6/28/2007

28 Comments

1. What do you expect from this SCROTUS?

   Marc Antony Scalia will eventually escape town
   dressed as a slave, like his Roman ancestor, after
   his fav dictator is defrocked.

   Breyer is passionate, but in the minority in that he is human.

   Comment by Semanticleo (10a7bd) — 6/28/2007 @ 7:05 am

2. Semanticleo, do you ever embarras yourself with such ridiculous hyperbole?

   Have you ever considered that you sound like a loon when you talk about dictators? Have you ever considered comparing your rhetoric to reality? Did you watch any C-SPAN this morning?

   Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/28/2007 @ 8:11 am

3. woah, what an insightful and contributive post, semanticleo.

   Comment by Teche (c003f1) — 6/28/2007 @ 8:11 am

4. Is there a problem?

   Comment by Semanticleo (10a7bd) — 6/28/2007 @ 8:15 am

5. What do you expect from this SCROTUS?

   Oh, BTW, I expect them to find racial discrimination and/or segregation unconstitutional. You?

   Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/28/2007 @ 8:16 am

6. So, Brown vs. Board of Education still stands, I reckon. I would have thought that was something to be happy about.

   Comment by Teche (c003f1) — 6/28/2007 @ 8:21 am

7. “Oh, BTW, I expect them to find racial discrimination and/or segregation unconstitutional. You?”

   If the marketplace dictates. If not, it will probably fail 5-4 with Kennedy fence sitting again.

   Comment by Semanticleo (10a7bd) — 6/28/2007 @ 8:21 am

8. If the marketplace dictates.

   So, if the marketplace decides it doesn’t want to hire people because they’re black, you’re good with that being codified into law?

   Some progressive you are.

   Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/28/2007 @ 8:34 am

9. Pablo;

   I believe your question relates to how SCROTUS
   will decide. I am not an ‘El Supremo’, so as a mere mortal, I am excluded from making bad law.

   Comment by Semanticleo (10a7bd) — 6/28/2007 @ 8:43 am

10. I am excluded from making bad law

    Cleo, so is SCOTUS.

    They don’t make laws.

    That’s the job of … hmmm … lessee … Civics 101 … the legislative branch. Y’know, like, Congress ‘n’ stuff?

    Comment by I'm Geekier (d6859b) — 6/28/2007 @ 8:57 am

11. Lately, that Legislative Branch thing can’t even pass _bad_ law.

    Comment by Al (b624ac) — 6/28/2007 @ 9:15 am

12. So now that it’s been found unconstitutional, can I get reparations for the years spent crammed in a diesel-exhaust filled bus?

    Feel like heading a class-action suit, Patterico

    Comment by TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 6/28/2007 @ 9:44 am

13. I believe your question relates to how SCROTUS
    will decide.

    But your answer relates to what the marketplace decides. How did you miss that when you wrote it?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/28/2007 @ 11:16 am

14. Semanticleo,
    I’m being kind and asuming you attended college.(“I don’t know about then rest of you,but I’m not letting seven years of college go right down the drain.”)What was your area of major study?

    Comment by corwin (dfaf29) — 6/28/2007 @ 2:15 pm

15. Let’s see if I can simplify this enough for
    Pablo;

    If the marketplace decides it’s a good idea, I expect them (SCROTUS) to find racial discrimination and/or segregation unconstitutional. Get it? If not, forget it.

    Corwin; Forgive me for being unkind, but your
    too late to the table to sup with the adults.
    Kindly go to bed hungry.

    Comment by Semanticleo (10a7bd) — 6/28/2007 @ 3:14 pm

16. If the marketplace decides it’s a good idea, I expect them (SCROTUS) to find racial discrimination and/or segregation unconstitutional. Get it? If not, forget it.

    Yes, you expect them to determine constitutionality based on what the marketplace decides. I get it, and it’s ridiculous. Color me unsurprised.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/28/2007 @ 4:16 pm

17. Pablo; I am resisting the temptation to insult you.

    I am giving you the benefit of the doubt regarding
    how well informed you are.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html

    Comment by Semanticleo (10a7bd) — 6/28/2007 @ 4:36 pm

18. Semanticleo made a fatal error by risibly asserting that SCOTUS makes laws. This bonehead statement automatically discredits everything and anything said by the offender until the next Congress begins. Like a recess moratorium on moronic commentary.

    Comment by martin (9dc9db) — 6/28/2007 @ 5:42 pm

19. Semanticleo insults us all by his sophomoric attempts at cleverness.

    The Supremes in fact have found segregation and discrimination unlawful without the benefit of a market analysis. I just don’t know how they could have decided this without a brief from Larry Kudlow.

