Just because it happened in my backyard so I know some of the fine details, Brown vs. Board of Ed was shopped around and they chose Kansas because we always had a strange relationship with segregation (the Klan held power just long enough post-WW1 to pass it, and just enough to make it difficult to get rid of). As such, the schools were segregated in Topeka, but we had actually achieved "Separate but Equal". Both high schools in the town were maintained to a similar degree, both had similar quality teachers, both were serviced by busses, etc. And the people suing didnt even think they were badly served, they just wanted somewhere closer so their daughter didnt have to walk across a train line to get to school.
It was the Civil Rights activist who decided it could be used as a case to overturn Plessy, and they were right.
I'm not surprised. Segregation, in and of itself, does not prevent any society from being successful, which is why many groups intentionally self-isolate. The culture that enforces the segregation informs how it will be conducted. An egalitarian culture will simply recognize that it has to make 2 of everything (women's bathrooms are not inherently inferior to men's). Meanwhile, a supremacist culture will actively weaponize the segregation for it's own advantage, normally by cutting costs from the "lesser" declared people.
This has all been great conversation, and imo there’s nothing wrong with being strategic - I think it’s clear that part of why Mississippi passed its abortion restriction was so it would be challenged, work up to a now-friendly SCOTUS, and get Roe v. Wade nuked once and for all in addition to merely having that one individual state law upheld. Interested parties will figure out how to “game” any system to the extent it can be gamed. Even the very act of refusing to hold hearings on Merrick Garland was gaming the system a bit — fully within the rules but no one REALLY believes McConnell merely thought a lame duck president can’t nominate a justice, he just gamed the system. And good for him, if the other side can’t stop you, keep push until they can.
Oh yeah, I agree. Strategic is absolutely better than just winging it and giving in to every impulse (like you said with the Trans movement today). In fact, a little more strategic thought would probably do people good for fixing some of the situations we are in.
I was just giving another example to back up the other ones listed.
I don't like gaming the system from a judicial scope standpoint. If the issue is not actually an issue, and has to be constructed by activists, then this is just an elaborate way of turning the judiciary into a legislature. TBH, I'm not even sure about the judiciary having the ability to overturn law in general.
Just because it happened in my backyard so I know some of the fine details, Brown vs. Board of Ed was shopped around and they chose Kansas because we always had a strange relationship with segregation (the Klan held power just long enough post-WW1 to pass it, and just enough to make it difficult to get rid of). As such, the schools were segregated in Topeka, but we had actually achieved "Separate but Equal". Both high schools in the town were maintained to a similar degree, both had similar quality teachers, both were serviced by busses, etc. And the people suing didnt even think they were badly served, they just wanted somewhere closer so their daughter didnt have to walk across a train line to get to school.
It was the Civil Rights activist who decided it could be used as a case to overturn Plessy, and they were right.
I'm not surprised. Segregation, in and of itself, does not prevent any society from being successful, which is why many groups intentionally self-isolate. The culture that enforces the segregation informs how it will be conducted. An egalitarian culture will simply recognize that it has to make 2 of everything (women's bathrooms are not inherently inferior to men's). Meanwhile, a supremacist culture will actively weaponize the segregation for it's own advantage, normally by cutting costs from the "lesser" declared people.
This has all been great conversation, and imo there’s nothing wrong with being strategic - I think it’s clear that part of why Mississippi passed its abortion restriction was so it would be challenged, work up to a now-friendly SCOTUS, and get Roe v. Wade nuked once and for all in addition to merely having that one individual state law upheld. Interested parties will figure out how to “game” any system to the extent it can be gamed. Even the very act of refusing to hold hearings on Merrick Garland was gaming the system a bit — fully within the rules but no one REALLY believes McConnell merely thought a lame duck president can’t nominate a justice, he just gamed the system. And good for him, if the other side can’t stop you, keep push until they can.
Oh yeah, I agree. Strategic is absolutely better than just winging it and giving in to every impulse (like you said with the Trans movement today). In fact, a little more strategic thought would probably do people good for fixing some of the situations we are in.
I was just giving another example to back up the other ones listed.
I don't like gaming the system from a judicial scope standpoint. If the issue is not actually an issue, and has to be constructed by activists, then this is just an elaborate way of turning the judiciary into a legislature. TBH, I'm not even sure about the judiciary having the ability to overturn law in general.