As I pointed out the other day, the Supreme Court has lurched to the right since Judges Alito and Roberts reported for duty. Well, today we have yet ANOTHER ruling which confirms that fact. This time, it "dealt a severe blow to school integration efforts...53 years after the court unanimously outlawed racial segregation in public schools and declared that segregated schools are inherently unequal."The sad and scary fact is that the Scalito Court is going to continue its assault on every Progressive gain of the century, issue after issue, unless and until the composition of the Court changes. If not, we are going to see what happened today over and over again, on issue after issue.
Obviously, if you're an arch-conservative, then this obviously makes you happier than a pig in you-know-what. However, if you're anything BUT an arch-conservative, however, you should be afraid. Very afraid. And you should make darn sure you do whatever it takes to prevent the Republicans from winning the White House in 2008. In the meantime, we need to make sure that Republicans aren't in charge of Virginia when the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, civil liberties, etc.
On Comcast:
In a third case, the Court abandoned a 96-year-old ban on manufacturers and retailers setting price floors for products.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said that agreements on minimum prices are legal if they promote competition.
The ruling means that accusations of minimum pricing pacts will be evaluated case by case.
The Supreme Court declared in 1911 that minimum pricing agreements violate federal antitrust law.
I'm waiting to see if Bush will veto the bill going through Congress which will make it a felony to use deception to cause someone not to be able to vote.
Did you work as hard as your could to defeat George Bush in 2004? Too many of us didn't do enough, and we got Roberts and Alito, and America gets screwed.
We must elect a Democratic President next year, and we must give her or him better majorities in both houses of Congress. It will take decades to undo the harm of Bush's appointments to the Federal courts, but we begin in January 2009.
This court is a nightmare.
And I must say that I am royally angry with the Democratic leadership in the Senate for not putting up a fight when these conservative activists were put up for confirmation.
The decision was the latest in a string of opinions this term to overturn Supreme Court precedents. It marked the latest in a line of Supreme Court victories for big businesses and antitrust defendants.
In other words, the legacy of the stolen 2000 election and the insane re-election of Bush in 2004 will haunt us for decades to come. Unless we get about 8-12 straight years of Democratic Presidents at this point, we're screwed.
On the other hand if the court continues to legislate from the bench we could see a legislative contest between Congress and the court. Congress makes laws the court overturns them. That would be a real circus.
However, I do like your adjective 'radical.' It makes the description precise. If I could edit my comment, I would add that in front of 'conservative.' :)
The plurality opinion is too dismissive of the legitimate interest government has in ensuring all people have equal opportunity regardless of their race. The plurality?s postulate that ?[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race? is not sufficient to decide these cases. ... School boards may pursue the goal of bringing together students of diverse backgrounds and races through other means, including strategic site selection of new schools; drawing attendance zones with general recognition of the demographics of neighborhoods; allocating resources for special programs; recruiting students and faculty in a targeted fashion; and tracking enrollments, performance, and other statistics by race. ... When the government classifies an individual by race, it must first define what it means to be of a race. Who exactly is white and who is nonwhite? To be forced to live under a state-mandated racial label is inconsistent with the dignity of individuals in our society. And it is a label that an individual is powerless to change. Governmental classifications that command people to march in different directions based on racial typologies can cause a new divisiveness. The practice can lead to corrosive discourse, where race serves not as an element of our diverse heritage but instead as a bargaining chip in the political process. On the other hand race-conscious measures that do not rely on differential treatment based on individual classifications present these problems to a lesser degree.
By the way, Lowell, THIS was the neo-conservative clusterf*ck I was referring to earlier....