Right, in her most recent entry, La Shawn Barber writes:
Praised by liberals and conservatives alike, [Oliver L. Brown et.al. v. the Board of Education of Topeka (KS) et.al] was and is still hailed as a great decision.
Except American Renaissance, in The Decline of National Review, claims:
In fact, the National Review of the 1950s, 60s and even 70s spoke up for white people far more vigorously than Pat Buchanan would ever dare to today. The early National Review heaped criticism on the civil rights movement, Brown v. Board of Education, and people like Adam Clayton Powell and Martin Luther King, whom it considered race hustlers. Some of the greatest names in American conservatism�Russell Kirk, Willmore Kendall, James Kilpatrick, Richard Weaver, and a young Bill Buckley�wrote articles defending the white South and white South Africans in the days of segregation and apartheid. NR attacked the 1965 immigration bill that opened America up to Third-World immigration, and wrote frankly about racial differences in IQ. There were always hints of compromise, but passages from some back issues could have been lifted right out of American Renaissance. Not so today. NR still supports immigration reform and is not afraid of the IQ debate, but Mr. Ponnuru�s article is just one example of its complete abandonment of the interests of whites as a group. What used to be an important part of the NR message it now dismissed as illegitimate �white identity politics.�
Emphasis added.
They don't provide quotes to back this up, unfortunately. Anyone got back issues of National Review dating back to 1954 or so?
Trade you for some old issues of Ebony me grand-dad has going back to the 60s. . .
Any road up, her main contention is that, "Although its outcome may have been just, Brown was decided unconstitutionally."
Despite its role as interpreter of law, the judiciary has improperly made law, leaving a paper trail of rulings arrived at by circumventing the very document it is sworn to uphold, including Plessy (by finding a basis for race discrimination in the Constitution), Roe v. Wade (by finding a right to privacy to kill unborn babies), Grutter v. Bollinger (by finding a basis for race discrimination in the Constitution), and Lawrence et. al. v. Texas, (by usurping the will of the Texas legislature and striking down a sodomy statute).
She's not arguing in favor of government-mandated segregation, mind, and provides a basis for a favorable decision which actually does fit her interpretation of the Constitution. It's actually a "legislating from the bench/activist judges are Bad" piece, more than anything.
Not sure how or if Hansberry v. Lee, which did away with restrictive covenants, fits into this, and mostly mention it so I can ask if anyone saw P. Diddy in A Raisin in the Sun, and if so, how bad did it suck.
Instead of celebrating the 50th anniversary of Brown v. The Board of Education, we should be remembering that judge-made law, no matter how beneficial to certain Americans, threatens the freedom of all Americans.
Which is why the Legislative branch can then make, um, legislature-made law. Amendments banning cross [Update: ]flag burnings or abortions or same-sex marriages, for example.
Then there's that line from Andrew Jackson, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." So, y'know, the Executive can always flip the Judicial the bird and kick a bunch of Indians off their land, if there's profit in it.
On the other other hand, there's former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore to consider:
Chief Justice Moore�s opinion describes the lives of gay and lesbian people as �abhorrent,� �immoral,� �detestable,� an �inherent evil,� and �an intolerable evil.� He condemns homosexuality as �so heinous that it defies one�s ability to describe it.� He finds the �consequences [of it] inherently destructive to the natural order of society.� Relying on ancient sources of criminal law, rather than current knowledge about lesbian and gay parents and their children, he emphasizes that, in his mind, any person in a lesbian or gay relationship is unfit to have custody.
From Lambda's Ethical Misconduct Complaint Against Chief Justice Roy Moore; saw him quoted while reading Families Like Mine this afternoon. Wasn't that frothing at the mouth of his some of that nasty "judge-made law" we're meant to not be in favor of?
That the sort of thing you were looking for, love?
More update: Corrected the burning issue from covering crosses to flags. No idea why I would have had cross burnings on me mind. None at all.
Was it Johnny Fever or Venus Flytrap who wouldn't play requests? I'm pretty sure it was the former, but didn't want to put either name in the title (as in, "Like Johnny Fever, I sometimes. . .") without being sure.
Oh yeah, holes in logic I'm fine with, but getting the wrong character on a sitcom in an entry title, that's a deal-breaker. . .
Judge-made law is a bit dishonest but thank God for it. It is like having a little group of benevolent kings in one wing of the government. These Solomons can do what no elected Congressman would ever get a posse together to do. These de facto kings allow laws to fly more to the left but, usually, not far to the right.
Don't know about where you live, but here in Cook County, judges are elected. And can be removed, but I don't think that happens very often, even in cases where they probably should be, like when the Bar Association deems them incompetent drunkards.
Think there's a standard form for that declaration, actually.
Suppose I could have been more explicit about the checks and balances thing, as well as how the Constitution is meant to protect minorities (not just racial) from sometimes-hostile majorities, but the entry was getting a bit long-winded.
Sort of like this comment.
Why d'you suppose the judicial branch tends to bear left? Or is perceived to, anyway?