    But seriously, I would hope that this is the final nail into the Affirmative Action/Diversity/Balance coffin. It would certainly seem that “busing” is a no-no, since it was always based on race.

    Comment by Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/28/2007 @ 7:20 pm

20. Semanticleo,

    Feel free to insult me but I don’t get your point at all, especially now that you’ve linked Kelo.

    It sounds like you think Supreme Court decisions result from conservative Justices’ desires to please or benefit business interests, hence the use of the term marketplace. If that is true, how does the 5-4 decision in Kelo prove your point? Liberal Justices authored and joined in Kelo, over the conservatives’ dissents, and Kelo benefited the biggest business of them all – local and state governments intent on accommodating business interests at the expense of homeowners. To prove your point, shouldn’t Kelo have been near unanimous or, at a minimum, authored by the conservatives on the Court?

    Comment by DRJ (31d948) — 6/28/2007 @ 7:50 pm

21. Does this decision mean that school districts cannot use race as the factor in assigning schools … or race as one of several factors? Because I’ve heard conflicting opinions.

    Comment by aunursa (3ee19d) — 6/28/2007 @ 8:55 pm

22. Aunursa: granted that I haven’t read the entirety of the opinion, having given up and gone back to work after only a bit of it, but I get the sense that the answer to your question is ‘yes’.

    Seattle used race as only one of several factors, but it did so in a mechanistic fashion: after factor [x] is considered and we are left with a group who are all equal considering factor [x], then we switch to factor [y]. after factor [y] is considered, then we switch to factor [z]. in that scheme, while multiple factors are considered, at any given point in the process only one factor is relevant.

    the court said that kind of scheme is impermissible.

    i know less about the other case’s structure, but it seems possible based on what i read that a holistic review which considered multiple things including race but *never ever ever* considered race in isolation, might be upheld.

    *might*.

    Comment by aphrael (9e8ccd) — 6/28/2007 @ 10:36 pm

23. Martin, another drew, drj;

    Many thanks for all the kind words and valuable instruction. One could never accuse you of
    being flexible in thinking or misunderestimating the role of the El Supremos in our legal system.

    I really didn’t
    expect the chorus in High C lamenting my ‘make law’ reference. Do any of you
    think the Supreme decisions
    have no role in ‘making law’ by way of precedent?

    I am not a lawyer, but I believe the term is
    ‘Stare Decisis’. Yes, Yes you are correct
    that Congress ‘Makes laws’ but what do you say
    about those laws made by Congress that are ruled
    unconstitutional by SCOTUS?

    You might apply the same reasoning you do in defense of the VEEP who says he is neither a part of the Executive OR Legislative Branches when you
    rigidly extemporize about the meaning of ‘make’
    versus the nuance of precedent. Or maybe you should refrain from commenting and return to vapid lurking as most of you are virtually unrecognizable, albeit invisible.

    Comment by Semanticleo (10a7bd) — 6/29/2007 @ 7:03 am

24. So much for origiinal intent, is all I an say.

    Comment by AF (4a3fa6) — 6/29/2007 @ 3:30 pm

25. Last night Nightline had an excellent piece on the real flesh and blood people affected by this Louisville, Ky. case. It was hosted by Jan Crawford Greenberg who knows a thing or two about the Supreme Court. Both a black activist mother and a white mother (whose name is on the case) were equally happy at the outcome of the case. The trauma to their respective children from extra hours of busing or driving such children halfway across town to a school only so that racial quotas could be met was well explained. The difficulty in socialization and making friends at a school miles away from their own neighborhoods and churches was well explained. The difficulty in the logistics for participation in events at schools miles away from their neighborhoods was explained. It was obvious that the actual education of these kids had become secondary to the “process”. Having testimony from real parents and children (instead of bloviating politicians and pundits pushing a position) was quite enlightening. Again, BOTH the black and white mothers were happy to see these artificial racial quotas end.

    Comment by elizabeth (0ed6a6) — 6/29/2007 @ 4:01 pm

26. So Joan Crawford Greenberg had a black woman on. And she’s representative of the black population, or the population of black parents?
    And of course to Greenberg’s past claims, touted on this site, of Roberts’ desire not to rock the boat, Nino Scalia responds: “Bullshit”

    Comment by AF (4a3fa6) — 6/29/2007 @ 4:23 pm

27. Semanticleo,

    What are you talking about? I didn’t say anything about “making law” or stare decisis. I just want to know what Kelo has to do with this.

    Comment by DRJ (31d948) — 6/29/2007 @ 4:59 pm

28. Time to dump AFFERMATIVE ACTION and eliminate racial prefernces and tell JESSIE JACKASSON to SCREW IT

    Comment by krazy kagu (5006b4) — 7/1/2007 @ 10:43 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.