Will Brown v. Board of Education be overturned/CRA be ruled unconstitutional?

[TheReckoning]

Do you think that could happen in the future?

[Progressive Pessimist]

I'm not going to say that it's a certainty, but as long as the Court's makeup remains as it is, anything and everything is on the table. The Supreme Court majority can do as it pleases and is basically the most powerful arm of the RNC at this point in time.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Should they do that, I will make sure my name goes down into the history books permanently

[Pres Mike]

No

No one in the country is advocating for overturning Brown v Broad or the Civil Rights Act. The Pro-Life base has been fighting for 50 years with numerous republican presidents promising this.

That said, I suspect Republicans will chip at these laws until they are meaningless. Several urban areas have segregation as bad as the 1950s now (white flight). Look at inner city schools in Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, St. Louis etc. 99% African American students.

[Ferguson97]

My guess is still no, but pretending that it's completely out of the question is just naïve.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, the Dixiecrats we're for segregation that's why Jefferson wasn't Secularist, because he believed in states rights, the Rs in the Crt are Federalist they are states rights but they're not DIXUECRATS states rights on Roe, Clarence Thomas said that cross burning in churches were wrong

Users don't understand what Federalist means it doesn't mean states rights when it comes to race but states rights for everything else the Whigs were the Federalist, George Washington and Lincoln but they expanded Federal rights back then

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

no and I think it's overly doomer to say it will. It's not *entirely* out of the question but neither is some other crazy thing like Dems gaining 5 senate seats this november.

[lfromnj]

Conservatives on SCOTUS believe any* government usage of race is unconstitutional so this isn't even a remotely possible position, and yes they have been consistent on this issue even when it would hurt the party that appointed them.

*atleast as you get more and more conservative. Kennedy for example was more left wing on this issue but still wanted to limit the usage of race. Thomas on the other hand is absolute on this issue.

[NewYorkExpress]

It's not impossible, but I don't think it's particularly likely. Griswold, Obergefell, Miranda and Gideon are all far more likely to be overturned in my opinion.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, because what type of case can challenge it? Is any state seriously going to reimpose de jure segregated schools?

[lfromnj]

No, because what type of case can challenge it? Is any state seriously going to reimpose de jure segregated schools?

I mean there are a few ultra woke areas .

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, because what type of case can challenge it? Is any state seriously going to reimpose de jure segregated schools?

I mean there are a few ultra woke areas .

I think we have enough proof even San Francisco wouldn't stand for it.

[longtimelurker]

No

No one in the country is advocating for overturning Brown v Broad or the Civil Rights Act. The Pro-Life base has been fighting for 50 years with numerous republican presidents promising this.

That said, I suspect Republicans will chip at these laws until they are meaningless. Several urban areas have segregation as bad as the 1950s now (white flight). Look at inner city schools in Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, St. Louis etc. 99% African American students.

I can also attest that Prince Georges County, Maryland public schools approach 99% African American and Hispanic.

[Pres Mike]

It's not impossible, but I don't think it's particularly likely. Griswold, Obergefell, Miranda and Gideon are all far more likely to be overturned in my opinion.

Miranda isn't going to be over turned

[Badger]

It's not impossible, but I don't think it's particularly likely. Griswold, Obergefell, Miranda and Gideon are all far more likely to be overturned in my opinion.

Miranda isn't going to be over turned

Don't be sure at all. They've been rumbling about it.

[lfromnj]

FYI a few portions at the CRA are possibly at risk under a commerce clause ruling.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What I think people fail to understand is that Brown v. Board of Education, while obviously a very important case in history is now what's commonly referred to as "dead letter law", aka court cases that don't really get brought up or mentioned anymore because the issues they addressed no longer are relevant. Much like cases involving slavery, handling former Confederates, etc. I don't know the last time it's been cited in any federal case decision, but it's probably been decades (not counting "shout out" references or comparisons.)

Brown was a ruling that "separate but equal" was not acceptable and thus that states could not run separate school systems for "white" and "colored" students. So to challenge that and have it come up again, some state would have to actually go ahead and formally segregate schools with separate systems justified under "separate but equal". Since that's obviously not going to happen, the case won't even come up.

Now people do like to bring up other examples they argue constitute de facto segregation just as the way school districts are gone or multiple cases involving busing, whether for or against. But that all falls outside the scope of Brown, which should be obvious considering that was still hotly litigated into the 80s, three decades after Brown. Brown only covered de jure segregation, and any arguments over school segregation that are not based on "separate but equal" establishment of separate school systems fall under a whole host of different case law and precedent governing it. Brown is despite its historical importance, just not relevant anymore to any actual functional case law.

