Brown v. Board of Education?
In the case Brown v. Board of Education, did the Supreme Court demonstrate a preference for judicial activism or judicial restraint?
What were the policy implications of Brown v. Board of Education? In other words, once the decision was announced, what steps were states expected to take in order to implement the Supreme Court's decision?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
~First, you need to define your terms. If you don't like the decision, it reflects overreaching activism by the Court. If you like the decision, it is simply a rational and logical interpretation of the law. Brown was only one of the 5 cases decided under the Brown v. Board name, and the time was ripe for each of the cases. Thurgood Marshall would have never staked his reputation and his shot at becoming Solicitor General on the case if the decision was not a foregone conclustion (except to folks like Lester Maddox and George Wallace). The Court, like with Miranda and Gideon, was just waiting for the case with the right facts to come alone so they could make the ruling congress refused to address. Brown and company gave them the chance. It was up to the state and federal governments to implement the decision. The short answer is, they were expected to integrate and offer equal opportunity to all. Someday, maybe the spirit of Brown will be invoked, but don't look for it to happen in our lifetimes. That is probably why Brown II and Brown III have been litigated and we'll see Brown IV, V and VI before the job is done.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I think the answer to this question will all depend on the person your asking... there isn't any right or wrong answer. Judicial Activisim refers to a decision, made by a judge, that does not reflect a clear interpretation of the Constitution. His decision is influenced entirely by "activisim" and trying to further his own personal social beliefs/views. Judicial Restraint refers to a decision made by a judge that relies on a more strict intepretation of the Constituion. That is, the judge's opinion is based on what he felt that the Framers of the Constitution intended.
In my opinion, Brown V. Board of Education can be interpreted as being either activisim or restraint. The question is, did the Framers of the Constitution intend to have blacks and white attending the same schools? Did they view whites and colors as being equal? As much as I oppose racism and support the decision in Brown, I feel the justices' decision in Brown was a clear case of judicial activism. Judges were trying to create social change as opposed to interpreting the Constitution.
After the decision, states were expected to implement the new policies forthwith. As can be imagined, schools in the South attempted to drag their feet in implementing the change. National Guard forces were used at some schools to protect blacks.
- Anonymous4 years ago
The suitable court's Brown v. Board of training selection did no longer abolish segregation in different public areas, which includes eating places and restrooms, nor did it require desegregation of public colleges by potential of a particular time. It did, besides the undeniable fact that, declare the permissive or needed segregation that existed in 21 states unconstitutional. It became right into a commonplace step in direction of finished desegregation of public colleges. Even partial desegregation of those colleges, besides the undeniable fact that, became into nevertheless very a techniques away, as could quickly grow to be obvious The landmark suitable court case of Brown v. Board of training (1954) settled the question of no count if or no longer blacks and whites can acquire an training integrated with or cut loose one yet another. The case overturned the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, which conventional the doctrine of "separate yet equivalent." this concept pronounced that separate public centers of equivalent high quality do no longer violate the equivalent protection clause of the Fourteenth modification of the form.