My Photo

    A b o u t
    Email Me

Powered by TypePad

« Wife of Candidate Calls Talking Maggot | Main | Mika's Howard Beale Moment »

June 28, 2007

Comments

squirrel

Would Zelda kick Anthony's butt if he told her that her socks don't match. Looks like there's Pipi Wrongstocking thing going on there.

jd

Hey, Colin, I know that this is entirely off-topic, but I also know that you've been raving over Sicko. Here's what the WSJ has to say about it, and about Socialized health care:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010266

Interesting stuff -- it highlights my biggest fear about Canadian-style health care: why shouldn't I be able to opt out?

Bruno81

Kennedy's concurrence is, to my reading, a distinction without a difference in the context of K-12 education. Racial segregation is a terrible legacy, so his argument goes, and it still exists in de facto form, but you cannot take race into account in shaping the remedy for any particular student. This is like me saying that I have a terrible history of eating unhealthy food, and I am resolved to remedy this situation, but in doing so I cannot consciously eat healthy meals. However, if a leaf of lettuce or a tomato slice happen to appear on my triple cheeseburger, or if some carrot sticks accidentally show up on my plate of chicken wings, I am free to eat those meals in their entirety and consider myself well on the way to a healthier lifestyle.

Roberts is not overruling Brown, he is applying it just as it was intended --- in 1954. There is no Orval Faubus or George Wallace in the schoolhouse door, Brown is a 1950s solution to a 1950s problem. Breyer's dissent recites the whole megillah of desegregation in 77 pages, yet still pretends to pay homage to "strict scrutiny." I say pretends because if he actually applied it to the facts of this case he would join Roberts in the judgment and could have saved a lot of paper. But over the years the Court has painted itself into a corner on matters of "reverse discrimation," and so goes on repeating the old shibboleths as camouflage for their actual objectives, which are pure race neutrality in the case of Roberts et al, affirmative action for Breyer et al, and Kennedy polishing his legacy for the New York Times while trying to fill Sandra O'Connor's high heels.

The comments to this entry are closed.