by Frank James
Pacific Legal Foundation, which helped prepare the case for the winning side in today's school desegregation decision where the Supreme Court found unconstitutional the integtation method used by school systems in Kentucky and Seattle, praised the high court's decision today.
Here's a statement the group issued following the ruling:
PLF Hails U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Education Race Cases -- “Most Important Race Decisions Since Brown v. Board of Education
SACRAMENTO, CA; June 28, 2007: Today Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) hailed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions, announced this morning, to strike down public schools’ use of race in student assignments.
The Supreme Court decided that policies in Seattle and in Jefferson County, Kentucky, that use race in determining what public school a child may attend are patently unconstitutional.
PLF is amicus and part of petitioners’ legal teams for both student-assignment cases – Seattle and Kentucky – decided by the United States Supreme Court today. PLF Principal Attorney Sharon Browne assisted the attorney for the mother in the Kentucky case at oral argument, sitting second chair, and PLF attorneys participated in every phase of the Seattle case including the oral argument when the Seattle case was before the Washington Supreme Court.“These are the most important decisions on the use of race since Brown v. Board of Education,” said Sharon Browne, PLF Principal Attorney. “Schools across our country must get the message loud and clear – our young people should not be assigned to a school based on the color of their skin.”
“With these decisions, an estimated 1,000 school districts around the country that are sending the wrong message about race to kids will have to stop,” Browne said. “The High Court has decided correctly that children must not be stereotyped by the color of their skin, but rather treated as individuals. They deserve equal opportunities to prepare them for life’s challenges.”
Ms. Browne and PLF have led the effort to enforce California’s antidiscrimination Proposition 209 for more than a decade. Proposition 209 prohibits government agencies – including public schools – from using race in making decisions. PLF also litigates nationally in opposition to race- and sex-based quotas in public education and government programs.
PLF has successfully litigated to end racial quotas in one Southern California school district, and is currently suing the Los Angeles Unified School District, the nation’s second-largest school district, and the Berkeley, California, school district.
The cases that the Supreme Court decided today are Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, 05-908, and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 05-915.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Well there you have it. The SCOTUS of the US of A has ruled that discrimination remedy policies are an unconstitutional way to right historical wrongs.
That's wrong.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 28, 2007 2:23 PM
Government discrimination on the basis of race IS unconstitutional. So said the supreme court in Brown, so said Martin Luther King, and so says the supreme court today.
Posted by: Bruce | June 28, 2007 2:31 PM
Can the Supreme Court help sink the Republican Party even faster ? Will the Party of Old White Farts survive ? Stay tuned !
Posted by: Becca | June 28, 2007 2:46 PM
Why does the supreme court decision not surprise people who know that this court is always going to rule in favor of issues where there is an attempt to right wrongs that the dominant ethnic group in this country has inflicted upon other minority groups. Conservatives, right wingers, racialists, and rednecks alike are rejoicing. Not so much at this decision, but the future decisions that are just around the corner, such as school vouchers and public support for private and religious education. Justice Roberts' overly simplistic assertion that the way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating is mind numbing. But, that is why he was put on the court. We know that there are vast areas in this culture where discrimination exists now and always will exist, because as the segregationists used to say, "you can't legislate morality."
Posted by: GW | June 28, 2007 2:54 PM
No, Doogie, you are wrong. Forced integration, busing whatever has never worked. And forcing people to do something they do not want to do is unconstitutional.
Two wrongs do not a right make.
Your position, and that of your Leftist ilk, also is RACIST.
"Ohhhh, the poor black kid. He/she can't make it on their own, so we have to devise ways so he/she can make it on his/her own whether they want that or not. We have to do this because it makes me feel good that I am doing something for him/her, it makes me feel good that i feel sorry for the poor little black kid."
How about improving the schools in the neighborhoods? How about providing people with free choice?
You know, Doogie, polls shows that a majority of black people are in favor of school vouchers, programs that enable them an opportunity to select a better school for their kids.
