This court is scaring the shit out of me. I don't see anything good coming our way for a hell of a long time.

anyone with any real brains knew that Chief Justice Roberts and Alito would show their true intentions and here we are while the rightwingnut neocons pull their chains and take away our hard fought for equality. don't put it past these bastards to empower shit-for-brains and darthfartwad to take over and eliminate the 2008 elections.

Justice Thomas wants to return to the good ole days when I could have bought his ass for $500.

"another reason why the vote on the Alito nomination was a travesty"

Which was the bigger travesty, the Alito vote? or the fact that blog owners like AmericaBlog and DailyKos justified the lack of a filibuster by claiming it was "bad politics" (see http://www.americablog.com/2006/01/why-i-oppose-filibuster.html).

We are living with the results. The Democrats continue to cave to Bush, our rights are being eaten away, and all Markos can write about is the fundraising advantage of the Democrats, while J.A. writes about Ann Coulter's cleavage.

It's just a matter of time until one of Alito's boyfriends steps forward and nails his right wing ass to the wall, that prissy ass has got to have a following.

The founders were slave-owners. Just sayin'.

Also, HKH is right on the money.

Let me add, my comment was in reference to Liberal and Proud's "the founders are crying."

The "founding fathers" ought not be sacred cows.

You know for someone of the stature of roberts to compare this to Jim Crow just sends this country tumbling back to the 50's and 60's! If this dont wake people up and get them to see to vote democrat, nothing will. Im not saying the liberals are perfect but they work harder for minoity issues than conservatives do.

[Deleted]

And the clock is being turned back yet again. I don't see why anyone didn't see this. Roberts and Alito refused to answer any questions so voting for them made absolutely no sense. I guess it's back to separate but equal.

baby jesus wonders how this court will screw up the next election

I guess it’s back to separate but equal.

Exactly. Let's undo the '60s. That was always the plan. Has been the plan for 40 years.

The joining of the right wing nuts and Boll Weevil Democrats. 1980 my friends. A turning point for this country.

And .. Just exactly which cases out of thousands DO THEY decide to hear?
Who is on that special approval case committee now?

We all tried to warn everyone not to confirm Roberts (election 2000 ties) and Alito (mr. corporate)
We tried.
We all tried.

Certainly any Administration that is under federal investigation
--> SHOULD not be able to appoint Supreme Court Justices.

I wrote this on the fly a week after the Election of 2000.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2qnnifiIDQ

December 9 2000. We will never forget. 5-4.
The People could not stop ..the illegal Bush Cheney corporate coup d'é·tat.

As the fascist, bigoted, xynophobic extremists feel more and more empowered, you are going to begin to see politicians in the Center of this country run for office, that will make George Wallace and Barry Goldwater look like choirboys.

And you forgot to mention that the SCOTUS also decided that price fixing is a good plan as well.

We the people corporations.

--WKW

There is no America anymore.

Last one to leave the country, please turn out the light. Oh...the light is already out.

Martial law is around the corner. The Supreme Court is all set up. General Betrayus is in place.

I'm actually very supportive of this ruling. Having race play any role in a schools admission process is wrong. And what a lot of these kind of programs do is reverse discriminate against white people.

I hate this supreme court's conservative majority, but this is one ruling I applaud them for.

Now a lot of the others rulings you mentioned do scare me though.

And again, I want to avoid a flame war, but...

Right now I am reading a lot of responses that reek of the same hyperbolic emotional reasoning that we tend to tease the Republicans for using.

I will leave this alone now.

Anyone who tihinks the playing field is LEVEL is dreaming. This ruling LOOKS balanced, but the fact is, this is REVISIONISM. This whole...everyone is equal argument is the SAME argument that was used in the South to deny rights to blacks. It created separate drinking fountains, etc.

Be black for a day, or a woman, or any other minority.

Ladies and gentlemen....blame the gang of 14 all you want....but Al Gore and John Kerry should have run better campaigns and we would not be talking about alito or roberts! This is why elections matter!!!

Hello everybody....
This is what the last two elections have been about.... Who was paying attention when it mattered? So annoying now....

Shawn @ 20:

Is it wrong that I am a very liberal man who would rather see students admitted based on their credentials and not their skin colour? Am I naive?

Isn't institutionalised racism (i.e., maintaining a 'quota of minorities') a little ironic?

No, I'm a leftist, but I too do not support race playing a role in anything. What a quota system does is turn away qualified white people just so they can fill up a certain number of blacks. Of course though the left has such a long history of fighting for civil rights that they do take issues like this very seriously. I know the people who are mad against this ruling are good people and I respect their passion and know they are just trying to fight racism in this country, but they are mistaken to be against this very wonderful and welcomed ruling.

The problem as I see it is that white parents sued because their kids were being sent to schools closer to "black" neighborhoods. Those neighborhoods are traditionally poorer. Because most public school are funded by school taxes on parents living near the school, effectively creating private schools, the ones near the black neighborhoods often receive much less funding. Funding makes all the difference. Its the reason the NY Yankees are consistently good. Its the reason my high school excelled but the school in the next town that was largely black barely had enough teachers, let alone highly qualified ones.

We can end this by simply abolishing the private schools created by the current funding systems in most areas. We should instead average the money out across a much larger area. For example, there are five school districts within the county I live. Some are poor areas and the schools suck. Others are wealthy areas and the schools are good. The poor people can't move into the rich areas because they can't afford it and rich people continue to move only into rich neighborhoods. Instead, collect the taxes for the entire county and then distribute the funds equally based on enrollment numbers. Even better, do it by state.

Think about it. This is the root cause for this problem and we can resolve it.

Annoyed Canuck @ 40:

2) Sherman Anti-trust Act (1911)

In the case of 2), it is now legal for manufacturers to make exclusive agreements with retailers setting minimum retail prices for their products. This ends the blanket ban on retail price-fixing that has been in effect since 1911.

Ah yes, the race ruling was not nearly as important as the price fixing ruling. I just read about it and it is so scary to see just what a gift the corporate elite got today from the Supreme Court. I just wish we lived in the days of FDR when the people came before the corporations.

Well, aside from the "open your eyes" comment reuben, I think you make a valid point. In fact, I just had a heated debate with my ladyfriend about this - who took to reminding me how different things are in the States. (Which isn't to say that we don't have our own brand of racism here - hoo boy.)

I am not against ending racism, obviously, but feel as though liberals who agree that this isn't the appropriate solution are immediately thrown on the defensive by other liberals who attack character by implying xenophobia et al. in those who support this ruling. (Read some of the replies here to get the gist of my meaning.)

I don't think the U.S. is going to enter into a dystopian warzone where 'darkies' are rounded up and shot because of what happened today, for one. Secondly, I don't think that these such instances of affirmative action reduce racism and they certainly do not alter the social conditions which tend to segregate races based on wealth. It makes things appear more harmonious on the surface when in reality there is no choice on the parts of educators or students. Heck, where I went to school students tended to form social circles based on their race and these circles would mock and spread rumours about the other social circles. But that is simply my own experience, and again, it's not representative of life anywhere in the United States.

I still welcome information that'll illustrate to me that I am backing the wrong horse, mind you. That's sort of why I made my post in the first place; my mind was thoroughly boggled.

This entire country disgusts me.

Oh...look...Paris Hilton is on...doesn't she look good...she's reborn. Good for HER!!

And as an Italian...I have a few choice words for Justices Scalia and Alito.

Liberal AND Proud @ 55:

And as an Italian...I have a few choice words for Justices Scalia and Alito.

No doubt you have some very expressive gestures for them as well...

:lol:

intron @ 47:

The problem as I see it is that white parents sued because their kids were being sent to schools closer to "black" neighborhoods. Those neighborhoods are traditionally poorer. Because most public school are funded by school taxes on parents living near the school, effectively creating private schools, the ones near the black neighborhoods often receive much less funding. Funding makes all the difference. Its the reason the NY Yankees are consistently good. Its the reason my high school excelled but the school in the next town that was largely black barely had enough teachers, let alone highly qualified ones.

I used to live in Buffalo (let's just say to commit suicide in Buffalo is redundant) and there was an equal amount of funds going to the white areas and the black areas in regards to schooling. And white teachers were still afraid to teach at the black schools because of crime, bullying and all kinds of scary shit. The black majority schools were literally scary to even be around. We know the injustice done to blacks, but I cannot stand seeing the government force white kids into black neighborhoods to get beat up, raped and bullied. White people have rights too. And that is exactly what was going on - the government was forcing them to go to these black schools. On the other hand you have blacks coming into the south buffalo areas where their was deep seated racism from the community about having blacks "shipped in."

