Posted on 06/27/2002 11:38:41 AM PDT by frmrda
Here is a portion of Justice Thomas' opinion in teh voucher case that will have liberals blowing a gasket:
While the romanticized ideal of universal public education resonates with the cognoscenti who oppose vouchers, poor urban families just want the best education for their children, who will certainly need it to function in our high-tech and advanced society. As Thomas Sowell noted 30 years ago: “Most black people have faced too many grim, concrete problems to be romantics. They want and need certain tangible results, which can be achieved only by developing certain specific abilities.” Black Education: Myths and Tragedies 228 (1972). The same is true today. An individual’s life prospects increase dramatically with each successfully completed phase of education. For instance, a black high school dropout earns just over $13,500, but with a high school degree the average income is almost $21,000. Blacks with a bachelor’s degree have an average annual income of about $37,500, and $75,500 with a professional degree. See U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 140 (2001) (Table 218). Staying in school and earning a degree generates real and tangible financial benefits, whereas failure to obtain even a high school degree essentially relegates students to a life of poverty and, all too often, of crime.8 The failure to provide education to poor urban children perpetuates a vicious cycle of poverty, dependence, criminality, and alienation that continues for the remainder of their lives. If society cannot end racial discrimination, at least it can arm minorities with the education to defend themselves from some of discrimination’s effects
A reason these urban schools have failed is because they have been run by liberal Democrats for generations. This is what must be stressed. The goal should not be to put every poor child in a private school, but for Republicans to take control of school districts in urban areas and to improve them.
If poor children go to private schools and these 65% keep voting Democrat, we would have gained very little. If these polls are accurate, that means Republicans have got the attention of 65% of a group that rarely votes for them. We should make sure vouchers are not the main issue, but rather quality education.
I'll tell you, the most interesting reading from the Court's decision is Thomas' questioning the application of the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ." to the states. Unlike "free exercise", a limitation on Congresses' power to "establish[] [] religion" is not a "privelidge or immunity of citizens," nor does it fit equal protection analysis. I think this argument was ignored by the rest of the Court.
The Left is reeling, and they are getting desperate, starting to sound loony and frantic. With justice Thomas' help, we are chipping away at the liberal monolith.
It's our fault (Rightists). We don't know how to market either our ideals or our people.
I admire his intellectual courage more than anything else. Next, I most admire his loyalty to the Constitution.
The supreme court in 1803 ruled that is is the sole judge of what the constitution means. Chief Justice Marshall with no complaint from President Thomas Jefferson said that the court decides what the constitution says and means.
Understand that for 199 years the supreme court has treated as indisputable fact that the constitution is what ever the judges says it is. I'll give you a tiny clue by asking a question. If what is written in the constitution conflicts with what the judges say, who prevails? The constitution for 199 years has been a worthless piece of paper the Judges point to when they agree with it, and ignore when they do not.
Only a fool could believe that we live in a Constitutional Republic. The surpreme court with no objection from the first Democracy Advocate (Democrat) President changed this nation from a Constitutional Republic into a Democracy tempered by Judical Fiat. Democracy Advocates don't like Republics, that is why they call themselves Democrats. If they were for a Republican form of government they would not name themselves after a Democratic form of goverment.
How many times do the judges have to rule the excact opposite of what the words in the Constitution say, before some people figure out the constitution is really what the judges say it is today. Tomorrow they may say something different and then the day after tomorrow something else. What they say then that will be the constitutional law. But until then it means whatever thay last said.
The funny part is, if the constitution meant what it said, anyone could tell you how the court would rule on a constitutional issue. For example if the word abortion or a word that means abortion does not appear in the constitution then the constutution does not control that subject and it is the domain of the states. That is what the words in the constitution say. If it is not in the constitution then it is the states job to legislate or leave the issue unregulated.
But if the judges want to rule on a subject, they do. They find abortion in the penumbra. It is just a way of saying that the constitution is what ever they say it is today. They see it in the penumbra ... even if you can't.
The first step in fixing any problem is to first understand the problem. The problem is this nation has for 199 years been a Democracy tempered by Judicial fiat.
In a Democracy public opinion rules for the present. Tomorrow public opinion may use different rules. To control such a government you must win a majority in every election. To control the judical fiat, you must control who gets to be a judge.
That is the name of the game. It is the only game. People who put their faith in the words of the constitution believe in the tooth fairy too. This nation ceased to be a Constitutional Republic in 1803.
It is in some respects fun to watch the left fool so many people. They tell you in their schools and colleges that this a nation ruled by the base law of a constiution. When that proves to be untrue, time, after time, after time, after time, they tell you it was just a bad judges. But when the law is what ever the judge says it is, there can be no bad judges... unless a judge rules he is bad.
Noplace. Which is why the 10th Amendment allows the states to undertake it if they so wish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.