E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe U.S. Supreme Court term that begins Monday promises to be one of the most important for civil rights in decades, with the potential for blockbuster decisions on issues from race in classrooms and the voting booth to legal recognition for same-sex marriage.
Related: Conservatives warily ponder prospect of an 'Obama court'
Less than a decade after ruling that the nation's colleges and universities can consider the race of student applicants to achieve more racially diverse campuses, a practice now widely used by the nation's selective schools, the court has agreed to take a fresh look.
The new challenge comes from Abigail Fisher, a white student denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin. The school admits the top 10 percent of academic performers from all Texas high schools, then considers the race of applicants as one factor in admitting the remainder of an incoming freshman class.
Evan Vucci / AP
People who waited in line overnight to hear the Supreme Court on a landmark case on health care hold their belongings as they make their way into the court in Washington, Thursday, June 28, 2012.
Fisher did not finish in the top 10 percent at her high school and claims that the consideration of race in reviewing applications cost her a spot at the university.
"There were people in my class with lower grades, who weren't in all the activities I was in, who were accepted into UT. And the only difference between us was the color of our skin," she said.
The university, backed by civil rights groups, contends that while the top 10 percent plan achieves some campus diversity, many of its classes would have only a few, if any, black and Hispanic students without additional considerations of race.
Making it harder to achieve the diversity colleges need, argues Gregory Garre, a Washington, D.C. lawyer representing the University of Texas, "would jeopardize the nation's paramount interest in educating its future leaders in an environment that best prepares them for the society and workforce they will encounter."
The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin joins Morning Joe to discuss President Obama's relationship with the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and his ruling on the Affordable Care Act, and the relationships the justices have with one another.
The Supreme Court that will hear the case Oct. 10 is different from the one that upheld a race-conscious admissions program at the University of Michigan law school in 2003.
"Sandra Day O'Connor was on the court then, and she's been replaced by Samuel Alito, who has much less tolerance for affirmative action," says Tom Goldstein, a Washington, D.C. lawyer who specializes in Supreme Court cases.
O'Connor, who wrote the decision in the Michigan case, retired from the court in 2006.
As a result, says Pamela Harris, a former Obama administration official in the Justice Department, "I don't think anyone thinks affirmative action is long for this world."
Justice Elena Kagan, considered one of the court's liberals, will sit this one out. She was the Obama administration's solicitor general when the Justice Department became involved in the case in the lower courts.
The Supreme Court will take up another racially charged issue this term if, as seems likely, it agrees to consider efforts to scale back the landmark Voting Rights Act.
Passed by Congress in 1965 and renewed four times since then, most recently in 2006, a key provision requires states with a history of discrimination at the polls to get federal permission before making any changes to election procedures -- from redrawing congressional district boundaries to changing the locations of polling places.
Three years ago, the Supreme Court brushed off a challenge to that requirement but strongly suggested that several justices had doubts about its constitutionality, given recent electoral reforms.
"Things have changed in the South," the court said in 2009. "Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare."
Pending cases ask the court to strike down the pre-clearance requirement entirely or throw out the list of areas, consisting of nine entire states, and of 12 cities and 57 counties elsewhere, that must get permission to modify their election procedures.
The current map, says Bert Rein, a Washington, D.C. lawyer representing Shelby County, Ala., includes some localities that have made substantial reforms while missing other parts of the country that have failed to root out discrimination at the polls.
As a result, Rein says, the system is unfair. "Florida has been forced into pre-clearance litigation to prove that reducing early voting from 14 days to 8 is not discriminatory, when states such as Connecticut, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania have no early voting at all."
But Debo Adegbile of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund says the current map is a close enough fit to cover the areas of greatest concern.
"Congress is not a surgeon with a scalpel when it acts to legislate across the 50 states. But it can reasonably attack discrimination where it finds it," he says.
The court is almost certain to take up a host of challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.
It defines marriage, for the purposes of federal law, as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." As a result, same-sex couples who get married in the states where such marriages are legal are accorded state and local benefits but miss out on more than 1,100 federal ones.
After at first defending the law, the Obama administration notified federal courts early last year that it concluded the law was unconstitutional. House Republicans then took up the law's defense.
A Supreme Court ruling striking down DOMA as discriminatory would not force states to permit same-sex marriage. But it would require the federal government to recognize those marriages where they are legal.
The court could address the issue of same-sex marriage more directly if it takes up the legal challenge to California's Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state.
Legal experts differ on whether the court is prepared to go that far, rather than deciding the DOMA issue now and coming back to the constitutionality of gay marriage in a later term.
"We're not at the point where the Supreme Court will require the state of Mississippi to allow same-sex marriage," says Louis Michael Seidman of the Georgetown University Law Center.
Among other questions the justices will confront:
- Must police get a search warrant before taking a blood sample from a suspected drunk driver?
- How far can police go in using drug-sniffing dogs outside someone's house?
- Can a 1789 law, the Alien Tort Statute, be used to bring lawsuits in US courts for violations of international law that occur in other countries?
- And, in an issue of growing interest to U.S. businesses, should more limits be placed on the ability to bring class-action lawsuits?
Leave a Comment:
Will they do what is right for ALL Americans OR will they sell us out AGAIN like with Citizens United???
please show us where and when we amended the First Amendment to limit freedom of Speech?
I don't believe Mr. Robinson has read Citizens United.
The first amendment never says that corporations are people, with the same free speech rights as actual people. It also never states that corporate money equals speech. The scary thing, if you read the Citizens United opinion, is that it never even asked the Court to address that issue. It literally answered a question that wasn't even asked. As Elizabeth Warren put it:
"After all, Mitt Romney’s the guy who said corporations are people. No, Governor Romney, corporations are not people. People have hearts. They have kids. They get jobs. They get sick. They thrive. They dance. They live. They love. And they die. And that matters. That matters. That matters because we don’t run this country for corporations, we run it for people."
Once you put corporations into the same category as the American people, the road to a true Plutocracy is nearly complete.
Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the students, the school and society in general if we put more focus on improving the education of our high school students regardless of the color of their skin?
It appears that civil rights groups are just trying to remain relevant by using reverse discrimination instead of fixing the real problem.
I haven't heard that comment since the busing controversy decades ago.
zzzzzzzzz
Civil rights for gays? Well, civil rights for whites. No difference. The end of the united negro college fund. probably not. I wonder what you the lefties would say about the united white college fund.....Maybe, also in their devine wisdom of the court - they will see that blacks vote for obama 95% of the tme and then all these folks will have to pony up some cash to equal it out so that it's around 50-50%. After all, its a civil right that people are not racist against white folk!
Sounds like you teabaggers haven't figured out why so few gays, women or racial minorities vote Republican, or why blacks have overwhelmingly voted Democratic in every election since the Civil Rights Act....including 90% for Al Gore.
as long as corrupt govt award special status or financial rewards from others, special interest groups will always vote for the corrupt politicians who despise our Constitutionally required limited govt.
They voted overwhelmingly for Obama the hate filled clueless bigot so why ask a silly question?
You mean the straight married folks who enjoy special legal rights and benefits which are denied to gays?
So Riddle me this all you "progressives" who said I do not recognize hypenated americans you are either an american or you are not. Riddle me this as well, isn't a benefit given because of color just as racist as a benefit taken away because of color, just curious?
@SHREKK we have figured it out. it is because democrats have created a special interest group based on color and promise them special benefits denied to other americans. Not just whites by the way
@shrekk marriage is and has always been an institution of the States. Take it up with your state legislature
I don't believe Mr. Robinson has read or studied the US constitution.
Perhaps not, but if your read the executive orders that have been written, the same has been accomplished.
markinbecker- I have been studying the Constitution and the writings of the framers for over 50 years. I read both every week.
It is ignorant leftists like yourself who are clueless about the Constitution
Where in the Constitution do you get authority for a minimum wage, OSHA, EPA, Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, Health & Human Services, NLRB, FDA, FTC, FCC (who gave the govt control of the airwaves?), student loan programs, Food Stamp programs, Federal welfare, Federal unemployment insurance payments?
Where does the Federal Govt get Constitutional authority to meddle in Drugs, Alcohol, or Tobacco?
Where did the Federal Govt get the authority to steal land from the States and be the largest land holder?
Virtually all the programs and departments mentioned came about as a result of bipartisan support for the required legislation establishing their existence.
The EPA is a great example of my contention. Only revisionists and the ignorant believe it was the result of a "progressive" agenda.
liberal republicans are little different from liberal Democrats- they both rely upon marxist doctrine that is opposed to Constitutional liberty
Instead of responding with a Strawman, try debating the substance.
Where do they get authority in the Constitution for these programs?
