.

 

I can't discriminate due to age.

You ever think that its based on merit and not age? Young people drop dead all the time.

[Vikings4ever 550]

Jesus Christ, you are going pretty far on the extrapolation there. Becuase I think that Dems have been much more responsible in appointing Supreme Court Justices than Republicans means that I think Dems NEVER do anything unethical?

 

Give me one instance in which a democrat appointed a "young" Supreme Court Justice. Just one.

Depends on how you define young.

 

Steven Breyer (Clinton)-55

Thurgood Marshall (Johnson)-59

Abe Fortas (Johnson)-55

Arthur Goldberg (JFK)-54

Byron White (JFK)-44

 

Going back a little farther:

 

Sherman Minton (Truman)-58

Fred M. Vinson (Truman)-56

Harold Hitz Burton (Truman)-57

Wiley Blount Rutledge (FDR)-48

Robert H. Jackson (FDR)-49

Frank Murphy (FDR)-49

William O. Douglas (FDR)-40

Felix Frankfurter (FDR)-56

Stanley Forman Reed (FDR)-53

Hugo Black (FDR)-51

[peenie 1,915]

People in the "rich" neighborhoods pay school taxes. If you start spreading all the money evenly no districts will pass school levies and everyone will suffer.

well, that's exactly their argument.

you must be from nj, lol.

i remember reading articles...or editiorials where people were complaining that the state would be filled with C students.

nj has the highest amount of segregated schools in the united states. how on earth can you even things up?

there are white neighborhoods that have been white and stayed white, in newark!

as a resident you are not allowed to go to schools out of your district.

what? we have to wait until hearts change in order to change schools?

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Depends on how you define young.

 

Steven Breyer (Clinton)-55

Thurgood Marshall (Johnson)-59

Abe Fortas (Johnson)-55

Arthur Goldberg (JFK)-54

Byron White (JFK)-44

 

 

Going back to Reagan:

 

O'Connor - 51

Scalia - 50

Kennedy - 51

Souter - 51

Clarence Thomas - 43

Ginsburg - 60

Breyer - 55 (you are right, I was off one my math earlier)

Roberts - 50

Alito - 55

 

As you can see, the Democratic appointees are actually the two oldest judges to be appointed out of the last nine.

 

I can't discriminate due to age.

You ever think that its based on merit and not age? Young people drop dead all the time.

 

My point is that Republicans are intentionally picking young judges so that they will have a longer time on the bench. This is not what the founding fathers intended when they gave federal judges lifetime appointments. Judges were given lifetime appointments so they could be remain above the political sway of the moment, not so that they could be appointed for 30+ years to further a particular hard-line ideology.

[Strike 5,553]

Going back to Reagan:

 

O'Connor - 51

Scalia - 50

Kennedy - 51

Souter - 51

Clarence Thomas - 43

Ginsburg - 60

Breyer - 55 (you are right, I was off one my math earlier)

Roberts - 50

Alito - 55

 

As you can see, the Democratic appointees are actually the two oldest judges to be appointed out of the last nine.

My point is that Republicans are intentionally picking young judges so that they will have a longer time on the bench. This is not what the founding fathers intended when they gave federal judges lifetime appointments. Judges were given lifetime appointments so they could be remain above the political sway of the moment, not so that they could be appointed for 30+ years to further a particular hard-line ideology.

 

I guess Alito doesn't count.

 

[Vikings4ever 550]

I guess Alito doesn't count.

 

Breyer's older by about 2 months.