Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

[Meadmaker]

Far as I can tell Justice Thomas is saying that courts ruling racial segregation to be unconstitutional... is unconstitutional.

He is saying the exact opposite.

Don't know how you get that.

“the fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional.”

[President Bush]

He is saying the exact opposite.

Don't know how you get that.

“the fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional.”

Read what follows that line (from Brown v. Board of Education) in Justice Thomas' opinion...

“the fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional.” Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 298 (1955) (Brown II). In doing so, the Court took a boundless view of equitable remedies, describing equity as being “characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private needs.” Id., at 300 (footnote omitted). That understanding may have justified temporary measures to “overcome the widespread resistance to the dictates of the Constitution” prevalent at that time, but, as a general matter, “[s]uch extravagant uses of judicial power are at odds with the history and tradition of the equity power and the Framers’ design.” Jenkins, 515 U. S., at 125–126 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Federal courts have the power to grant only the equitable relief “traditionally accorded by courts of equity,” not the flexible power to invent whatever new remedies may seem useful at the time. Grupo Mexicano, 527 U. S., at 319.

Looks to me he is quite clearly saying that these things are not the court's job, they are the legislature's job.

[F]ederal courts lack 'the power to create remedies previously unknown to equity jurisprudence.‘ And, there is no 'indication that the Framers had ever heard of courts‘ playing any role in resolving electoral districting problems. The power to redraw a States' electoral districts therefore exceeds 'the jurisdiction in equity exercised by the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the enactment of the original Judiciary Act.'

[Meadmaker]

Don't know how you get that.

“the fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional.”

Read what follows that line (from Brown v. Board of Education) in Justice Thomas' opinion...

...

Looks to me he is quite clearly saying that these things are not the court's job, they are the legislature's job.

Yes. That's exactly what he is doing. Brown declared that laws which mandataed segregated schools were illegal.

In the years that followed, it was observed that black people and white people usually lived in different places, so neighborhood schools were still segregated. Moreover, schools are often funded by property taxes, which led to schools with white students being better funded than schools with black students. Well, some judges didn't like that one bit, and decided they could do something about it, by demanding active remedies, such as busing, or, in the case that led to the Jenkins lawsuit, raising taxes.

Justice Thomas et al said those active measures were beyond the courts' reach. A judge can't order a tax increase.




However, the portion that you highlighted in red isn't from Brown v. Board of Education. The contents of that portion referred to subsequent filings, cited therein.

[Admin]

Classic misleading clickbait headline today in NZ's Stuff, as it trumpets its winning awards for media.

King Charles and Prince William abruptly cancel royal outings

Given the recent cancer diagnoses of Chuck and Kate, I'd bet 90% of people seeing that headline went "OMG, something bad happened!", while I was fully aware of the why, and sure enough the article merely confirms the obvious. Royals always cancel public engagements during election campaigns.

Nothing to see, move on.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/3502 ... al-outings

[Meadmaker]

Classic misleading clickbait headline today in NZ's Stuff, as it trumpets its winning awards for media.

King Charles and Prince William abruptly cancel royal outings

Given the recent cancer diagnoses of Chuck and Kate, I'd bet 90% of people seeing that headline went "OMG, something bad happened!", while I was fully aware of the why, and sure enough the article merely confirms the obvious. Royals always cancel public engagements during election campaigns.

Nothing to see, move on.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/3502 ... al-outings

Almost every royal story is pure clickbait. I click on them sometimes. I have a soft spot for medievalism and pompous antiquated ceremonies.

I get used to seeing "(Insert royal here) heartbroken as (insert other royal) (insert does something that sounds like it must have been bad)", and it turns out that somebody wore the wrong dress or pin, or stood in the wrong spot.

And yes, it's all sudden and unexpected and abrupt and.....click to find out why Louis is doing whatever it is that Louis does.

[President Bush]

“the fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional.”

Read what follows that line (from Brown v. Board of Education) in Justice Thomas' opinion...

“the fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional.” Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 298 (1955) (Brown II). In doing so, the Court took a boundless view of equitable remedies, describing equity as being “characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private needs.” Id., at 300 (footnote omitted). That understanding may have justified temporary measures to “overcome the widespread resistance to the dictates of the Constitution” prevalent at that time, but, as a general matter, “[s]uch extravagant uses of judicial power are at odds with the history and tradition of the equity power and the Framers’ design.” Jenkins, 515 U. S., at 125–126 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Federal courts have the power to grant only the equitable relief “traditionally accorded by courts of equity,” not the flexible power to invent whatever new remedies may seem useful at the time. Grupo Mexicano, 527 U. S., at 319.

However, the portion that you highlighted in red isn't from Brown v. Board of Education. The contents of that portion referred to subsequent filings, cited therein.

Yes, Meadmaker, the part I highlighted in red is from Justice Thomas' concurring opinion in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

What does the part I highlighted in red from Justice Thomas' concurring opinion say?

“the fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional.” Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 298 (1955) (Brown II). In doing so, the Court took a boundless view of equitable remedies, describing equity as being “characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private needs.” Id., at 300 (footnote omitted). That understanding may have justified temporary measures to “overcome the widespread resistance to the dictates of the Constitution” prevalent at that time, but, as a general matter, “[s]uch extravagant uses of judicial power are at odds with the history and tradition of the equity power and the Framers’ design.” Jenkins, 515 U. S., at 125–126 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Federal courts have the power to grant only the equitable relief “traditionally accorded by courts of equity,” not the flexible power to invent whatever new remedies may seem useful at the time. Grupo Mexicano, 527 U. S., at 319.

