Good post, Dean, especially the "under the age of 40" info. I'm preparing Part II of a Brown v. Board of Education article, where I discuss the case's aftermath. I'd like to use that stat in the piece, if you don't mind.

i never understand why people insist that a court decision like this is an overreach of the federal branch. maybe i just don't know the legal ins and outs well enough (very possible), but it seems that the supreme court's job is to rule on the constitutionality of certain laws, and certainly racial segregation is unconstitutional (or am i wrong on that, too?)? Then isn't it exactly the Federal Branch's job to rule on such a law when it's brought before them? If not, what is their job?

and i'm not posting these questions as hypotheticals, i'm genuinely interested in the "right" answers.

Actually, it's interesting. I was in a meeting with justice Clarence Thomas today, and he said that the Brown decision was "the right thing to do," even though the logic was "flawed." But he said the net result has been that not much has changed for underprivileged blacks.

And he speaks as someone who grew up under the Brown decision but still went to segregated schools in Georgia.

The chief problem with the Brown decision is that it led directly from forced segregation (very bad) to forced integration (slightly less bad). People are not naturally noble and many folks (of all ethnic backgrounds) prefer to be with others like themselves. Forcing people (via police power) to associate against their wishes makes people surly, and it doesn't work.

Yours,
Wince

"Whatever might be said of its Constitutional merits--some would suggest it was a bit of overreach by the Federal bench, although I don't think I would agree with them in this case as I might in others--there's no doubting it was a great step forward for our nation morally.
"
So in this instance the ends did justify the means? My mother always said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and although the end of segregation was a great and noble undertaking (To that I am sure we could all agree, right?) it in fact was the start of a long line of the governemnt trying to inflict morality upon the masses. This has hence been the justification for such things as the family leave act, people with disabilities act, anti-smoking laws barring property owners from smoking in their own businesses, etc... Now maybe I am using too broad a brush here but I would like to take this one step further. This was also the begining of the liberal victimazation of social classes whether they be drawn be racial differentiations or monetary ones or what have you. In a way this lead to affirmative action and other antidiscriminatory acts which in a way told those they were attempting to help they werent good enough to do it on their own. Like I stated above I am using very broad strokes here, but in my opinion the very thing these acts were supposed to fix they simply reinforced by showing that the only way to make it is to get a hand up from the overstretched hand of the federal government.

It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution, but the Constitution doesn't prohibit racial discrimination. It prohibits the denial of rights or the equal protection of the law based on race.

In order to make the Brown decision they had to go pretty far because the "separate but equal" did not amount to equal protection--despite the fact to this very day similar forms of reasoning are accepted. Basically it came down to deciding that blacks were damaged psychologically by segregation, which is a very narrow line of reasoning.

As I say, I don't think they were wrong. But they had to work pretty hard to get there from the Constitution.

Now of course citizens are routinely denied equal protection of the law as regards to Affirmative Action, since hugely disadvantaged kids from the wrong racial groups are discriminated against while the children of wealthy, privileged blacks and hispanics get special treatment. Just to keep that charade up the Supreme Court has basically had to rule that the negative effects of past discrimination are so great that a greater lack of "equal protection" is afforded by continuing these racial discrimination policies than not.

In the end it just proves that ultimately the Supreme Court is a political institution, just less so than the legislative and executive.

I support the Supreme Court decision of 1954, Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education, striking down segregation laws -- just as I support the 1965 Supreme Court decision, Griswold vs. Connecticut, striking down laws prohibiting use of contraceptives by married couples -- just as I support the 1967 Supreme Court decision, Loving vs. Virginia, striking down laws prohibiting marriage between a white woman or man and a Negro woman or man -- just as I support the 1969 Supreme Court decision, stanley vs. Georgia, striking down laws dictating what books or films a man or woman may view in the privacy of his or her own home -- just as I support the 2003 Supreme Court decision, Lawrence vs. Texas, striking down laws prohibiting homosexual or other "deviant" relations between consenting adult men or women in the privacy of their own homes.

It is the job of the courts, especially the Supreme Court, to strike down laws which un-Constitutionally infringe on the rights of the individual -- no matter how popular that law may be or how unpopular or hated that individual may be.

By "rights" I mean what government may NOT do TO you, _not_ anything government should do FOR you. Essentially, the only right is the right to be left alone.