Now Buffalo is a very racist city and that of course plays a role with both the blacks and the whites - but in my view the busing and quote policies have been a complete failure. They create more problems then they solve.

If you want to get into socioeconomic integration that is another matter.....

So, what's the process for removing these jokers from the court? They've demonstrably violated the constitution. Time to start firing bozos.

bhudda:

I respectfully disagree and i think anyone can see this is a setback decision. I think the big cover that conservatives use is that it's discrimination against whites. I find that to be laughable when white christain males run this country as o'reilly puts it runs america and has been running it since it's onset. Its bogus reasoning in my opinion...whites have never been oppressed like minorities have.

I guess we know how the Supreme Court is gonna rule on "executive privilege" this time around.

How many Bush Sr. buddies sit on this court anyway?

Soooo..because the supreme court ruled that students COULD NOT be discriminated against because of race in particular, that's a step backwards? I might remind everyone that 'Diversity' means everyone. Get your heads on straight, knotheads! This is upholding the civil rights act, that should make you backward liberals VERY happy.

If someone can answer this question for me to my satisfaction, I'll take it back:
Why should a less-qualified black student have a better shot at a college than any other more qualified student, merely because of his skin color?

shawn:

Think about this the biggest setbacks in history as far as social justice start with a little covert backing and then before you know it it evolves into a big issue. This ruling needs to be nipped in the bud because a lot of people wont see it because there has been a conditioning of the culture to think that racism is a small thing and it doesn't exist anymore, but covertly racism exist just as much as it did overtly in the sixties and thats a very scary thought!

Yes, we will see alllll the diversity in the growth of white only schools again..where students get in based on the MERITS! Just like G W BUSH.

And white only country clubs, and gyms, and ....

Wake up, Avatar.

reuben @ 63:

I think the big cover that conservatives use is that it's discrimination against whites. I find that to be laughable when white christain males run this country as o'reilly puts it runs america and has been running it since it's onset.

Oppression is oppression is oppression.
Your response doesn't do much to prove that this isn't discrimination against white kids, but rather, that sure it might be discrimination on a micro level but that's okay because whites run the country on a macro level. These students aren't the ones who engineered the social problems they happened to be born into.

[Sitemonitor: Your "concern" is duly noted]

Shawn @ 20:

Is it wrong that I am a very liberal man who would rather see students admitted based on their credentials and not their skin colour? Am I naive?

Isn't institutionalised racism (i.e., maintaining a 'quota of minorities') a little ironic?

Shawn,

You have to understand how unevenly and unequally schools are funded in the US. This problem has a long history, and it has always been closely tied to race.

Before Brown vs. Board of Education (1954), schools could be segregated racially, but they had to be 'seperate but equal'. In other words, the fiction was maintained that schools in poor black areas were of the same standard as schools in richer, whiter districts. This was one of the cornerstones of Jim Crow segregation that kept black people poor and powerless. Black students had much less funding, inferior facilities, and lower grades

This problem persists, in spite of the Brown ruling. It is why school boards across the US practice various forms of affirmative action. For the most part, these practices do not prevent anyone from getting their choice of school. The burden on white kids is negligible, if it exists at all.

'Separate but Equal' was the requirement of Plessey vs. Ferguson, the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation. It was a fraud. Brown vs. Board of Education reversed that decision and ended legal segregation in all areas of American life. If you don't understand the significance of this, and the benefit it had thoughout American society, do some reading.

Dismissing anti-segregation laws as mere 'institutionalized racism' is ignorant.

Let history play it out.

This is, if we don't find ourselves shipped off to war first. Oh...and that diversity you talked about...yeah...EVERYONE will go...except the children who's parents got them into those "diverse" schools your talking about.

Anyone applauding this ruling should go back and read through all the SC opinions.
This decision absolutely reeks of rigid right wing ideology.

May Ralph Nader burn in Hell for his egotistim...and all his followers that said voting for Bush was the same as voting for Gore...

Yeah, and turning the Supreme court back about 100 years is not going to make any difference either?

I hope you Naderites enjoy the complete destruction of American Freedoms, and the creation of the New Corporate State you created for us all!

or the 80s or the 00s.

