Thursday Roundup
Opportunity Agenda comments on two upcoming Supreme Court cases which may strip local school districts of the right to voluntarily desegregate:
In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court recognized that the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to bring us together as a nation of diverse peoples, and that promoting diverse education is a compelling government interest. That is what these teachers, parents, and education leaders are doing - providing a vision of unity and cooperation for their children that we can all be proud of.Opponents will argue for the narrow interests of a few students and parents over the common good. They'll invoke inflammatory terms like quotas and racial preferences, and so many other straw men meant to distract attention and draw down support from the real issue: that we are all in this together, and these programs, which bring our children together, ultimatley make us stronger as a nation.
Years of experience show that many communities can't achieve inclusive, diverse schools without making that an explicit goal and working towards it intentionally. And research shows that public schools in America are rapidly resegregating. By choosing inclusion instead of separation, these schools are working to buck that trend and build the kind of community that we all want to live in: a community of cohesive, well-educated and prosperous young people prepared for the future. That's a goal that every American should support.
Rick Hasen notes that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger voted a proposed interstate compact which would allow the President to be selected by a national popular vote, and questions whether Schwarzenegger's veto matters:
I have what may be a simple-minded question. Three Justices in Bush v. Gore advanced a theory that Article II of the U.S. Constitution gives the state legislature rather plenary power to decide how the state's electoral college votes are allocated. If that theory is correct (and maybe a current majority of the Supreme Court would not agree with this theory), why does the California bill approved by the state legislature have to be signed by the governor to become effective?
Is That Legal? writes about a federal bankrupcy judge who criticized Professor John Yoo's defense of the Military Tribunals Act. "How easy it would be for a President to use such a law to make his political enemies simply disappear!"
TalkLeft reports that a federal court has struck down an Ohio law which subjects naturalized citizens to more rigorous scrutiny of their qualifications to vote than born citizens. "There can be no second-class American as far as any court is concerned."
Daniel Solove reports that over 300 law professors are now blogging.
Feministing points to a report which finds that the New York Times exagerated the number of female ivy graduates who are opting out of the workplace.