recogitare.com

President Bush wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 6:01 pm
How do you like this response I induced from ChatGPT?

If the headline you picked as your last example is misleading and/or stupid... why can't you just link to a countervailing example, a media article that has an entirely different take on Justice Thomas' language from his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP" than the article you took issue with?

President Bush wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 6:01 pm
How do you like this response I induced from ChatGPT?

Why did Justice Thomas criticize Brown vs board of education
ChatGPT
Justice Clarence Thomas has criticized the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled against racial segregation in public schools, for a few reasons. Thomas believes that the decision led to unintended consequences, including the erosion of community support for black schools and the rise of forced busing to achieve integration. He has argued that the decision led to a focus on racial balance rather than educational quality and that it undermined the principles of local control and parental choice in education. Additionally, Thomas has expressed skepticism about using the courts to address social and political issues, preferring instead to rely on legislative solutions.

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 6:59 pmFascinating.

And once again, chatGPT's response is mostly accurate.

President Bush wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 6:01 pmIf the headline you picked as your last example is misleading and/or stupid... why can't you just link to a countervailing example, a media article that has an entirely different take on Justice Thomas' language from his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP" than the article you took issue with?

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 6:59 pmHow about this one?

https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thoma ... es-1904117 (The URL contains the exact headline, so there's no need to click if you are not inclined.)
ETA: The URL gotabbreviated in the display The headline is:
Clarence Thomas Wants Supreme Court to Stop Deciding Certain Cases

President Bush wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 2:41 am Unfortunately, there was no such reference, no evaluation, no defense, no analysis, pretty much nothing concerning Justice Thomas' language from his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP".

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 5:09 am

President Bush wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 2:41 am Unfortunately, there was no such reference, no evaluation, no defense, no analysis, pretty much nothing concerning Justice Thomas' language from his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP".

Well, there are quite a few quotes of Thomas' words from his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP". I reckon the rest of the stuff in the article is a bunch of other folks talking about what he said.

did Justice Clarence Thomas disparage Brown vs the Board of Education in his concurring opinion to Alexander vs South Carolina NAACP?

ChatGPT
In his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," Justice Clarence Thomas did express criticism of the legal framework established by the landmark Supreme Court case "Brown v. Board of Education." In particular, he questioned the use of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as a basis for the Court's decisions in cases related to racial segregation in public schools.

Thomas argued that the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment, as intended by its framers, did not prohibit segregated schools. He believed that the amendment was primarily aimed at ensuring equal rights for African Americans in civil and political matters, rather than specifically addressing issues of segregation.

While Justice Thomas did not explicitly disparage "Brown v. Board of Education," his criticism of the legal reasoning behind it and his assertion of an originalist interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment diverged from the principles underlying the Brown decision, which held that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.

President Bush wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 2:07 am 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.

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

President Bush wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 2:18 pm
That was insightful. But I wanted to ask Chat GPT again what its interpretation of the situation was...

did Justice Clarence Thomas disparage Brown vs the Board of Education in his concurring opinion to Alexander vs South Carolina NAACP?

ChatGPT
In his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," Justice Clarence Thomas did express criticism of the legal framework established by the landmark Supreme Court case "Brown v. Board of Education." In particular, he questioned the use of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as a basis for the Court's decisions in cases related to racial segregation in public schools.

....

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 5:18 pm A lot of people disagree with Thomas' approach to racial issues. He's one of the advocates of "color blind law", who finds any legal distinction between races to be unconstituional or at best suspicious. That's why he supports Brown, and cases like it that have arisen subsequently, but opposes affirmative action or anything like it. By contrast, the headline makes the reader believe that somehow he opposed the fundamental ruling in Brown, as opposed to quibbling with some of the language in it, or even moreso in Brown II, because that language led to what he sees as abuse of power by the courts.

