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

[Meadmaker]

As per Clarence T., do we think he has any depth of character? Principles?

Does the supreme court get points for progressiveness by way of a negro like him?
We're toyed with by way of our innate primitive feelings.
we struggle to dislike Clarence for being a white supremacist, because he's black.

how about that legalese? rooting out the intent behind the words reminds me of being covered in sticky mud.

I wouldn't consider him an exemplary justice. He has a reputation for shallowness and political bias that influences his rulings. That's common, so much so that it's considered normal, but some justices have a worse reputation for that than others.

[President Bush]

... 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

I like to discuss law, but I'm not sure anyone else does. This back and forth with President Bush is barely a discussion.

It has been puzzling. I have been willing to show you where/how you've been misconstruing things but, in reply, you edit out the relevant parts. Perhaps you are just trolling?

You say you like to discuss law yet you chose not to respond to the following from the American Bar Association?

... 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/

[Meadmaker]

It has been puzzling. I have been willing to show you where/how you've been misconstruing things but, in reply, you edit out the relevant parts. Perhaps you are just trolling?I'

I'm not really a fan of the forum mode that is to post huge volumes of information, and then whine that someone doesn't respond to every comment.

No, I don't feel obligated to respond to everything posted, especially if there is a large volume.

You say you like to discuss law yet you chose not to respond to the following from the American Bar Association?

But..oh what the heck..why not? I'll share my Great Thoughts.

... 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.”

[snip....because why repost a multiparagraph quote? Anyone who wants to read it can follow the links back.]

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

[/quote]

To be fair to the author, he isn't misrepresenting Thomas' beliefs. He just seems dumbstruck that anyone could actually believe as Thomas does. Because he seems astonished that such a thing could be the case, he goes off into ascribing motives to other people. I'm referring to the author's discussion of the motives of judicial conservatives. He can't really grasp their thinking, I suppose because it's so alien to him. Any time someone describes someone else's motivation, there's a high probability of error.


Anyway, regarding Brown itself the Court, in that decision, included as justification studies that show psychological harm to black people who faced forced segregation. Thomas is uncomfortable with it, beause he felt it was unnecessary. The constitution says you can't treat black people and white people differently. De jure segregation does exactly that, so it's unconstitutional. The end.

Does Thomas think it was a problem that such language was included in the opinion? Sort of. He feels it was unnecessary, and feels it led to some bad things. Thomas was quoted, in the Bar Assocition article, as saying: "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 "

It's not really a problem, to Thomas, that the court identified in Brown the psychological harm of de jure segregaation, but he thinks that in doing so, they opened the door to also attempting to use judicial power to eliminate de facto segregation. I think he would have preferred that they had just left it out.

Does that make the headline in the Axios article accurate? Or the story behind the article? Or the other headlines and stories with the same theme accurate? No. Clarence Thomas unequivocally supports the ending of school segregation as it existed in 1954. He's fully behind what the court did in that decision. Any headline or article which casts doubt on that position is misleading.

[Meadmaker]

But one question that may be relevant is to what extent Brown demanded the things that Thomas criticizes. Thomas opposes actions that have been taken by courts, and that used Brown as justification. The Bar Association article emphasizes the "integrationist approach" that Thomas has criticized. Is the author correct? Is that integrationist approach demanded by Brown, and is, therefore, criticism of the integrationist approach actually a criticism of Brown itself?

The "integrationist approach" mentioned by the author of the Bar Association article refers to actions that seek to force integration even when there are no de jure policies that enforce segregation. The Jenkins case, cited by the author and several times in this discussion, involved a tax increase. Although there were no laws mandating segregation, the schools in that area were, in fact, segregated, because blacks and whites tended not to live in the same places, and students tended to go to schools near their homes. The district court imposed a tax increase to pay for part of the plan that attempted to end that segregation.

Do you think that was mandated by Brown? Do you think it was enabled by the Brown decision? [ETA: Not a rhetorical question. I wonder what you actually think.]