The middle class will now learn what "equal but not really equal" means.

reuben @ 69:

This ruling needs to be nipped in the bud because a lot of people wont see it because there has been a conditioning of the culture to think that racism is a small thing and it doesn't exist anymore, but covertly racism exist just as much as it did overtly in the sixties and thats a very scary thought!

While I am obviously not sure that I agree with you regarding the court's decision, I do believe that racism is a fundamentally huge problem and that more open acknowledgement of its current existence should be made. Take New Orleans, for example. As a glaring, obvious example. I, for one, never pretend that racism isn't unfortunately prevelent.

I say we have enough creativity to get together and do what is best for the children in spite of the court. Surely all of us can come up with something to make sure this does not exclude children.

Our own Pres. has made the choice over and over to ignore the constitution...we can too but just be smarter about it create a quiet loophole.

I have no respect for this court...lost it a very long time ago.

shawn:

I still think your sought of blind on this decision though but im a person who can agree to disagree. I think this is only the first step in worse things to come and shawn believe me i hope im wrong!

brakes = breaks. My school wasn't that bad... just my typing :)

Liberal AND Proud @ 83:

The middle class will now learn what "equal but not really equal" means.

In a few more years, the "middle class" will be down to a handfull of people.

Sorry...WRITE the ruling...not right.

Avatar @ 67:

Soooo..because the supreme court ruled that students COULD NOT be discriminated against because of race in particular, that's a step backwards? I might remind everyone that 'Diversity' means everyone. Get your heads on straight, knotheads! This is upholding the civil rights act, that should make you backward liberals VERY happy.

If someone can answer this question for me to my satisfaction, I'll take it back:
Why should a less-qualified black student have a better shot at a college than any other more qualified student, merely because of his skin color?

...He shouldn't. But, that shows the blatant NIAVITY of your position. First and foremost, define "less-qualified". Qualifications WILL ALWAYS BE LIKE BEAUTY....In the eye of the beholder. Right now, a majority of the beholders are like YOU...white. That's an instant subconscience disqualification for a black kid. It's not that your prejudice, it's just the way WE have been programmed. It takes a little extra push A LOT of the time to get people to go outside of their comfort zone.

Also, it's easy to point fingers and rail against legal discrimination, albeit for the good of society in my opinion, BUT, it's the hidden discrimination that exist that's hard to prove. A LOT of conservatives, who really do want the clock turned back, KNOW this. This is why the push for stupid things like this. Knowing good and damn well, that them and their ilk, will be able to discriminate at will. IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE DISCRIMINATION!!!!

As an example, my best friends father (my co-father) includes me in a friends e-mail list. He usually forwards everything (jokes, dirty pictures...almost lost my nuts on that one..wife was pissed). Anyway, the funny thing is, how a lot of whites act, with regards to blacks, when they are amongnsts themselves. I read a lot of racial jokes and these are from guys in hiring positions at a large oil company.

So, yes, this CAN turn back the clock!!!

According to Roberts and Alito, it's your own damn fault if your black or poor.

The rich deserve their privilege according to these and their ilk, if you CHOSE to be born poor, plan to stay that way.

Welcome to the new age of the American Gentry, it hasn't been this good for the rich and powerful since the middle of 19th century!

The fact that Roberts compared what was happening in Louisville now to Jim Crow shows the true colors of this man. Sadly, despite his truely genuine, albeit naieve, agenda, Thomas his siding with a man who would rather have him shining his shows that operating as his pier. Just maybe, the Jim Crow comparison touched a nerve with Mr. Thomas. I can only hope. Surely, he remembers the past. HE LIVE IT!

For conservatives who don't understand, I'll make a simply analogy. It's like comparing 9/11 to the OKC bombing. No comparison..right?
However, in Roberts mind, Jim Crow and AA now are the same (9/11 = OKC bombing).
That's dangerous.

Speaking of which, I especially want to thank Annoyed Canuck, Soonerman, and Old Billy for their posts. I am done arguing is all, which is why I won't respond. This is because I feel that everyone has expressed their point of view succinctly and semantics will only cloud things. I want to ingest this all now and mull it over tonight.

That, and I have a take-home exam to finish. Oops.

Toobin said in the video that race can no longer be factored in in making school bodies diverse. So, eventually, a kid will just attend the school in his neighborhood, white or black, and we will return to segregation, return to the Stone Age.