... It soon becomes clear, however, that Thomas's real target is not the lower court, but one of the landmark decisions of the Court on which Thomas now sits: the 1954 opinion issued in Brown v. Board of Education. Although he directs his attention to what he describes as the trial court's "misreading of our earliest school desegregation case," Thomas leaves no doubt about his contempt for the justification Earl Warren offered for the Supreme Court's judgment in Brown. One passage in particular warrants special attention. In Brown, observes Thomas:

[T]he Court noted several psychological and sociological studies purporting to show that de jure segregation harmed black students by generating "a feeling of inferiority" in them. Seizing upon this passage in Brown, the District Court asserted that "forced segregation ruins attitudes and is inherently unequal." . . . The District Court suggested that this inequality continues in full force even after the end of de jure segregation [and] seemed to believe that black students in the [Kansas City Metropolitan School District] would continue to receive an 'inferior education' despite the end of de jure segregation, as long as de facto segregation persisted .... Such assumptions and any social science research upon which they rely certainly cannot form the basis upon which we decide matters of constitutional principle.

After dropping a long footnote to the "harsh criticism" scholars have directed against the studies the Court cited in Brown, Thomas returns to his main task- the ideological demolition of Brown itself:

Segregation was not unconstitutional because it might have caused psychological feelings of inferiority. Public school systems that separated
blacks and provided them with superior education resources- making blacks "feel" superior to whites sent to lesser schools- would violate the
Fourteenth Amendment, whether or not the white students felt stigmatized, just as do school systems in which the positions of the races are
reversed. Psychological injury or benefit is irrelevant to the question whether state actors have engaged in intentional discrimination- the critical inquiry for ascertaining violations of the Equal Protection Clause. The judiciary is fully competent to make independent determinations concerning the existence of state action without the unnecessary and misleading assistance of the social sciences.

https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cg ... cholarship

... one of the most powerful indictments of Brown’s integrationist zeal was penned by Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurring opinion in the 1996 Missouri v. Jenkins decision. In Jenkins, Justice Thomas complained that “it never ceases to amaze me that the courts are so willing to assume that anything that is predominantly black must be inferior.”

Justice Thomas’s criticism of Brown is memorable. “Mere de facto segregation (unaccompanied by discriminatory inequalities in educational resources) does not constitute a continuing harm after the end of de jure segregation,” he wrote.

“Racial isolation” itself is not a harm; only state-enforced segregation is. After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about blacks. Under this theory, segregation injures blacks because blacks, when left on their own, cannot achieve. To my way of thinking, that conclusion is the result of a jurisprudence based on a theory of black inferiority.

Thomas took explicit aim at the widespread belief, one directly rooted in some of Brown’s own language, that “black students suffer an unspecified psychological harm from segregation that retards their mental and educational development.” Instead, he asserted, “there is no reason to think that black students cannot learn as well when surrounded by members of their own race as when they are in an integrated environment.”

Justice Thomas’s argument may resonate far more positively among African Americans than his personal detractors would like to acknowledge. But Thomas’s analytical goal with regard to Brown is one almost all constitutional conservatives now share: to embrace the famous ruling as a guidepost on the road to a “color blind” America, rather than wrestle with its integrationist assumptions. Judicial conservatives may still oppose most other constitutional innovations of the past fifty years, but ever since the civil rights revolution climaxed in 1964–1965, they have ardently insisted that Brown’s correct legacy entails eliminating all racial distinctions from government programs and policies.

Wanting to be on the “right side of history” may help explain judicial conservatives’ change of tune on Brown. When combined with liberal disappointment and frustration, however, the result is a complete turnabout: conservatives now champion the quintessential “activist” decision, while liberals derogate and discount it.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj ... r04_brown/

President Bush wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 12:07 am

Look, Meadmaker, another meme!

... It soon becomes clear, however, that Thomas's real target is not the lower court, but one of the landmark decisions of the Court on which Thomas now sits: the 1954 opinion issued in Brown v. Board of Education.

{snipped)


https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cg ... cholarship

stanky wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 3:51 am how about Taurus?