Just to confirm that you understand now: that is Justice Thomas opining in the case we are discussing, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

Earlier, perhaps dramatically, I characterized this:

Far as I can tell Justice Thomas is saying that courts ruling racial segregation to be unconstitutional... is unconstitutional.

What do you think what Justice Thomas said means?

[Meadmaker]

What do you think what Justice Thomas said means?

It means:

1. Racial discrimination is unconstitutional.
2. As a practical matter, as an immediate goal in 1955, it may not be practical to demand immediate racial desegregation.
3. Because there will be a "reluctance" to actually achieve racial desegregation, courts are empowered to impose demands on local governments.
4. However, there are limits to what demands can be imposed. They must be within the bounds of equitable relief traditionally accorded by courts of equity.

Since Chief Justice Warren limited the remedies to those that are within the bounds of equitable relief traditionally accorded by courts of equity, there's no criticism of Brown, either the original case, or the 1955 elaboration. Immediately after the "public and private needs" sentence quoted by Thomas, Chief Justice Warren's opinion said, "These cases call for the exercise of these traditional attributes of equity power."

In subsequent years, though, courts went well beyond the traditional attributes of equity power. As a specific example, in Jenkins, a federal court demanded a tax increase to fund more equitable schools. Thomas, and the court as a whole, said that went too far. In the case published Thursday, Thomas emphasizes the same principle, by quoting his previous opinion.

[President Bush]

What do you think what Justice Thomas said means?

It means:

1. Racial discrimination is unconstitutional.
2. As a practical matter, as an immediate goal in 1955, it may not be practical to demand immediate racial desegregation.
3. Because there will be a "reluctance" to actually achieve racial desegregation, courts are empowered to impose demands on local governments.
4. However, there are limits to what demands can be imposed. They must be within the bounds of equitable relief traditionally accorded by courts of equity.

Since Chief Justice Warren limited the remedies to those that are within the bounds of equitable relief traditionally accorded by courts of equity, there's no criticism of Brown, either the original case, or the 1955 elaboration. Immediately after the "public and private needs" sentence quoted by Thomas, Chief Justice Warren's opinion said, "These cases call for the exercise of these traditional attributes of equity power."

In subsequent years, though, courts went well beyond the traditional attributes of equity power. As a specific example, in Jenkins, a federal court demanded a tax increase to fund more equitable schools. Thomas, and the court as a whole, said that went too far. In the case published Thursday, Thomas emphasizes the same principle, by quoting his previous opinion.

I kind of doubt Justice Thomas would appreciate somebody claiming he said that. On the other hand, maybe he'd like being the subject of a story for children.

[Meadmaker]

I kind of doubt Justice Thomas would appreciate somebody claiming he said that. On the other hand, maybe he'd like being the subject of a story for children.

I think he would be more offended about being informed that he criticized the landmark ruling that got him his job.

However, we'll never know. He doesn't return my calls.




For those who might not know the connection between the Brown decision and Thomas' job, I'm referring to a bit more than just opening up opportunities for black people. The Brown case was argued by Thurgood Marshall, a black man whose fame from that case resulted in him being nominated as the first black Supreme Court Justice. When he retired, there was pressure to appoint a black person to fill the vacancy. That black man was Clarence Thomas. Given that they had very different views on most issues, a lot of people were offended at saying Thomas was a replacement for Marshall. Thomas undid, or tried to undo, a lot of things that Marshall contributed to. However, the Brown decision was not one of them.

[President Bush]

I kind of doubt Justice Thomas would appreciate somebody claiming he said that. On the other hand, maybe he'd like being the subject of a story for children.

I think he would be more offended about being informed that he criticized the landmark ruling that got him his job.

Brown vs Board of Education got Justice Thomas his job? What a bizarre thing to say and even more so to suggest that's how Thomas would regard things. As a judge he has attacked the idea of affirmative action over and over, assuming that's what you're referring to.

But rather than make fun of you, Meadmaker, I'll try to cobble a few things together.

The Supreme Court voted unanimously in Brown vs Board of Education that segregated schools deprived black schoolchildren of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment though they couldn't conclusively decide whether the framers of the 14th Amendment had intended to ban racially segregated schools.

Instead their ruling was centered on the importance of education to success in life, saying that to separate elementary and secondary pupils “from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone."

Judge Clarence Thomas has had a history of saying that this basis for the Brown ruling lacked a fundamental rooting in constitutional law. By ruling on the basis that they did in Brown rather than on a basis fundamentally grounded in the Constitution the Court overly expanded its power says he.

Jumping ahead to now, to his concurring opinion to the majority in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Justice Thomas returns to the same theme. I'll go through the controversial parts (for most people at least) a little at a time:

The view of equity required to justify a judicial map-drawing power emerged only in the 1950s. The Court’s “impatience with the pace of desegregation” caused by resistance to Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), “led us to approve . . . extraordinary remedial measures,”

"Equity" is legal language for solutions courts can provide when addressing constitutional weaknesses or problems.

In the follow-on case to Brown, the Court considered “the manner in which relief [was] to be accorded” for vindication of “the fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional.” Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 298 (1955) (Brown II). In doing so, the Court took a boundless view of equitable remedies.

In other words, the Court greatly expanded its power in not ruling narrowly on a basis fundamentally grounded in the Constitution.

... describing equity as being “characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private needs.” That understanding may have justified temporary measures to “overcome the widespread resistance to the dictates of the Constitution” prevalent at that time, but, as a general matter, “[s]uch extravagant uses of judicial power are at odds with the history and tradition of the equity power and the Framers’ design.”

Justice Thomas is, again, saying he thinks the Court overstepped its constitutional bounds. Tried to have fun with that by saying:

"Far as I can tell Justice Thomas is saying that courts ruling racial segregation to be unconstitutional... is unconstitutional."