James Madison who wrote most of the Constitution stated in Federalist #45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
You should tell that to the bigoted Republicans in Congress who are still defending DOMA.
And maybe you should also tell that to mixed-race couples who live in southern states.
Shrekk....Minorities have been voting democrat for decades because of the social programs(Free Stuff). Remove these slugs from the government payroll and they will riot in the streets like they are doing in Europe. Genarations of welfare junkies are everywhere. They teach their kids to be scum and to live off of the government for a lifetime.. That is just disgusting behavior.. You should not have a voice in our Government elections if you are scum and do not contribute to society in the form of taxes, sorry. No money out to government, no voice for more stuff!!!! Take responsibility for yourself you slugs, and you will have a lot more self respect, And money..lol Vote republican for once and get a head in life...
Right.....they must be those ungrateful peasants Mitt (R-Money) was talking about.
It clearly has nothing to do with GOP policies or GOP attempts at voter suppression.
Just another reason why the President should be re-elected.
What so you can tell a white that is more qualified that all because of her color she is denied access to a college education of her choice?
It is funny how you liberals think. This has been going on for awhile. When I applied for some fed aid way back in the 80's I was rejected because of my parents income which was very middle class if that. However, I had several black friends that are still my friends today whose parents made more than my parents that got enough grants to pay for their full college, hmm seem fair to you libs?
When I was in college back in the 80s I played sports, went to school, and worked about two jobs to pay the bill. My father who skipped out on us after I was born appently made too much as a telephone repairman for me to qualify for aid. Never bothered me, I just worked, went to school, picked up ROTC help.... Through sports I had lots of black friends by default and when I got a chance to have fun it was in mixed parties and such. Never wanted to be racist, but what you say is true. It seemed all the black kids were on scholarships, grants, and all kinds of aid, and I know a lot of their parents were pretty successful people. So, start shooting me down for sounding racist, I am not, but I know you will label me as one.
You are not a racist just a person who recognizes the facts
I know a lie when I hear it and this man is lying big time.
No, I am not. And it has never bothered me until a moron like you calls me a liar.
Yeah, black people are so lucky. White people have it rough. Good call.
Didn't say that. I was just stating a fact of that time. You seem to have a closed mind to the truth Clotho.
As I stated, I know all the simpletons will start firing hate zingers at me over my comment. But, hey, at least I am open to the truth and I don't hate.
I know no one will read this, but I felt kind of uneasy about my comment. Called a cousin who is a Financial Aid director at a community college, and did some government googling. Yes, affirmative action was very real and a very big part of higher education back through much of the 80s. The programs got corrupted, and the aid advantages never really targeted those minorities that would have benefited most. They kind of went away except for recruitment. Now, schools are handed a pot of grant money each semester based on income and enrollment projections. That grant money is handed out based on need, but after the need based part there is a heirarchy of who gets the funds first. And the grant funding is not spread out over everyone.. it goes max, max, max, max, nothing. Hate to sound racist again but if you are a white single male you are at the bottom of the handout pile and will probably not get a grant. At the community college they do have a plan that when the money is almost gone, they try to divide it up among all the last on the list people but they have to follow federal laws in doing this. Loans are available to everyone. The government and the school encourage loans. Big problem now is people who take out tons of loans with no interest in attending school. It takes years for a public school to justify denying financial aid or registration, so these people keep taking out huge loans and simply withdrawing. But, it doesn't hurt the school, so no one cares. That is all I know as being factual.
One of my tenants(welfare mother) just told me that her children came home from school with free fair passes and tickets....I know some working families who dont get those and cannot afford the rather stiff costs of the fair. Whose civil rights are being abused?? Who is priviledged?
Perfect. Two new liberal judges who believe in social reordering above the constitution and personal freedoms... for life. You can do this sort of, the government can compell you to do all this, we will allow you to do this, this is fuzzy so we will restrict it, you absolutely must do this to fall in line.... thank you Obama, thank you radical liberal Harvard law graduates trying to determine societies and individual liberties... for the good of all in their limited view...
Civil rights dominate the supreme court...Why is that? All other questions are less important so they can be on the back burner? The ACLU is working overtime? The Obama admin trying to fundamentally change the country from the inside? Minorities have become organized through their community organizers?? Liberal attorneys looking for payoffs from supreme court cases? Put another Obama appointment on the supreme court and they will turn our country upside down. It is already a fact that radicals have more voice than working America....
