Scalia is a piece of crap.

[Wiglaf]

is so obviously partisan in everything he does (just look at the Gore vs Bush case in 2000)

OERDIN DID YOU KNOW THE COURT AGREE 7-2 THAT THE FLORIDA RECOUNT UNCONSTITUTIONL?

DID YOU KNOW BUSH V. GORE HAPPENED 8 YEARS AGO? Do you still fear the Y2k bug? Still attracted to Janet Reno for raiding Elian Gonzales' home? Still betting on the Rams? Still using Windows 98 you motherfucak? Still wetting the bed?

If not, THEN STOP ****ING COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
DID YOU KNOW BUSH V. GORE HAPPENED 8 YEARS AGO? Do you still fear the Y2k bug? Still attracted to Janet Reno for raiding Elian Gonzales' home? Still betting on the Rams?

That's trolling...

Still using Windows 98 you motherfucak? Still wetting the bed?

And that is getting personal and being an ass... Enough of that kind of crap!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's too difficult to get changes through that way. We'd still have segregation if we had to use the Amendment process.

According to Wright, the differences between African American brains and European American ones, segregation would be preferable to allow tailored teaching styles.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's too difficult to get changes through that way. We'd still have segregation if we had to use the Amendment process.

You fail. Brown vs. Board of Education didn't involve reinterpretation of law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually... the Court in Brown could have just said you have to boost up what you pay for black facilities. Nothing in the 14th Amendment inherantly says segregation is unconstitutional... even if the practice will make blacks feel less valued, even if everything was backed equally.

[asleepathewheel]

Re: Scalia is a piece of crap.

Originally posted by Oerdin Here's a recent interview 60 minutes did where Justice Scalia justifies torturing suspects and claims that "torture isn't a punishment" and so therefor torturing people doesn't violate the Constitution's prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment.

He is correct. It was a terrible question by Stahl that allowed him that easy out.

[Kuciwalker]

No, the Court in Brown found (as a matter of fact, not law) that segregation based on race was inherently unequal, even if the tangible factors were the same.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually... the Court in Brown could have just said you have to boost up what you pay for black facilities. Nothing in the 14th Amendment inherantly says segregation is unconstitutional... even if the practice will make blacks feel less valued, even if everything was backed equally.

And the finding that separate but equal was inherently unequal by it's very nature?

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't see what the objection is with Scalia.

He's far less partisan then Ginsburg or Breyer. I can't count a single decision where Ginsburg and Breyer have disagreed.

Heck, even this last one had 6-3, with Scalia and Stevens concurring and Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter dissenting.

As for Brown vs the Board of Education, the argument went that segregation in itself implied a differential in facilities. Think of it this way. How could you enforce equal standards for all schools, if they were required to be 100 percent white or 100 percent black? You could make it the law that they could be separate but equal, but that wasn't working. Anywhere you had segregation there was a disparity in facilities.

This is why Brown vs the Board of Education said that segregation in itself was wrong because it always lead to disparities.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No, the Court in Brown found (as a matter of fact, not law) that segregation based on race was inherently unequal, even if the tangible factors were the same.

Yes, I know, but, of course, the reason they found it inherantly unequal is because of social effects on blacks on being segregated. While everyone agrees it was needed and segregation is wrong, it is still considered a strange opinion (because of its base on psychological and social science research) in law schools.

In essense there is some view that the court kind of stretched the fact analysis a bit far so as to try to avoid relying too much on indicating the 14th Amendment meant segregation was wrong.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You fail. Brown vs. Board of Education didn't involve reinterpretation of law.

It overturned a previous interpretation of the court.

[Kuciwalker]

No, it didn't. It did not involve any change at all to the interpretation of the law. It overturned a previous finding of fact.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No, it didn't. It did not involve any change at all to the interpretation of the law. It overturned a previous finding of fact.

Huh. I thought it was expressly a court precedent, which makes it a "marker stone" in interpretation rather than looking merely at the narrow facts.

[Kuciwalker]

Brown reversed the finding in Plessy (that segregation was consistent with the 14th Amendment because the tangible factors were equal, and therefore everyone had equal protection of the law) by finding that segregation was inherently unequal in its intangible effects. The meaning of the 14th Amendment wasn't changed.

[Berzerker]

Or perhaps use the Amendment process instead of reading into the document things that aren't there?

yup

It's too difficult to get changes through that way.

And you think maybe that was intentional? Original Intent? Its supposed to be tough or politicians and judges might just start changing or ignoring the Constitution to suit their agenda - oh yeah, thats what they're already doin thanks to our "living Constitution".

We'd still have segregation if we had to use the Amendment process.

Why? What % of the population today would support Jim Crow? Not even majorities in the states that had it would support it today. The amendment process was used to end both slavery and segregation, it was the failure of the Feds to fully enforce the latter that allowed Jim Crow.

Would you change yer opinion if segregation was being legislated without amending the Constitution? I mean, the Constitution was amended to protect equal rights and treatment for everyone. Jim Crow was not in the amendment, it was prohibited by the amendment.