Brown vs Board of Education Thurgood Marshall www.BlogTalkRadio.com/TheGISTofFREEDOM

[iphonerocksdotscom]

thurgo

[summerzzzzz55]

Keithed200@ yes, Marshall is an activist judge , and I can't say that I blame him from legislating from the bench . LBJ put him in to do do this . But after he died , who did the conservatives put in ? Thomas , and if he has a chance , he will do likewise . The nightmare is evolving .

[desireecho]

chicano: the way our society works, the important stories like the one you mention aren't told or are just glossed over. however, the case you speak of is mendez vs. westminster. marshall was only a lawyer at the time....

[CHICANOJIHADIST]

I still ask this question; "Why is that for some unexplained reason, American History still NEVER mentions Thurgood Marshall's first case, long before Brown vs Topeka Board of Education? WE RAZA still remember his 1940s California Orange County school segregation policies that excluded Mexican Americans from attending Westminster Public Schools. It was called; "Medina vs Westminister School Board of Education", This was the predecessor to the 1954 "Brown vs Board of Education". I REST MY CASE!

[kittytracker098]

many people sadly disagree

[kittytracker098]

Thurgood marshall was one of the best people ever alive

[cutiekkat5]

Look u idoit mrgevy get life u bitch if u dnt lik him stop commenting u son of a bitch i bet ur an embaressment 2 ur family ur mom probly hates u i know i do ur such a loser u raceist bitch aka ur callin a 11 year old girl a moron u bully

[CHICANOJIHADIST]

For some reason any and ALL history of Thurgood Marshal important historical jurisprudence case has been historically obliterated about his 1940s California Orange County school integration case about the school segregation policies of excluding Mexican Americans from attending Westminster Public Schools. It was called, I believe, "Medina vs Westminister School Board of Education", This was the predecessor to "Brown vs Board of Education". I REST MY CASE!

E.F. Mohammed Martinez - East L.A.

[cutiekkat5]

this rock

[MrGrevy]

Legislating from the bench is never good.

[Keithed200]

@MrGrevy Cool! Since you seem to be such a law and legal expert, I assume you can provide me with the exact names and details of cases where exactly Marshall "legislated from the bench" and why these decisions should earn that distinction. I'll be waiting for your swift and knowledgeable response!

[MrGrevy]

@Keithed200 I don't need to be a "law and legal expert" (?) to have common sense right? Here's what Marshall said about constructionism:

"The government [the Founding Fathers] devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and major social transformations to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the freedoms and individual rights, we hold as fundamental today."He was an activist judge. He supported affirmative action for gods sake.

[Keithed200]

@MrGrevy Again: how was he an activist judge? Which specific rulings from the Court earn him this distinction? I'm asking you to actually back up and prove your assertion of "common sense", friend.

[MrGrevy]

@Keithed200 I just provided his judicial philosphy...as if that isn't enough? How about Roe v. Wade? Now you come in and spout some nonsense about how that wasn't legislating from the bench, right?

[Keithed200]

@MrGrevy No, go on. Tell me how Roe v. Wade was an example of judicial activism. I'm curious.

[MrGrevy]

Are you unfamiliar with the case, or are you just being smug? As Rehnquist said in his dissent "'A state may impose virtually no restriction on the performance of abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy." This sounds like a politically-motivated ruling not based on law in any way.'"

They essentially made a law out of thin air restricting a state's ability to regulate abortion. If you don't understand how that is judicial activism, I can't help you. Start reading some books friend.

[Keithed200]

@MrGrevy Wrong. The entire basis of Roe v. Wade is that that the state must justify any intrusion into a citizen's private life with some sort of state interest, whether "significant," "substantial" or "compelling." And until fetuses are considered legal "persons", it seems extraordinarily difficult to make a coherent argument that there is or ever was a compelling state interest in a State prohibition on abortions in the first place.

[MrGrevy]

@Keithed200 Nope. You are wrong. They essentially made a law where none existed, regardless of justification. It's common knowledge that this is judicial activism. Nice try though.

[Keithed200]

@MrGrevy I don't care what "common knowledge" maintains. It has earned this distinction largely because it has become a political football mantra for its opponents to repeat and repeat. Roe v. Wade was the striking down of already existing and considerably intrusive state laws. It is no more identifiably "activist" than recent rulings of the Campaign Finance (Citizens United v Federal Election Commission), where by your own logic it could be argued the Court "legislated" laws from "thin air".

[MrGrevy]

@Keithed200 Guess we'll have to agree to disagree? We're obviously not convincing each other of anything.

[rentslave]

Thurgood Marshall was no Clarence Thomas.Take this any way that you want.

[MrGrevy]

@rentslave Yeah, Thomas didn't legislate from the bench and made decisions according to the law.

[dener44]

Marshall, Thurgood, 190893, U.S. lawyer and Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (196791), b. Baltimore. He received his law degree from Howard Univ. in 1933. In 1936 he joined the legal staff of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. As its chief counsel.

[cardabanks]

Yes this is BEAUTIFUL

I wonder what Mr. Marshall wouild think of the current educational system with in the U.S. of America.

I know I am assuming but I beleive it would be thoughts of disparage.

Its a shame that I am the second comment on this video. It is also an honor.

Be Blessed

[namatamago3000]

I agree with each of your statements, cardabanks.

To add insult to injury, the Texas Board of Education has decided that Justice Marshall's contributions to US history are not significant enough to be included in textbooks, BUT Newt Gingrich IS? WTF???

[MrGrevy]

@namatamago3000 Look bongo-bongo or whatever your name is, Marshall circumvented the legislative process by making laws from the bench. There is nothing good about that.

[cutiekkat5]

@MrGrevy look freak this person is my greaest uncle your just stupid and dont know what he did so shut up and get a life bongo-bongo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!and im talking to mrgrevy

[MrGrevy]

@cutiekkat5 Yeah sure he is. I'm sure he'd be really proud of a youtube warrior like yourself who is functionally illiterate. What an embarrassment you'd be to him lol. He was a worthless incompetent judge who ruled by feeling and emotion not the law and the constitution. I don't expect you to understand that. Illiterate moron.

[MrGrevy]

@cardabanks Well I think he'd be surprised at what a disaster desegregation turned out to be. That is, if he had the courage to even enter an inner city school.

[MrGrevy]

@MrGrevy Yeah he sure stuck to those "evil" whites lol. Wonder if any of the marble mouth rappers even know who he was.

[FutureEntrepreneur1]

Beautiful