Thomas thinks neither is true, but he takes aim at others who believe that it was. He also thinks the language that they are misreading (his word) could have been left out entirely.

[President Bush]

But one question that may be relevant is to what extent Brown demanded the things that Thomas criticizes. Thomas opposes actions that have been taken by courts, and that used Brown as justification. The Bar Association article emphasizes the "integrationist approach" that Thomas has criticized. Is the author correct? Is that integrationist approach demanded by Brown, and is, therefore, criticism of the integrationist approach actually a criticism of Brown itself?

Isn't that what we've been talking about? What Thomas wrote in Alexander:

The view of equity required to justify a judicial mapdrawing power emerged only in the 1950s. The Court's 'impatience with the pace of desegregation" caused by resistance to Brown v. Board of Education' led us to approve ... extraordinary remedial measures. 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.'

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.‘ 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.'

Seems apparent to me Justice Thomas expressed dissent the way Brown was decided, saying its basis lacked fundamental grounding in the Constitution. That's not to say Brown wasn't a correct decision, just that according to Clarence Thomas it was supported by a very weak opinion.

Looks to me like he's saying the Court has overstepped its constitutional bounds, technically with Brown and certainly since, in the footsteps of it.

The "integrationist approach" mentioned by the author of the Bar Association article refers to actions that seek to force integration even when there are no de jure policies that enforce segregation. The Jenkins case, cited by the author and several times in this discussion, involved a tax increase. Although there were no laws mandating segregation, the schools in that area were, in fact, segregated, because blacks and whites tended not to live in the same places, and students tended to go to schools near their homes. The district court imposed a tax increase to pay for part of the plan that attempted to end that segregation.

Do you think that was mandated by Brown? Do you think it was enabled by the Brown decision? [ETA: Not a rhetorical question. I wonder what you actually think.]

I don't pretend to have any opinion which matters on this.

Though am interested in seeing what Justice Thomas is up to. Doesn't seem to be a lack of important legal questions coming up before the Court, and he is doing as much as he can to pull it to the ideological right.

Thomas thinks neither is true, but he takes aim at others who believe that it was. He also thinks the language that they are misreading (his word) could have been left out entirely.

Thomas believes integrating public school systems by judicial decree as “predicated on black inferiority” if that's what you mean.

I don't think any of this is too controversial, we're probably not that far from agreeing on a lot of it.

Think I linked to plenty of voices expressing opinions on ways Thomas has criticized Brown over the years. Looks to me Justice Thomas (in Alexander) specifically faulted Brown and subsequent cases for empowering courts to (attempt) limiting partisan redistricting. You disagree. Ni modo

[Meadmaker]

Isn't that what we've been talking about? What Thomas wrote in Alexander:

The view of equity required to justify a judicial mapdrawing power emerged only in the 1950s. The Court's 'impatience with the pace of desegregation" caused by resistance to Brown v. Board of Education' led us to approve ... extraordinary remedial measures. 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.'

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.‘ 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.'

Seems apparent to me Justice Thomas expressed dissent the way Brown was decided, saying its basis lacked fundamental grounding in the Constitution. That's not to say Brown wasn't a correct decision, just that according to Clarence Thomas it was supported by a very weak opinion.

Looks to me like he's saying the Court has overstepped its constitutional bounds, technically with Brown and certainly since, in the footsteps of it.

I don't see it that way, although if by "overstepped its bounds" you simply refer to an opinion which failed to rein in its successors, that could be true.. Thomas said "That understanding may have justified temporary measures to 'overcome the widespread resistance to the dictates of the Constitution‘".

In other words, he says the court did not overstep its bounds when it came to measures needed to enforce the Constitution, which the opinion in Brown demanded. However, your "certainly since" is exactly what Thomas is saying when he says "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.'[/i]"

Do you think that was mandated by Brown? Do you think it was enabled by the Brown decision? [ETA: Not a rhetorical question. I wonder what you actually think.]

