The US Supreme Court issued a split decision today on the issue of how schools integrate children of different races.
It seems some school districts were playing mix and match by race to insure that each class would have as close to a specific ratio of differently pigmented students, thereby giving all students a broader spectrum of perspective. Or something.
Five justices found it unconstitutional that a child of any color would be moved from one class to another solely on that basis. The other four disagreed, of course, but majority rules and fooey on them.
My point has nothing to do with the actual case, although I have a tendency to agree with the ruling. Don't play the race card - I have a gorgeous multiracial daughter. It's just that two wrongs don't make a right. You correct years of racism by stopping it, not reversing it.
Justice Roberts summed it up - "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
The thing I found most interesting about all this was the media's shock at 'how divided the court has become'. The reporter on ABC's Evening News acted as if the court normally voted as a block, 9-0 or nothing. For crying out loud...they are 9 very opinionated, very intellegent people. Almost all of them were/are lawyers. Do you really expect - or want - them to agree on things?
I think it has more to do with the fact that the reporters' bias made them a little more sensitive to the split. When you're one losing side of a close vote, it's a 'bitterly divided court'. When you win, it was a healthy discourse and to the winner goes the spoils.
Actually, I think a divided court is good for America. If those nine ever get unified, we're in big whoopy trouble because as a body, they've been increasing their own power for decades. A split court may be what keeps us all free.