Excuse me, boss. The new maps are in...the one's with the red lines on them.

Old Billy @ 102:

WashStateBlue @ 81:

Whatever. Al Gore lost that election all by him self.

Actually, he won the election.

I still tear up with laughter whenever I see the "X-Presidents" clip wherein the X-Presidents are called upon to stop a monster that surfaced off the coast of Florida. It was made up of uncounted ballots. Also, it fired chads at people.

"What is it doing?" "He's trying to count himself!" "We have to stop him!"

Or was it a black quote.

The "Bong tokes for Jesus" case pissed me off too. So, is there now an age requirement for having freedom of speech?

"Whatever. Al Gore lost that election all by him self. I worked for the Green Party and we were reaching out to the 50% of the population that doesn’t vote. We registered more people than ended up voting for Nader. If anything, we made the election closer."

While I will agree, the Gore campaign did a lot of damage, your party was running around telling people voting for Gore was the same as voting for Bush?

So, how'd that work out for you folks?

Don't give me the spin, I argued LOUD and long with Naderites who told me Bush=Gore, and I told them again and again to look at the USSC justices...

I'm a court follower, been going and sitting in on cases for almst a decade, and this court is absolutely terrifying.....

Maybe you greenies didnt lose it singlehandedly, but today is a day I'm PISSED, but telling me you made it closer? Come on, that's completely revisionist. The numbers in Florida directly contradict you.

I saw this coming the day Bush took office.

Roe v Wade is next, while they won't directly overturn it, just as they didn't overturn Brown vs Board today, they will gut it like a fish in the next two terms...

These close split court decisions, split along conservative/liberal lines gives one pause.
In so many cases, the Supremes' decisions imply the law means what ever you want it to mean, depending on your ideology.

It doesn't invite citizens to put much faith in the court as an impartial, even handed body, does it?

Bobb999 @ 117:

These close split court decisions, split along conservative/liberal lines gives one pause.
In so many cases, the Supremes' decisions imply the law means what ever you want it to mean, depending on your ideology.

It doesn't invite citizens to put much faith in the court as an impartial, even handed body, does it?

Just wait until the issue of the white house claiming executive privilege regarding the congressional subpoenas gets in front of Roberts's court.

Old Billy @ 98:

I'm going to jump in here, as another Canadian watching the interesting goings-on down south.

I am a 41 year old white male. I have experienced government-based racism. When I was 19 I was trying to start a small company. I went to the government to see if I can get some start-up capital. There was nothing. If I was a female, or old, or some minority, or better yet a combination of the above, there was plenty of money. Lots of money in programs for women who want to start a business, or natives, or old people. But screw you young white guy! Even though we have all this money set aside, that these other groups aren't taking advantage of, we're not giving any to you! Ha ha ha!

Man, that pissed me off. I hate it when people talk about "reverse racisim". There is no such thing. Racism is racism. Though in this case, it also was sexism and ageism.

Anyway, on to the response. I'm afraid I'm having a little trouble following your logic.

But all that aside, I'll explain why this reasoning is disingenuous and this ruling was wrongly decided.

First, the majority ruled that individual students who did not get their first choice of schools were harmed because of their race.

Ok so far.

The court (not the school system) therefore has decided that segregated schools are more valuable to some students than diverse schools.

What? I don't see how this follows. If school applications were to have race & gender removed, then your qualifications would be based on your school record. And since we're talking about high-school, and you don't need to "qualify", then the only other thing the people accepting submissions should look for is distance to school. Not even necessarily their home address, so you can't claim that they're discriminating based on a neighbourhood.

But how does not paying attention to gender create a "segregated school"? Isn't that just the opposite?

Clearly the majority is saying that white students would benefit from all-white (or lower than 15% minority) schools.

Again, I don't see how this follows. If the names, races & genders were all redacted out, then you would truly be getting an unbiased decision. There do seem to be some names that are preferred by black parents, which could give away the race of their kids, but again, if you redacted out the name, that wouldn't give anything away.

Note, this isn't a decision about allowing qualified students into schools - all of the students are allowed into high school - this is just a decision about how the school system determines where to send students. So, by claiming "equal protection" the majority is actually establishing special protection for students who want segregated schools. This is what I mean by disingenuous.