[MiddleRoad]

Should they do that, I will make sure my name goes down into the history books permanently

How?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No way is Brown vs. Board of Ed being overturned.  Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education isn't really in effect any more, though.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Should they do that, I will make sure my name goes down into the history books permanently

How?

TBD 

[MiddleRoad]

Should they do that, I will make sure my name goes down into the history books permanently

How?

TBD 

I sure hope your plans do not include violence. It would be a shame to report a Socialist to the FBI.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Should they do that, I will make sure my name goes down into the history books permanently

How?

TBD  

I sure hope your plans do not include violence. It would be a shame to report a Socialist to the FBI.

Meh, I already know the Feds have been watching me and my family since 9/11.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

I can't see Brown getting formally overturned anytime in the near term, though it is worth discussing the potential of the court to undermine Brown with rulings on school funding disparities and other related issues. It wouldn't return de jure segregation, but you could end up with majority-black school districts having increasingly insufficient funding relative to other districts going forward, which undermines at least the spirit of Brown - that school segregation is illegal in part because segregated schools were demonstrably unequal in resources - if perhaps not the exact letter of the law.

The Civil Rights Act is harder to say. I think the parts of it that prohibit discrimination by state governments are probably safe in the same way that Brown is, but I would argue that a potential return of Lochner-era Commerce Clause jurisprudence in the future under this or another far-right court could result in the public accommodations portions of the Civil Rights Act being struck down, given that they are enforced through the Commerce Clause.

[lfromnj]

I can't see Brown getting formally overturned anytime in the near term, though it is worth discussing the potential of the court to undermine Brown with rulings on school funding disparities and other related issues. It wouldn't return de jure segregation, but you could end up with majority-black school districts having increasingly insufficient funding relative to other districts going forward, which undermines at least the spirit of Brown - that school segregation is illegal in part because segregated schools were demonstrably unequal in resources - if perhaps not the exact letter of the law.

The Civil Rights Act is harder to say. I think the parts of it that prohibit discrimination by state governments are probably safe in the same way that Brown is, but I would argue that a potential return of Lochner-era Commerce Clause jurisprudence in the future under this or another far-right court could result in the public accommodations portions of the Civil Rights Act being struck down, given that they are enforced through the Commerce Clause.

The funny thing about Brown is it was literally just about the segregation in general. Lower courts were starting to go after Southern schools in the late 1940's for having unequal districts but couldn't do anything about the segregation. Brown really was the hardest case to win on because it actually good be called "equal" at least by the Plessy definition. Plessy obviously was a complete joke even by its own standard of course.

Note I am not defending what Topeka did even if was atleast not as bad as what most segregated districts did. I mostly just wanted to bring up some interesting legal history.


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/the-brown-v-board-of-education-case-didnt-start-how-you-think-it-did

Black resistance to integration
While school desegregation may have symbolized racial progress for many blacks throughout the country, that simply was not the case in Topeka. In fact, most of the resistance to the NAACP’s school desegregation efforts in Topeka came from Topeka’s black citizens, not whites.

“I didn’t get anything from white folks,” Leola Brown Montgomery, wife of Oliver and mother of Linda, recalled. “I tell you here in Topeka, unlike the other places where they brought these cases we didn’t have any threats” from whites.

Prior to the Brown case, black Topekans had been embroiled in a decade-long conflict over segregated schools that began with a lawsuit involving Topeka’s junior high schools. When the Topeka School Board commissioned a poll to determine black support for integrated junior high schools in 1941, 65 percent of black parents with junior high school students indicated that they preferred all-black schools, according to school board minutes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah Brown specifically ruled that "seperate but equal" was not allowed. There was some limited integration earlier over the argument that if the "equal" part couldn't be achieved the "seperate" wasn't allowed, I remember in high school one case involved a black law student who was forcibly admitted to the state law school after they initially tried to create a "seperate" school for just him. Brown stated this didn't matter: the "seperate" part wasn't allowed in any circumstances.

Mind you that it was a full decade before the Civil Rights Act and during that time most Southern states resisted integration (remember the Little Rock Nine and Eisenhower using the military to forcibly desegregate and Ruby Bridges being escorted by US Marshals) which I think most people aren't aware of, they probably assume it was in the 60s. Also interesting it involved Kansas which isn't considered a Southern state (although Kansas did actually comply immediately with the decision unlike states like Arkansas and Louisiana as mentioned above.)