While we were voting, the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing arguments about a thorny issue -- the temporary segregation of inmates by race.
Part of the title of a post done yesterday said: "Looking beyond the election. . .[A] call for prayer and God's blessings for our great country and its leader."
The world goes on . . .
_______________
On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court listened to arguments on a California policy of segregating inmates by race for the first 60 days they're in prison violates the Constitution.
This case returns the justices to the touchy subject of race -- something they confronted squarely in the 2003 college affirmative-action cases -- and is complicated by twists that could produce an unusual ruling.
To reach a decision, the justices will have to resolve a conflict between rulings limiting government consideration of race and their long-standing practice of allowing prisons wide latitude to infringe on constitutional rights to keep order.
(11-3-04 Knight Ridder Newspapers; 11-03-04 New York Times.)
The world goes on . . .
_______________
On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court listened to arguments on a California policy of segregating inmates by race for the first 60 days they're in prison violates the Constitution.
This case returns the justices to the touchy subject of race -- something they confronted squarely in the 2003 college affirmative-action cases -- and is complicated by twists that could produce an unusual ruling.
To reach a decision, the justices will have to resolve a conflict between rulings limiting government consideration of race and their long-standing practice of allowing prisons wide latitude to infringe on constitutional rights to keep order.
(11-3-04 Knight Ridder Newspapers; 11-03-04 New York Times.)
posted by Sid Cottingham | 6:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home