- Joined
- Nov 27, 2016
- Messages
- 31,690
- Reaction score
- 6,772
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
If it does not affect the point why did you try to contest the point I made when I mentioned that the Maryland case was only about one district?
The decision of Brown vs Board of Education in 1954 which changed the doctrine of "separate but equal" that was established by the SCOTUS in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 was not based on any change in the Constitution between 1896 and 1954.
No amendments within that period was related to race in general or to the case of racial segregation specifically (List of amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia).
If by your logic, the SCOTUS judges in the Brown vs Board of Education in 1954 had thought that change could not come in any way other than through a Constitutional Amendment preventing explicitly segregation, they would have chosen to rule in favor of keeping the segregation in US schools. Their interpretation of the Constitution is the one which is considered correct today. So, the idea that people should not debate the constitutional interpretation by the SCOTUS judges makes no sense unless these people feel insecure in defending the reasoning of such interpretation.
Which is because that is what the Constitution states --equality of the laws.
If it does not affect the point why did you try to contest the point I made when I mentioned that the Maryland case was only about one district?
The elections are not "cooked," whatever that means. They are competed in districts duly and lawfully drawn by the people's elected representatives.
I have no party and no interest at stake. And btw, one complaint before the court was about Republican gerrymandering (North Carolina) and the other was about Democratic gerrymandering (Maryland). I suggest you learn the facts before you post.
A law which sends a white kid to one school and an identically situated black kid to a different school for no reason other than the color of their skin is INequality of the law by design.
????? Who is in charge of elections is spelled out in the constitution. Where kids go to schoool is not.
So were the elections in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Ngô Đình Diệm's Vietnam, Syngman Rhee's Korea, Noriega's Panama, and a whole lot of other places. Not only that, but the actual ballots cast were actually counted and the actual results actually recorded.
Quite right, and the US Supreme Court could have done either of
- taken the position that "We don't give a damn how much you want to bugger up fair and equal representation and give the impression that your state is equivalent to some backwards third-world country where the elections are all 'legally rigged', so go ahead and do it because both parties are doing it."; or
- taken the position that "We don't give a damn how much you want to bugger up fair and equal representation and give the impression that your state is equivalent to some backwards third-world country where the elections are all 'legally rigged', AND we don't care that both parties are doing it, AND we don't care how long you have been doing it, BUT the case never got to us before so we never had a chance to rule on it and our ruling is that you can't do it any longer.".
Obviously the court chose to go with Option 1.
Which is because that is what the Constitution states --equality of the laws.
Not if the schools have equal facilities, budgets, and staff..
Yes, and . . . ?
IMHO the SCOTUS decided the case properly.
So, you disagree with the rationale of Brown vs Education which says that it is inherently unequal to have states mandating that certain groups of people should be kept in different facilities from everybody else, even if such facilities are exactly identical to all others.
Predictable...and also a belief which has no place in modern societies. If you think that treating certain people like they have some type of a highly contagious disease linked to their skin color can be remedied by building for them facilities of equal value, you are mistaken.
No that would be two different schools. The constitution requires equal treatment under the law, not equal schools.
One of the things that pushed Brown v. Board of Education to the conclusion that it did reach was that those "equal" facilities were simply NOT equal - despite the fact that the State government had (essentially) taken the public position that "All High Schools are equal." while its actual position was "All High Schools are equal, but some are more equal than others.".
But it IS a theory that still has a lot of adherents in some "modern societies" - isn't it?
Merely pointing out that slavish adherence to "form" (as you appear to be advocating) while ignoring "function" (as you also appear to be advocating) doesn't mean that a country has any justice or democratic form of government.
Those who backed (and derived personal benefit from) Hitler's government in Germany, Stalin's government in Russia, Ngô Đình Diệm's government in Vietnam, Syngman Rhee's government in Korea, and Noriega's government in Panama would be quite comfortable with your position.
You have made that quite clear.
In your opinion the ONLY thing that counts is "form" and "substance" doesn't even enter into the picture.
So if all of the "X" people go to a "High School" that has a per student budget of (for example) $1,000 per year and all of the "Y" people go to a "High School" that has a per student budget of (for example) $10,000 per year, they are being treated equally because BOTH the "X" people and the "Y" people go to a "High School".
Is that your position?
That the equal facilities were not equal in practice is a given. But the decision went even farther ruling that separate but equal was inherently unequal by the fact of the separation itself.
Those were governments with democratic forms without the substance.
Not so here.
What you criticize here is in fact the working out of democratic and Constitutional arrangements.
No. The form is the substance.
Nope. Whats with the constant fishing for a strawman
Just trying to get you to actually state a single consistent position.
A law which sends a white kid to one school and an identically situated black kid to a different school for no reason other than the color of their skin is INequality of the law by design.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?