I say we all quit working and see how everyone gets paid then ha ha ha
It get special attention of the SCOTUS because they are based upon federal statutes you big dumb bunny.
The quit working idea was tried back in the late 1800s in the northeast during the second wave of the industrial revolution. It wasn't over wages or working conditions, it was because the government was becoming too powerful on imposing its will over the people. It was crooked and corrupt. The corrupt police beat the crap out of the workers, the company and shop owners had licenses revoked, and low budget workers were shipped in from Canada, England, and parts of the middle eastern states. Gotta read, no time to type a novel here...
Maybe because there are still clueless bigots who try to deny the civil rights of some Americans?
Maybe because there are still clueless people who are afraid of the responsibilities that come with personal freedom and want government to determine what civil rights are allowed and which are not... and who like to label anyone who stands for principle.
What "principles" are those? That the government should treat some Americans as 2nd-class citizens?
No, that government should not treat any citizen different than any other citizen because government should have no interaction with determining how any citizen is treated... government is a mechanical arm of the people. You are too lost in wanting to hate....hate leads to either fighting or apathy which are not productive, which is why this President is not doing well other than nice speeches of what he wants to give people. I personally don't want government "giving" me anything.
Spoken like a person who already enjoys his full civil rights and thus isn't very concerned when the civil rights of other people are denied.
http://youtu.be/tpAOwJvTOio0
Would you like to see what Romney is up against in Ohio??? Check this out. Unbelievable!!!
and thus our point is made from the conservative side. I will vote for you because you give me stuff from other children's money even though I am an adult
Watch carefully how they rule on DOMA....interesting how our elected officials take the oath of office with their hand on the Bible, then descrate it by ignoring its truth. They might as well take the oath with their hand on a comic book!
They desecrate the constitution as well. They have few morals while pretending to care
Sounds like both of you nuts think the court should base its rulings on the sharia laws of your bronze-age cult.
I think you both need to learn about the 1st Amendment and the Lemon Test, so that you can understand why you bible-thumpers keep losing in court.
USA 18A
You mean the pick-and-choose "truth" that loudly cites one passage in Leviticus while ignoring all the other hundreds of admonitions?
Affirmative Action: After liberals moved the black race unto the "government PLANTATION-housing projects" they realized that program was not working at all. Did they decide to do away with the program? Hell NO. Liberals always think that they just did not pass the "right program" so they came up with affirmative action!! What a great idea! Put a black man or woman in a position of authority even though they are not qualified for the job and lets see what happens!
Well we have seen. It came to fruition with Barrack H. Obama aka Barry Soetoro becoming President of USA. So now liberals consider this a huge success. The damage to the United States economy and prestige is collateral damage that libs are fine with as the suffering of the Country is in a way reparations for slavery of the 18th century! My only hope is that every liberal with brain cancer, heart surgery, and kidney transplant gets Kutta Kanta for their surgeon and they will wonder if they really deserve to be a Doc instead of some Asian or Jewish person they were allowed in front of ???????????? AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH
this is a rightwing dominated court. the little guy loses. minorities lose. women lose. corporations win. what do you think this election is about, there is a reason that romney is being given a billion dollars by special interests.
I guess your arguement for the Health Care Act is? Let me quess, your a minority, or on disability, or food stamps, or some other entitlement right?
Joe, it's generally a right-wing court except for civil rights issues where Kennedy has authored many key rulings in favor of civil rights.
how are these so called wise men??? aka stupid idiot yes men, going to solve anything?? they cant even ferrit out the illegal alien muslim that is living in our whitehouse???? they seem to believe his fake birth certificate, his false social security number, his admission of being born in kenya, and the fact that he is attempting to turn the United States into a socialistic nation... when are the leftist liberals going to wake up??? isure hope it is before this ass can destroy us! ! ! ! !
You are one intelligent...racist.
umm what is racist about his comments?
He is claiming that Obama is not an American just because he is Black. That is racism at it's core.
How do you figure he did not call him black he called him a muslim. Muslim is a religion. Secondly he said that he was born in Kenya not the united states what does being born in Kenya have to do with his color? Please tell me where he said he was black show me the word black in any of his sentence
Hmmm, nobody commented on the class-action thing. That folks (if decided in favor of big business) will allow them even more power to rape the American consumer with little or no blowback. Big Pharm puts out a drug that kills people? Defective products (car/ child products, the list goes on) that cause death or injury? Each and every single victim will have to pursue a separate lawsuit, we know how that will turn out.