Again - I don't follow your logic. Just blank out the names and races, and make a decision based on distance-to-school. How could that be harmful?

Personally, I can't stand the idea of someone being ruled acceptable or unacceptable based on the colour of their skin. If I didn't hire a black person because he was black, I would be in violation of labour laws. But if I didn't hire a white person because I had too many already and needed some minorities, isn't that just as discriminatory? The white person may be ideal for the job, but I *can't* hire him, because of a completely irrelevant reason- the colour of his skin!

This Court session has definitely swung to the right, but I think the clip overstates the damage this decision has caused. Brown was not overruled. In fact, Roberts was unable to get a majority for his proposition that schools must never take race into the account. His portion of the opinion which so states was only endorsed by four votes.

Justice Kennedy concurred in the result but would not endorse the "colorblind" theory of Roberts/Scalia/Thomas/Scalito. The result is that schools may still take race into account - we're just not really sure how. That is not so different from the state of the law before this case.

This is Bush's endgame, to tilt the court right. O'Connor, I hate you.

intron @ 47:

The problem as I see it is that white parents sued because their kids were being sent to schools closer to "black" neighborhoods. Those neighborhoods are traditionally poorer. Because most public school are funded by school taxes on parents living near the school, effectively creating private schools, the ones near the black neighborhoods often receive much less funding. Funding makes all the difference. Its the reason the NY Yankees are consistently good. Its the reason my high school excelled but the school in the next town that was largely black barely had enough teachers, let alone highly qualified ones.

We can end this by simply abolishing the private schools created by the current funding systems in most areas. We should instead average the money out across a much larger area. For example, there are five school districts within the county I live. Some are poor areas and the schools suck. Others are wealthy areas and the schools are good. The poor people can't move into the rich areas because they can't afford it and rich people continue to move only into rich neighborhoods. Instead, collect the taxes for the entire county and then distribute the funds equally based on enrollment numbers. Even better, do it by state.

Think about it. This is the root cause for this problem and we can resolve it.

I agree with this statement completely. It would solve many of the problems with public schooling.
I remember going to a middle school outside Philidelphia in a very rich district and marveling at the resources this school had, in every department! Books, great teachers, art supplies, dance studio, music studio, expensive equipment everywhere! And then thinking of the average school....an enriched environment versus poverty.

Give all kids this richer environment and opportunity, then see what happens. Am guessing society would improve.

[Deleted. Take your crap over to StormFront. Your racism is not welcome here]

"They’ve got to get the White House (and Senate) first."

Which is why, THIS is the most important election in my lifetime and my kids probably as well.

I see Hillary running against Rudy or Thompson, and I cringe....

Even if we pick up Senate seats, those two (either of whom will beat Hillary) will just keep sending righties down the pike till and the democrats can block..

But, then the WONDERFUL Liberal (my ass) MSM will chime in about gridlock, and the Democrats in the Senate will capitulate as they always do....

Crazy Canuck @ 121:

Old Billy @ 98:

I'm going to jump in here, as another Canadian watching the interesting goings-on down south.

...snipped...

Personally, I can't stand the idea of someone being ruled acceptable or unacceptable based on the colour of their skin. If I didn't hire a black person because he was black, I would be in violation of labour laws. But if I didn't hire a white person because I had too many already and needed some minorities, isn't that just as discriminatory? The white person may be ideal for the job, but I *can't* hire him, because of a completely irrelevant reason- the colour of his skin!

Thanks for the response, I must agree that my arguements are hard to follow. I was trying to keep things short, but was dropping out some of my reasoning. You are absolutely correct in noting that the students could be assigned to schools without race, gender, or even name entering into the decision, but the school system is trying to create diverse schools because they think it is an advantage (and I agree). The problem is that the neighborhoods are segregated and the socio-economic status follows racial divides. Therefore, there exists de facto segregation and generational perpetuation of racial inequality. The school system (especially in Louisville which was trying to have at least 15% racial minorities) was establishing racially diverse schools as the ideal in order to provide equal opportunity and better overall education by ensuring a racially diverse environment. The only "harm" that the majority was addressing was the potential (but not factually supported) greater transportation distance of very few students, and the inability of economically well-off neighborhoods to retain and consolidate their advantage.

