Here we go again...

[Asher]

No, but sometimes people are stupid. You are one of those people.

[MOBIUS]

No, he's a DL. No one could possibly be THAT consistently stupid across so many subject matters in real life - not even a Texan!

[SlowwHand]

Just for you, motor mouth.

[Asher]

Pwned!

[MOBIUS]

See what I mean about Texans...

[chequita guevara]

When she broke the law, it was not unconstitutional. Plessy v Ferguson was the law of the land.

That's what I mean, you just don't pay attention to the facts.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Beat me to it, Che. Well done.

[Ben Kenobi]

Plessy? Who cares about Plessy?

Brown vs the Board of Education overturned Plessy in 1954.

Parks was arrested in 1955.

That's what I mean, you just don't pay attention to the facts.

Facts are a funny thing.

[Elok]

Facts are indeed funny. I wasn't aware that Montgomery, Alabama had its school board run the buses back then. You learn something every day.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you don't believe Plessy was overturned by Brown?

Does that mean Plessy is still in force today?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Plessy? Who cares about Plessy?

Brown vs the Board of Education overturned Plessy in 1954.

Parks was arrested in 1955.



Facts are a funny thing.

They are in your hands.

First, Brown desegregated only schools, not any other institutions. Second, and related, the question of whether separate sections of the bus were the same as separate schools was unsettled. Finally, Brown vs. Board called for the desegregation of schools "with all deliberate speed," which effectively meant that they could remain segregated for a while; if Brown was to be applied to other institutions (and, again, it's not obvious from the ruling that it could be), that proviso would also apply, meaning that Montgomery's segregated bus sections remained constitutional.

Parks wasn't protesting an unconstitutional law; she was protesting an unjust law.

Honestly, Ben, your ignorance and lack of critical reasoning skills are just bewildering.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So you don't believe Plessy was overturned by Brown?

Does that mean Plessy is still in force today?

No -- but it meant that it was still in force in 1955, as it applied to buses. The court didn't rule segregated transportation unconstitutional until 1960, in Boyton (sp?) vs. VA.

History major, Ben? Really?

[Ben Kenobi]

They are in your hands.

Rather novel theory that Brown vs the Board of Education did not repudiate Plessy vs Ferguson. How long did it take you to come up with that one?

Plessy stated that seperate but equal facilities did not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Brown bundled 5 different cases together to make one landmark ruling stating that seperate but equal did in fact violate the equal protection clause, and that it was in fact unconstitutional.

The decision is very clear. The decision didn't just apply to schooling, it applied to segregation as a whole.

First, Brown desegregated only schools, not any other institutions.

False, it said that separate but equal facilities were in themselves a violation of the equal protection clause. Whereas the ruling applied specifically to schools, it was extended by the justices in an unanimous decision.

Second, and related, the question of whether separate sections of the bus were the same as separate schools was unsettled.

Unsettled by who? Certainly not the courts. The decision was clear and unanimous that seperate but equal was a violation of the equal protection clause. Maybe to you it was unsettled, but the justices who interpreted the constitution did not say that was so.

Finally, Brown vs. Board called for the desegregation of schools "with all deliberate speed," which effectively meant that they could remain segregated for a while;

First off, this was a different decision, not Brown vs the Board of education.

Secondly, that was the interpretation of the segregationists, not the Supreme Court. All deliberate speed is a synonym for asap, unless of course you were a segregationist. I didn't know you were one too Rufus.

Parks wasn't protesting an unconstitutional law; she was protesting an unjust law.

The law was both unconstitutional and unjust. If you read what she said and spoke and gave as reasoning for her position, you would see this. Same with Dr. King.

Are you unaware of his speeches?

No -- but it meant that it was still in force in 1955, as it applied to buses. The court didn't rule segregated transportation unconstitutional until 1960, in Boyton (sp?) vs. VA.

Seems to me if you know the case well enough to cite it you ought to be able to spell the darn thing.

You want to know what I think? You are scrambling to find an answer. I expected someone to raise Plessy, being unaware that the bus boycotts happened after Brown. That's the order things went. Brown tore apart Plessy, and the boycotts were inspired by Brown.

Since we are showing our credentials here, what are yours Rufus?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Brown bundled 5 different cases together to make one landmark ruling stating that seperate but equal did in fact violate the equal protection clause, and that it was in fact unconstitutional.

Brown bundled 5 EDUCATION cases together (Biggs v. Elliot, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Gebhart v. Belton, and Bolling v. Sharpe with Brown itself).

False, it said that separate but equal facilities were in themselves a violation of the equal protection clause. Whereas the ruling applied specifically to schools, it was extended by the justices in an unanimous decision.

While it was extended easily, they quite clearly confined Brown v. Board of Education to school segregation.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=347&invol=483

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

You may argue that this set the stage, but Warren was quite careful to keep referring to this as JUST dealing with schools.

Seems to me if you know the case well enough to cite it you ought to be able to spell the darn thing.

He's trying to remember the spelling off his head, you *******.

And he was close: Boynton v. Virginia

Since we are showing our credentials here, what are yours Rufus?

Forget Rufus's, I'm a lawyer.

[Ben Kenobi]

He's trying to remember the spelling off his head, you *******.

Honestly, Ben, your ignorance and lack of critical reasoning skills are just bewildering.

And he's a saint? He gives me ****, I'll give him ****.

He shows me some consideration, and he'll get a kind response.

I don't see why I should be obligated to put up with 3 against one, and have all of yall whining when you are asked to put the goods up.

And he was close: Boynton v. Virginia

Then he can take the time to get it right.

Boynton btw, doesn't have anything to do with the city busses in Montgomery Alabama, since they appeal to interstate commerce.

But of course you knew that which is why it appeared in your post.

Forget Rufus's, I'm a lawyer.

I don't care about yours, wasn't asking you.

If Rufus wants to piss all over other posters for the sake of pissing all over them then he can stand up for himself.