Yep, this is an important election. Maybe our last chance to get control of government back in the hands of the people and out of the hands of the special interests...
Vote Democrat all the way; unless your local guy caucuses with the dems, there's no such thing as a good rethuglican...
By that token Crazy, then what would be a good democrat? A mindless victim?
Who Regulates Big Pharma oop[s yes another failing government entity called the FDA a fine democratic institution
'A mindless victim?'
A good description of anybody who votes republican if you're not rich, otherwise you're voting against your own self-interest. Give them control, and they'll reduce the country to where you'll have to kneel at the feet of their candidates, or anyone that has power over an individual.
For all their blather about rights, they're the ones most interested in peering in your bedroom window, ignoring discrimination, or telling a woman how to treat her own body; only 'we' have rights as defined by Rs, you 'others' don't get the same protection because you don't agree. And lest you forget, the majority of the current national debt was accrued under Repubs, starting with Reagan (who tripled the then-current debt if I recall correctly), an inconvenient fact ignored by the Rs. A big chunk of Obama's debt is the bill from Dumya coming due...
And I'm not a victim; I'm a retired white guy, not collecting any government money yet, and able to recognise stupid when I see it. Something most republican voters (particularly the teabags) seem incapable of doing.
Seems like this country (USA) has begun to SUCK like a new born baby.We are being GOVERNED by our COURTS and JUDGES on a day to day basis,and some of our judges are being appointed by MORONS.
Oh so it just started recently that we are being governed by the court. Are you sure these same courts have not been around since, let say 1789?
You sir, benefit from the actions of courts and judges that made the freedoms that we enjoy, LAW.
You mean like those immigration laws being ignored by the POTUS
marriage = one man and one women!
And if you think like your grandfather or great grandfather, you can add: of the same race, religion, and social class, with kids being mandatory, with the wife staying in the home, with the husband having the legal right to beat her "if necessary", with sex being had only for procreation, and with no chance of divorce. If this was "marriage" today, you'd be whining about your rights.
So Nikolaus I am curious if you believe in gay marriage and someone does not what makes you right? Did the doctor sprinkle some magical fairy dust on your arse when you were born that makes your opinion the only good one
And if you think perverted, how long will it be before anything goes? The folks that think the way you do are the reasons we're headed in the wrong direction....just so you know, my grandparents days didn't see the crime, senseless violence and depravity that we see today, so be careful when you compare things!
ask252, get off your high horse. I responded to Blue Devil, who expressed HIS opinion. You didn't reply to him, so his opinion must be the only good one, right? I've looked at your other comments by the way, and YOU disagree with people. Arrogant hypocrite.
American Soldier, at one time anything that deviated from the description of marriage that I gave was considered to be abnormal and perverted. People also thought America was going in the wrong direction when we broke with England, freed the slaves, ended child labor, and gave women the right to vote. The ones who whined about these things were just like you. The freedoms that you enjoy came about because a minority of people fought against the "normal" and dared to think beyond the box.
The United States is not a nation of "beliefs", we are a nation of laws.
The Supreme court ruled in 1967 in Loving vs. Virginia, that Virginia's anti-interracial marriage laws violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.
The ruling concluded that the only reason Virginia banned interracial marriage was to specifically discriminate against non-whites.
Legal experts expect the Supreme Court to come to the same conclusion regarding gay marriage. There are no merits to ban gay marriage except to discriminate against gays.
Thank you, come again.
I do disagree with people look how much fun I just had disagreeing with you and setting you off so easily. thanks for playing =)
RE ELECT OBAMA funny how you libs want to quote laws when they fit what you want. How about those immigration laws if we can ignore them can we ignore the rest. let some murderers out maybe a few rapist
Oh yeah, that pesky Constitution thingie again.
What are you even talking about?
N-20,
I assure you, I completely understand freedom, probably a good bit better than you having served this nation for over 20 years inspite of its elected representatives, policies and laws. Having said that, perverting liberty and calling it civil rights and creating laws that permit the destruction of the unborn are moral issues and for the life of me, you liberals will strain at a nat and swallow an elephant. So, if your all bent on child laws, stop abortion, if your all bent on voting, ensure its done legally and if your bent about equal rights, quite entitling those just because of race.
