>>> sokol at jhu.edu 04/25/01 03:40PM >>
Wojtek,
I would add the 14th Amendment to your updated version of Martin Niemoeller's famous statement. Also, see case below on 14th Amendment.
I also like this modern-day variant ( found at http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/writings/misc-quotes/came-for-me )- 1992: Various Usenet personalities:
WHEN THEY TOOK THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, I WAS SILENT BECAUSE I AM NOT BLACK.
When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs. When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent. When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun. Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.
)))))))))))
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
>
> Supreme Court Scales Back Part of '64 Civil Rights Act
>
> Law: In 5-4 ruling, U.S. high court says states and
> schools can't be sued for racially biased policies
> unless they're deliberate. Conservatives hail decision,
> saying it will kill scores of pending legal challenges.
>
> By DAVID G. SAVAGE, Times Staff Writer
>
> WASHINGTON--The U.S. Supreme Court made it harder
> to enforce the nation's civil rights laws Tuesday,
> ruling that states, schools and colleges may not be sued
> for policies that have a discriminatory effect on
> blacks, Latinos or other minorities.
> In a 5-4 ruling, the court's conservative majority
> trimmed back part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of
> 1964.
> Agencies that receive federal funds still can be
> sued if they deliberately discriminate against people
> because of race or national origin.
>
> However, they can no longer be sued on the grounds
> that their rules or policies have a harsher effect on
> minorities, the court said.
> Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking for the
> conservative majority, said courts have been wrong for
> 35 years in allowing private lawsuits as a means to
> enforce the civil rights guarantees.
> "We hold that no such right of action exists,"
> Scalia said.
> Conservative lawyers predicted that the decision
> will kill off lawsuits against the University of
> California and the National Collegiate Athletic Assn.
> that challenge their use of the Scholastic Aptitude
> Test. Some lawyers have contended that standards
> requiring minimum SAT scores for college admission or
> athletic eligibility have a discriminatory effect on
> minority students because they result in a
> disproportionate number of them being disqualified.
> Tuesday's ruling also cast some doubt on the future
> effectiveness of Title IX, the parallel federal law that
> forbids sex discrimination by schools and colleges. This
> 1972 measure, which forced most schools to increase
> their budgets for female athletics, is famous for
> revolutionizing women's sports.
> At issue before the Supreme Court were two
> questions. Do the civil rights laws apply narrowly to
> intentional discrimination or more broadly to all
> policies that have a discriminatory effect on
> minorities? And who can enforce these laws: federal
> officials or individuals bringing lawsuits?
> Since the mid-1960s, civil rights laws have been
> broadly read to cover all discrimination and have been
> enforced through private suits.
> But many conservatives have insisted that the laws
> should be narrowed to apply only to deliberate racial
> discrimination. And they won a major victory in the
> ruling.
> Richard Samp, counsel for the conservative
> Washington Legal Foundation, called the ruling "a huge
> win. It will wipe out hundreds of lawsuits in the fields
> of education and the environment." He added that, while
> the court did not strike down the federal regulations
> that forbid state policies that have a discriminatory
> effect on minorities, "the opinion offers a clear
> invitation to challenge the [regulations] in the
> future."
> The ruling leaves unclear whether there remains any
> legal way to attack discriminatory policies.
> However, Bush administration officials remain free
> to broadly enforce anti-discrimination laws by
> threatening to cut off federal funds to states or
> colleges that have discriminatory policies.
> But the ruling rejects the private lawsuits that
> have been used most often to fight biased policies.
> In the case decided Tuesday, lawyers for the
> Southern Poverty Law Center had sued Alabama for
> adopting an English-only policy for residents seeking
> driver's licenses.
> Until 1990, Alabama, like most states, gave its
> written driver's test in more than a dozen languages.
> But the Legislature reversed course and adopted an
> English-only rule.
> The anti-poverty lawyers sued on behalf of Martha
> Sandoval and several thousand Spanish-speaking
> residents. A federal judge in Alabama and the U.S. 11th
> Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta agreed that the
> English-only policy had a discriminatory effect on
> Latinos.
> Alabama's attorney general appealed on states'
> rights grounds and prevailed Tuesday. In Alexander vs.
> Sandoval, 99-1908, the high court said the private
> lawyers had no right to sue the state over its allegedly
> discriminatory policy.
> Scalia's opinion was joined by Chief Justice
> William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor,
> Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
> John Findley, an attorney for the Pacific Legal
> Foundation in Sacramento, called the ruling "a death
> knell for many dubious civil right lawsuits." As an
> example, he cited a lawsuit that accused UC Berkeley of
> using SAT scores in a way that has a discriminatory
> effect on African American and Latino students. "This
> should bring an end to such suits," he said.
> The NCAA has been sued on behalf of some black
> athletes who say the minimum SAT requirement for
> freshmen is unfair and discriminatory. Those claims are
> pending in lower courts.
> The ruling also deals a blow to the so-called
> environmental justice movement. Some states and
> municipalities have been sued for locating incinerators
> and dumps in neighborhoods that are predominantly black
> or Latino. Lawyers acting on behalf of these communities
> have sued the state agencies on the grounds that their
> actions have had a unfair effect on minorities.
> The national legal director of the American Civil
> Liberties Union accused the court of crippling the
> enforcement of civil rights.
> "This is a real blow. These discriminatory impact
> lawsuits have been an extremely important tool for
> enforcing civil rights," said the ACLU's Steven R.
> Shapiro. "This is another instance of judicial activism.
> They are invalidating a practice that has gone on
> essentially unchallenged for 35 years."
> He was referring to Justice Department regulations
> adopted in 1966. To enforce the new national civil
> rights laws, the government said then that they covered
> polices that "have the effect of subjecting individuals
> to discrimination because of their race, color or
> national origin."
> It was assumed then that people who suffered
> alleged discrimination could sue in federal courts. Some
> women's rights lawyers said they feared that Title IX,
> the law against sex discrimination, could be challenged
> next.
> "It's worrisome. Title IX is a twin statute [with
> the Title VI Civil Rights Act], and they have been
> enforced the same way," said Kathy Rogers, president of
> NOW Legal Defense in New York. For example, colleges
> have been sued not on the grounds that they deliberately
> discriminate against women but that their failure to add
> women's sports programs has a discriminatory effect on
> their female students.
> Justice John Paul Stevens read much of his dissent
> from the bench Tuesday. He accused Scalia of offering an
> "illogical and muddled" opinion that ignored both
> history and the law. He was joined by Justices David H.
> Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
>
> Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times