High drama in the High Court

This has been a week of big decisions at the Supreme Court and critical analysis of them all over the media. Today’s decision on racial preferences is being just as hyped as the week’s earlier ones. The WSJ law blog has a compact ‘cheat sheet’ rundown of the ruling, along with a link to the actual opinion.

A few snips…

In one of the most closely watched cases this term, the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue of using race as a factor for making public school assignments.

It seems like nearly all the cases have been closely watched. This particular court is under extremely critical srutiny…and some inner tension.

In a highly charged atmosphere in the court, the justices ruled 5-4 that the plans were unconstitutional. Four justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, found that race can never be a factor in these kinds of decisions, with the only exception being a remedy to official segregation. Justice Anthony Kennedy was the fifth vote. Importantly, his concurring opinion didn’t reach as far as the plurality. He ruled that race can be a factor in some circumstances, although not to the extent as employed by the two school districts. Because his was the fifth and deciding vote, his more nuanced view could be the one that school districts look to in crafting new programs. It will also likely muddy how the decision is interpreted.

Not given to nuance, the media already muddy their interpretations.

Next question…

Does it overturn Brown v. Board of Education?

No. But it does reflect a deep division over Brown, the 1954 decision that abolished official school segregation and the court’s most celebrated case. The plurality today says Brown means schools can’t look at race in any circumstances. It’s a formalistic view that says racial categories are inherently invidious, regardless of their purpose.

Here’s a more direct way to say that… 

 “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” said Chief Justice Roberts.

He can say a lot in one sentence.

For the dissenters, Brown was designed to destroy an effective caste system that made blacks inferior, and communities today should be able to try different ways to promote integration. “To invalidate the plans under review is to threaten the promise of Brown,” Justice Stephen Breyer said in dissent.

What does it say about the court?

It’s another indication about how the court is angrily dividing along ideological lines.

Who’s angry? And…why? The liberal justices, it seems, and they’re really showing it lately.

In modern times, this case reveals one of the starkest divisions in the court on social issues. Justice Breyer took nearly half an hour to read his dissent from the bench, which in the court’s theatrics is a sign of severe disagreement. That’s happened several times already this term. The opinions were also dotted with sharp language. “I must dissent,” wrote Justice Breyer, in a rare formulation. Justices usually “respectfully” dissent. At their most peeved, they’ll leave out the “respectfully.”

Breyer is peeved. As Ginsburg was in the partial birth abortion ban ruling. And O’Connor, too, even though she’s off the court.