Apparently when you took your military oath you thought you were defending the rights of some Americans but not others.
shrekk, two things, first learn to read before making comments, I know its hard, but try. "I completely understand freedom, probably a good bit better than you having served this nation for over 20 years inspite of its elected representatives, policies and laws." Secondly, learn to speak the truth with some basis instead of a faithless arguement and no substance. I've read your post before, not much more than igornace.
Soldier sez...
'just so you know, my grandparents days didn't see the crime, senseless violence and depravity that we see today, so be careful when you compare things!'
Really? For violence, how about the 'Wild West'? Or the mob wars in the 30s? The Depression (read the 'Grapes of Wrath')? Note that the latter two came out of Republican policies (prohibition and repub economic policy, which they still want to return to). These things have always existed, always will; sweeping them under the rug won't make them go away. Depravity? That's a particularly rich one; in the sex scandals of Washington, if a Dem is involved, it's almost always a man/woman thing. The same-sex scandals always seem to be Republicans who have been hiding in the closet...
I've read your comments. It's very clear you think gays should be 2nd-class citizens and denied equal rights.
Sounds like when went to war you were only fighting for the liberties of straight Americans.
As Crazy Steve pointed out, the old days weren't as peaceful as we like to imagine them to have been. But, I think that we should add other things that your grandparents didn't see ... equal rights for blacks and other minorities, equal rights for women to enable them to participate fully in society, equal rights for gays, safety nets for the elderly so that people needn't fear old age, etc.... The world is a far, far better place than it was 50 years ago.
Given the fact that marriage is not and never wasa right the idea Gays are being deprived of anything is ridiculous. If marriage was a right there'd have to be some justification for the age restrictions and restrictions on family members marrying. Before someone makes idiotic comments about inbreeding etc., accept the fact that is based on your own bias and bigotry and that if you want to make that argument then blacks shouldn't marry marry blacks due to sickle cell anemia and Jews shouldn't marry Jews due to Tai Sachs disease. All we have is left wingers making up fake rights so they can espouse their own bigotry towards religious folks and Conservatives who believe differently.
The Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, would disagree with you. They ruled that marriage was a right.
Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the students, the school and society in general if we put more focus on improving the education of our high school students regardless of the color of their skin? It appears that civil rights groups are just trying to remain relevant by using reverse discrimination instead of fixing the real problem.
K-12 not just high school it starts at the bottom. But we think giving more aid to get more people in college that are not prepared for it is a good idea
"Legal experts differ on whether the court is prepared to go that far, rather than deciding the DOMA issue now and coming back to the constitutionality of gay marriage in a later term."
"We're not at the point where the Supreme Court will require the state of Mississippi to allow same-sex marriage," says Louis Michael Seidman of the Georgetown University Law Center.
Equal rights in "stages"? Bull. Just imagine African Americans in the 60's being told by the Supreme Court that their kids COULD go to all white segregated schools, so long as they didn't go past the water cooler in the center of the hallway and used the left side of the gym.
Niko-in the name of "fairness" we integrated our schools. This experiment has failed. SAT's have fallen since 1965. We were 1st and 2nd in Math and Science in 1965. Yes, it was the white students in the public schools who were achieving those high results because the teachers taught to the top of every class. Since integration and the Dept of Ed in DC, we are now teaching middle of class down. We now longer expect excellence from our public schools just "individual IEP's for each child". Very sad. We are now in the middle tier of industrialized nations in math and science with no hope of recovery due to systems in place.
@HOT Daddy we have actually declined below the middle in science
NIKOLAUS Imagine this. I was in the third grade when they integrated my school. You can imagine all you want I was there. I remember them drinking from the same fountain eating from the same cafeteria, playing on the same playground and sitting next to me in class. in fact in the 4th grade my bowling partner was a little black girl named Allison Webb and we won the championship. funny I don't have to imagine but I do know the truth
Very sad. My wife is a teacher and they must work equally with the kids who do not even want to be in school-just killing time till they turn 18.
but when they drop out and cannot support themselves it is the our job to support them right?
ask252, read my comment again. Good grief, I didn't say that blacks were partially integrated in the 60's. I said to "imagine" that they were, and imagine how they would have reacted if equal rights had been implemented in stages for them. Then translate that in relation to same sex marriage, which many see as an equal rights matter also. But did you do that? No, instead, you told me that my description of the 60's was wrong and that you "know the truth" because you were there. And that has WHAT exactly, to do with my comment?
I agree Nikolaus - when the court is ready to see the rather blatant 14th Amendment violation inherent in a state granting marriage to straights but not to gays, they'll make that ruling and not give a crap what the bigots in the south think.