In the example you gave above regarding getting a government loan for your small business, I commend you for starting a small business. That being said, why do you think you should be entitled to government loans that are established to help historically disadvantaged minorities? If all conditions were equal (a level playing field), of course, any small business stimulus program should give loans to good start-ups. But all things aren't equal - that's why those loans are available to minority-owned small businesses.

I would also love to live in a world in which people were judged by relevant qualities instead of prejudices, but we aren't there yet. I don't think your example of hiring people is accurate, because that is not what is being asked of anyone. For example, the Detroit Lions were penalized by the NFL because of their hiring practices - not because they hired a white guy, but because they didn't interview any minority candidates in good faith. Is it too much to ask that an employer attempts to interview minority candidates to see if they're qualified?

"big business 1000000000000000000000, you 0"

As I said, this court reminds me of the early Oliver Wendell Holmes era, when he was the dissenting voice against a pack of evil corporate thugs...

Who overturned any labor and child labor law, using the "liberty clause" as the excuse?

The argument? Any restriction on Business was usurping YOUR right to basically sell YOU or your CHILDREN into Slavery?

If you wanted to work for a penny, but the state of NY said that was inhumane, and you needed a living wage, then it was depriving you of your liberty?

That is the tortured logic, and I hear that echo in Roberts decision in this.

WashStateBlue @ 131:

"They’ve got to get the White House (and Senate) first."

Which is why, THIS is the most important election in my lifetime and my kids probably as well.

I see Hillary running against Rudy or Thompson, and I cringe....

Even if we pick up Senate seats, those two (either of whom will beat Hillary) will just keep sending righties down the pike till and the democrats can block..

But, then the WONDERFUL Liberal (my ass) MSM will chime in about gridlock, and the Democrats in the Senate will capitulate as they always do....

No worries. Even Hillary will beat Guiliani or Thompson. Guiliani is as charismatic as a shorter John Kerry, and Thompson is bound to have some skeletons come out of the closet. Neither can give a compelling convention speech or do well in a debate. 2008 will be a referendum on the neo-con agenda, and we already know what the vast majority of Americans think of the neo-cons.

fiver @ 134:

WashStateBlue @ 131,

Agreed on the republican side. But I don't know if we're any better off with Hillary. To balance this court (or even stave off disaster), we need an actual progressive. I don't think that someone taking such huge money from Newscorp and Big Pharma qualifies.

Be careful, fiver, that's awful close to saying that Clinton and Guiliani/Thompson are the same (Bush=Gore)! We can't speak the truth when we are trying to save the Supreme Court, right WashStateBlue?

Seriously, though, I don't mean to needle you too much, Blue. I think the truly progressive thing to do would be to bring more people into the elections. If we can bring in more voters who are middle and lower class and show them how progressive policies provide better for all of us, we can turn a lot of elections.

Ginsberg and Thomas better watch out, Scotus is liable to apply the same philosophy to Scotus, as soon as it figures out how to bring a case before itself.

"Be careful, fiver, that’s awful close to saying that Clinton and Guiliani/Thompson are the same (Bush=Gore)! We can’t speak the truth when we are trying to save the Supreme Court, right WashStateBlue?"

and, I don't mean to pick a fight we you either old Billy, but maybe I'm as old as you...(walked with my mom for Jack Kennedy, if that dates me enough) and I have grown VERY pragmatic in my old age.

We thought we had room, that Bush was just pretending to be conservative, remember, the MSM told us how well he worked in Texas with the democrats..

And Gore was just a LITTLE different then Bush, so nothing was going to change really...

I think THAT little lie has been revealed.

So, I hear them selling Rudy as "he's really a liberal on social issues..." and I say "Bullshit" to that.

We need Obama or Edwards, cause Gore isn't running this time, and as much as I would like to see Feingold, or some true progressive get elected, it's going to be Obama or Clinton from our our side, and I know who I prefer there.

Racism is now restored and the NEOCON, CHRISTIAN RIGHT

During the summer, between 5th and 6th grade, my school boundaries were redrawn. I went from a school with 1 minority(a native american), to a school where minorities were the majority. It was the best thing that happened to me.

I had to walk eight blocks further to school, but it was worth it. I made friends of other races and opened my mind.

Four corrupt white racists and one corrupt, self-loathing black. Hardly a group to make Americans proud of their Supreme Court. Instead we shall be prey to their unspeakably rancid, irrational mythologies for the next thirty years.