How about doing the right thing becuase IT IS the right thing and NOT because it makes you feel good?
Posted by: John D | June 28, 2007 2:56 PM
Bruce,
No comment on how you believe it is impossible to have gone over a 185 page decision in such a short amount of time?
Posted by: jethro | June 28, 2007 5:16 PM
How about doing the right thing becuase IT IS the right thing and NOT because it makes you feel good?
Posted by: John D | June 28, 2007 2:56 PM
So Johnny D, is torcher the right thing or does it make you feel good?
PS Looks like Bruce got his talking points.
Posted by: jethro | June 28, 2007 5:20 PM
Beverly Hillbilly Jethro: torcher? Exactly what is torcher? Is that the guy from the Fantastic Four?
Posted by: John D | June 28, 2007 8:26 PM
"Well there you have it. The SCOTUS of the US of A has ruled that discrimination remedy policies are an unconstitutional way to right historical wrongs."
Doug Z,
And this was a voluntary program. The people that disallowed this are the same ones that claim there is no separation of church and state, and that 'voluntary' prayer in public school is OK.
I have said it before; it will take 2 decades to fix Bush. The Supreme Court is just one area that needs attention.
Remember, the first order of business when implementing a fascist state is, turn the law inside out.
Posted by: C.Morris | June 28, 2007 9:00 PM
"Government discrimination on the basis of race IS unconstitutional. So said the supreme court in Brown, so said Martin Luther King, and so says the supreme court today.
Posted by: Bruce | June 28, 2007 2:31 PM"
I don't think that the Supreme Court said the same thing at all in 'Brown' and 'Kentucky/Seattle'.
If fact they seem to have said quite the opposite.
In fact they seem to have to have said a community or individuals cannot desegregate their schools under any circumstances, either involuntarily or voluntarily.
Posted by: C.Morris | June 28, 2007 10:01 PM
John D, your comments betray a lack of intelligent understanding of just how pernicious racism has been toward minority groups in this country, especially blacks. While you may lampoon, as you put it, "the poor black kid who can't make it on his own whether he wants to or not" you need to gain a sense of history and find out why things have turned out the way they have. Forced busing? Kids are bused to schools all over every county in this country for one reason or another. Forcing people to do something they don't want to do is unconstitutional? What do you enjoy most about being a silly?
Posted by: GW | June 28, 2007 11:51 PM
This is not a reversal of Brown vs. the Board of Education but an extension of it. Brown vs. the Board of Education shot down the practice of forcing kids of different races to go to different schools even if they were neighbors, which was a race-based decision. But it replaced it with another race-based decision, forcing school districts to move students around to different places just so the school would have a balanced racial composition. This new law simply says, you can't force schools to be racially segregated nor racially integrated.
Posted by: Nunu | June 29, 2007 8:24 AM
No, Doogie, you are wrong. Forced integration, busing whatever has never worked. And forcing people to do something they do not want to do is unconstitutional
Posted by: John D | June 28, 2007 2:56 PM
I believe this decision was about Voluntary desegregation methods. Magnet programs in big cities like Chicago use voluntary deseg to keep middle class students in the school system and ensure that more schools meet state standards. So are Chicago's gains toast now?
Posted by: Catherine | June 29, 2007 11:46 AM
Johnn D,
I figured a moron would pretend the meaning of my statement was lost because of my misspelling so I'll repeat it:
"How about doing the right thing becuase IT IS the right thing and NOT because it makes you feel good?"
Posted by: John D | June 28, 2007 2:56 PM
So Johnny D, is torture the right thing or does it make you feel good?
Posted by: jethro | June 29, 2007 2:46 PM
Before Brown the legal concept of "separate but equal", was used to justify segregation.This new SCOTUS ruling seems to say separate is defendable and equal is not necessary. We have regressed behind both Brown and Plessy. This is a new lack of justice for black America. Brown dates from 1954, Plessy from 1896. Where do we go now?
Posted by: c. perry | June 30, 2007 12:24 PM