At the same time, while they'll definitely rule DOMA unconstitutional this session I think they'll punt on the larger issue and simply decline to hear the Prop h8 appeal.
But let's not forget that when SCOTUS ruled mixed-race legal throughout the country in 1967, 72% of all Americans opposed such marriages. In contrast, 54% of Americans support same-sex marriage today.
People used to oppose births out of wedlock. Now they don't. Children born out of wedlock have about 10% of the chance of success as do children born into wedlock so the idea that things changing is "good" simply isn't true. I see no benefit to society at large in allowing gay marriage.
Immoral, unnatural and perverted behavior does not constitute civil rights!
Sorry bub, but you and all the other hate spewing whiners will see the day when same sex marriage DOES become legal across the country. You don't get to vote on the civil rights of others. Letting a minority have the same rights that you do changes not one thing about your life. Gays and lesbians pay taxes and serve as solders, doctors, nurses, teachers, builders, etc., and YOU benefit from their efforts, yet you deserve none of it. When same sex marriage becomes law, you will still have the right to think as you like and teach your kids as you like, but if you cross the legal line and harass, marginalize, discriminate, etc., you will be fined and possibly jailed. Get ready pal, it's coming, and your type is headed for the dust bin of history.
Your vote in November counts!
Lets vote out the homo in chief!
Our Black Ministerial Asso. here is asking their Congregants "TO STAY HOME THIS NOV 6th". This is to send Obama a message on his queer marriage evolement!
It all comes down to the same fundamental problem, if you are denied your rights do you have an obligation to reinstate those rights through violence as prescribed in the constitution? If you are denied the vote at the ballot box are you not then justified voting out the opposition candidate with lead? It is the old story people who throw pebbles should not be surprised when a bolder bashes their brains out.
I over heard two soccer moms discussing the election one was obviously voting for Obama as the least of two bad choices. Saying to the other, " I just could not support Mitt. He just seems to be missing something."
The other mom seemed offended and shouted, "What?"
The first mom in deep thought for a long silent moment, said quietly, "A backbone".
My daddy says a fish out of water would have a hard time keeping up with Mitt; both being in desperate situations. Which will run out of air first, obvious, and that is so depressing.
Fortunately, most soccer moms here are voting R&R.
What's really offensive is out of control debt, high unemployment, a stagnate economy due to strangling regulations and boating government, a dangerous foreign policy and an administration unfit to lead.
SHHH those are real issue AMERICAN SOLDIER its more important if gays can marry than if our country sinks into oblivion
Yep. Hopefully we'll finally get a court in place that will outlaw slavery. Oh, wait...we already have that.
Well then how about giving every adult citizen the right to vote! Oh, wait... we already have that too.
Well, then we want judges who will make sure that no one can be discriminated against regardless of their race, creed or color! I won't have to sit in the back of the bus or use a separate water fountain anymore! Oh, wait... you telling me we already have THAT?
Nevermind.
Instead let's just get judges that will make sure that if you work hard, work smart, don't spend more money than you make, and don't break the law, then you can have a pretty nice life in this country.
Oh, wait...
Bout that extra money that you working stiff do not really have to have, I believe I hope to change that into "redistribute monies" for those who are victims of capitalism! I am sure you will understand:)
Affirmative Action needs to be repealed - stop the crap !
DOMA needs to be upheld - stop the moral decay of America !
Romney / Ryan in November !
Let's get some decency back in this land !!
What should be in question is how long the high court is going to be allowed to set policy. The founding fathers never intended for the court to dictate stat laws, only to test the constitutionally of them. No where did they give the high court the right to set quota or directly control voting districts. When states allowed congress to control taxes and redistribute the wealth, and the court to make laws we started sliding down hill and have never slowed down.
I am looking forward to a 6-3, liberal/progressive-conservative Supreme Court. It's time for some progress in human and civil rights.
For the last 4 years, other than saying no, the GOP's only agenda item has been denying President Obama a second term. They concentrated all their efforts on that one mission and apparently have failed to deliver.
yep lets get on with it ARNOLD that way Obama can rule you that much faster and take from my 10 year old that much more. I know if I was a liberal I would feel a sense of pride everytime I took food from a 10 year olds table, you guys are real compassionate and caring right. Stand up people all the way
It is an act of Patriotism to obstruct the Obama ideology and it's destruction of our Constitutional Republic and our liberty