I don't pretend to have any opinion which matters on this.

In my opinion, it's impossible to understand Thomas' stance without one. Either the courts have followed the dictates laid down by Brown, or they have exceeded those dictates. Thomas' opinion is that courts after Brown have gone farther than Brown demanded. He has mild criticism of Brown for having opened the door to those "extravagant uses of judicial power" that were used by later courts, such as the courts overturned in Jenkins, or the courts overturned last week in Alexander, but he does not want to overturn Brown itself.

And that is why I cited the headline as misleading. I knew very well that Thomas supported Brown. The headline suggested he did not, and the article which it led did nothing to correct the suggestion.

As I noted in the post that I made before reading the article, it is possible that he was critical of some aspect of the case in Brown, or that he was critical of some way in which Brown was subsequently applied. That turned out to be the case, on further reading. Yes, it could be said that Thomas was critical of a some aspect of the Brown ruling, and it absolutely must be said that Thomas criticizes the subsequent rulings that cited Brown.

Nevertheless, I think the Axios article, and many other articles subsequently published, are all deeply misleading. A reader who accepted either the headlins or the contents of those articles would form a completely inaccurate understanding of Justice Thomas' opinion, and possibly of the Brown ruling itself.

[President Bush]

As I noted in the post that I made before reading the article, it is possible that he was critical of some aspect of the case in Brown, or that he was critical of some way in which Brown was subsequently applied. That turned out to be the case, on further reading. Yes, it could be said that Thomas was critical of a some aspect of the Brown ruling, and it absolutely must be said that Thomas criticizes the subsequent rulings that cited Brown.

Nevertheless, I think the Axios article, and many other articles subsequently published, are all deeply misleading. A reader who accepted either the headlins or the contents of those articles would form a completely inaccurate understanding of Justice Thomas' opinion, and possibly of the Brown ruling itself.

To me that is a silly overstatement.

I can think of a reader who has not formed a completely inaccurate understanding of Justice Thomas' opinion. There could be another who believes your understanding of Justice Thomas' opinion to be quite incomplete.

Seems likely to me based on what I've read of Thomas' thinking that had he been on the Court which issued the Brown ruling the vote would have been 8-1 rather than 9-0.

That could have been interesting material for a newspaper article.

[stanky]

This is the sleeziest supreme court ever.
And they have no authority above them.
Polls show that we're not feeling trusting about them.


They're ideologues, selected for their lack of objectivity.
Ted Kennedy warned us about Alito. What a shit guy.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ted-kennedy- ... 00696.html

[Meadmaker]

"Barron Trump snubs father Donald in bold move that could impact presidential election"


I suspected, and I already looked to verify. Barron turned down a chance to be a convention delegate. It wasn't a snub. It wasn't bold. It won't have any impact on the presidential election.

But other than that, the Irish Times was spot on.


Of course, Barron shouldn't have been a convention delegate, anyway. He has no qualifications, and he did nothing to try to work to get the job.

[Meadmaker]

"Trump's criminal connection"

From Salon.

Actually, there's nothing wrong with the headline. You could write a perfectly reasonable article with that headline. So why did I pick it?

Because accompanying the headline is a picture of Trump speaking, along side a split screen style view where the other side is Hitler speaking. Stupid coming up soon! At least, I predict so.

(reading)


Ok....so....apparently a video got uploaded to Truth Social in which the phrase "unified Reich" was used. WTF? It was removed later, with staff saying it was posted in error.

Every time I think I am seeing something that can't be true.......some of it turns out to be true. Or at least, with a lot of truth in it.

I don't know if I'll be able to see the video. I'd like to.

As bad as Donald Trump is, he's no Hitler. He's more like Moussolini.

ETA: Here's a link to an explanation about the origin of the video. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/24/media/tr ... index.html

Basically, someone used some video copy from a template, and didn't pay attention to details.

Incompetence on display. Brings back memories of the Four Seasons press conference.