At 1/8/2012 3:31:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2012 3:27:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/8/2012 3:24:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2012 3:18:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
To clarify for all: "with all deliberate speed" was part of the opinion in Brown v Board II which essentially said "desegregation is bad, but take as long as you want to stop it."
How does Brown's decision mean desegregation is bad and take as long as you want to stop it?
Not Brown v Board, Brown v Board II.
There was a second trial on the question of how incorporation of the Brown v Board ruling was to go. The schools essentially said they didn't have the resources to integrate immediately, so they went to the Supreme Court.
The court said that they do have to integrate, but there is no forced deadline and no metric past what is "reasonable" for each individual case.
I'm not sure the reason for that decision, but I highly highly highly doubt Warren would want desegregation stopped or delayed.
Well, imagine the situation.
Assume there is a school that is extremely low on resources, and they actually economically cannot afford to integrate.
Now, a school in another state has excess resources and could integrate tomorrow.
A ruling of either "integrate now" or "integrate on this date" would either screw over resource-low school system or screw blacks in the resouce-high school system from immediate benefits.
Incorporation of the bill of rights to a state was controversial enough. If Brown II ruled that everyone had to integrate by next year, and a govenor chose not to integrate, you'd have the Little Rock crisis PLUS a constitutional clusterf*ck which would devalue the Supreme Court.
Something to remember, the Supreme Court during the beginning of incorporation were on shaky ground. It's not like today where the SCOTUS is seen as extremely powerful powergrabbers.
SCOTUS, especially the Warren Court, couldn't go too radical or they would end up being invalidated by the congress and states. It's somewhat similar to the move SCOTUS made in Marbury v. Madison: if they had tried to make a hard decision, the President would have probably ignored them. So, instead, they said "we aren't allowed to decide Marbury v. Madison" which incidentally created judicial review.
It's not just about what each justice wants ideologically. They had to balance out the effects of their rulings and the need to preserve the "dignity" of the court.