SUPREME COURT'S CONSERVATIVE SHIFT CAUSE FOR ALARM

When school desegregation was ended in 1954 with the Brown v. Board
of Education U.S. Supreme Court decision, many hoped this was the
beginning of a colorblind country. More than 50 years later, we are
far from colorblind, and the Supreme Court is showing us just how far
we have to go when it comes to civil rights, and not just those based
on race issues.

The court, in its first full session under Chief Justice John Roberts
Jr., has taken on a decidedly conservative bent. This alone is not a
problem. However, that direction has led to decisions that favor
government and business over the rights of the individual. It's a
direction that is very uncomfortable.

Many of the court's decisions were split 5-4 with Justice Anthony M.
Kennedy being the swing vote. Kennedy has become the moderate judge
between four conservative justices -- Roberts, Antonin Scalia,
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. -- and four liberal justices --
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, David H. Souter and John Paul
Stevens. Kennedy, however, leans more to the conservative side than
Sandra Day O'Connor, the justice who once held the middle ground.

The final major decision of the session was a 5-4 decision in Parents
Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District that
overturned school integration policies in Seattle and Louisville
because they used a student's race to determine whether a place was
available at a desired school for a student. The policies were meant
to ensure integration of schools.

It is easy to find fault with integration practices that look at skin
color alone. However, it cannot be denied there is still a
significant access issue to education in this country.

Local example

Look no further than New London and Waterford if evidence is needed.
New London is an urban school district with significant minority
populations. The school system is underfunded and is not achieving
good results under No Child Left Behind. Next door is Waterford, a
mostly white community with modern facilities and better academic
performance. The high schools of New London and Waterford sit less
than one mile from each other, yet the educational opportunities at
each is very different.

While these are two different districts, the predicament is similar
to those in Seattle and Louisville, where not all schools are equal.
The decision is unsettling because it almost appears as though the
court is suggesting, in a reversal of the Brown decision so long ago,
separate but equal is an acceptable concept. It is not. Every child
has a right to a good education with peers of many races.

This decision is just one of a number of decisions that indicates the
court is on course to limit many of your rights. In another ruling,
Scott v. Harris, the court, by a vote of 8 to 1, sided with police
who rammed a speeding driver's car, causing a serious accident. The
court said, despite the fact the driver was not suspected of anything
more than speeding, police were justified in running the driver off the road.

Because of another 5-4 decision in Uttecht v. Brown, it is now easier
for prosecutors to remove jurors in death penalty cases who have
concerns about capital punishment. As Stevens notes in the dissent,
this ruling seems to predispose jurors in death penalty cases to
assigning this harshest of punishments.

Free speech at risk

In a case becoming known as for its slogan, "bong hits for Jesus,"
the court ruled, again 5-4, schools can censor and punish students
for speech that can be interpreted by officials to be advocating or
celebrating the use of illegal drugs. The student in the case was not
on school grounds but within sight of the school. The case, Morse v.
Frederick, is an erosion of First Amendment rights and opens the door
for a huge range of free speech issues schools can now censor. Where
will the line be drawn before we decide those in public school have
no right to think and speak for themselves? Whether the slogan was
appropriate for a teenager to put on a sign is up to his parents, not
the principal.

The court also put serious constraints in the ability of an employee
to sue an employer for pay discrimination. The limit is 180 days from
the act. The Equal Opportunity Commission had maintained it was up to
180 days of any time the discrimination occurred, meaning every time
a paycheck that was discriminatory was issued, the clock reset. Now,
employees have a relatively limited amount of time to recognize the
discrimination. While six months may seem adequate, consider how
often you see a co-worker's paycheck. It often takes many months to
recognize there could be a pay disparity, and then it takes time to
build a case.

These decisions range across different aspects of the law, but they
all have put the emphasis on government and business rights over
those of the individuals. Even in an overly litigious society, this
is alarming. There are even some who suggest the court did not go far
enough with many of these decisions.

It is the individual who makes this country great. When we lose our
rights to massive entities, we become less important, and the
democracy we have created is weakened.