Thursday, September 08, 2005

Judge Roberts, you got some 'splainin' to do

The Progressive points to several education cases in which prospective-Chief Justice John Roberts ruled against desegregation and against equal protection. (They have a lengthy list of other cases as well. I've just picked out those related to education and pasted them below.)

Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell (1991)—Starr, with Roberts in tow, and acting in an amicus capacity, successfully argued for limiting the busing requirements of school districts.

Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992)—The solicitor general’s office, with Roberts’s participation, unsuccessfully argued that a female student who suffered sexual harassment could not receive damage awards under Title IX, which prohibits sexual discrimination in public schools.

Freeman v. Pitts (1992)—Starr argued, again with Roberts’s assistance, that a Georgia public school need not make further attempts at desegregation. The Court agreed.

Lee v. Weisman (1992)—Starr, with Roberts on board, failed to convince the Court that it was OK to have clergy offering prayers at official public school ceremonies. The decision was 5 to 4.

Will these come up in the questioning of Judge Roberts next week? They should. As Desi used to say, Roberts has "got some 'splaining to do."


Blogger Superdestroyer said...

The only people who have some explaining to do are the ones who want to continue the failed idea of bussing. A vast majority of Americans never supported the idea of bussing and the actual execution of bussing demonstrated it a dismal failure that actually destroyed cities.

Why do those on the left support such an idea. Is it because their upper middle class kids are attending private schools without the benefit of either bussing or diversity?

3:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares