BTW, you seem to be criticizing the Justices for not being criminals, and also you seem to be suggesting that they are “out of touch” with society because they are passing down judgment from their “high chairs.”

No, I am not criticizing these judges for not being criminals, but for denying a security factor that puts other people at risk if it turns out that they are wrong, and than, on top of that, acting as if they are the moral crusaders.

In other words, as the previous Los Angeles Times article pointed out,

The case, Johnson vs. California, tested two long-standing doctrines of the Supreme Court.

One says that official racial segregation is forbidden, a violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of “equal protection” under the law. However, some court opinions have noted that in an extreme case — such as a race riot at a prison — officials may separate people by race.

The second doctrine says judges should defer to prison managers. Inmates do not have the same rights as others, the court has said.

In Johnson’s case, the often liberal-leaning U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco applied the second doctrine and said the California prison system’s temporary segregation policy was a reasonable means of preventing violence.

There were two conflicting principles here, the liberals on the US Supreme Court denied that the second doctrine was the prominent one, yet the conservatives on the Supreme Court, and the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the California prison system all said the second doctrine was most prominent. In other words, this was a prudence judgement, and the liberals on the US Supreme Court thought that they knew more about the situation than those closest to the matter, hence their being far removed criticism.

-HP

Then perhaps a “very dangerous” prison could serve as an additional deterrent to budding and seasoned criminals. Of course, the state will have to take reasonable precautions to ensure the physical safety of all inmates.

“If this social experiment goes wrong…people’s lives…will be in jeopardy. Something that these justices will never go through, sitting in their high chairs acting as if they personally stood courageously for racial integration”

-HP

That is providing they do not get convicted of a crime. But, this “social experiment” is in accordance with past law.

BTW, you seem to be criticizing the Justices for not being criminals, and also you seem to be suggesting that they are “out of touch” with society because they are passing down judgment from their “high chairs.” Are you suggesting that judges should become convicts to better adjudicate legal matters? If not, then why make reference to where they choose to sit? In other words, your criticisms are not based on the legalities of the decision, but rather on your BELIEF that they based their decision on a desire to “socially engineer” society. Of course as usual, you have nothing to support that contention.

“Under the new policy, race may still be used as a factor in separating prisoners — a white supremacist, for example, would probably not be housed with a black inmate”

-LA Times

It would seem to me that the deciding factor here is not the “race” of the prisoner, but rather the prisoner’s outlook on races other than his own. In other words, the state does not automatically presume that a “white” “Black” or “Latino” prisoner will be more inclined to commit an act of violence against a fellow inmate of a differing race, rather, it seems, that if a preexisting factor (e.g. membership to an organization that preaches violence against certain races)suggests that there may likely be a predisposition to violence against peoples of differing races than that prisoner can be lawfully segregated from races he or she loathes.

“Of course this is all meaningless to the social engineers on the court, they after all, are the champions of minorities, and if many people have to die to fit their view of reality, so be it, there heads will continue to stand tall.”

-HP
LOL Just some more of your nonsensical political ranting.

The question before the Court, as I understand it, was the constitutionality of state sponsored racial segregation. The Court has ruled that the state cannot lawfully engage in segregation on the basis of race; I see nothing wrong with that. And more to the point, it seems constitutional.

Your inner (conservative) desire to politicizing the judicial branch of government is disconcerting, but not really all that surprising.

hp, to the best of my knowledge gangs in chicago are for the most part racially segregated–i think its a phenomenon(sp?) that’s kind of hard to avoid in a city that is this segregated.

Chicago is to some degree also segregated, but nothing like California. For example, there are a significant number of Latinos that are disciples, and there are some Blacks that are kings, furthermore, the prisons in Chicago separate inmates along gang lines, not racial lines. They would never, for example, put a Latin King next to a disciple, even though both of them may be Mexican.

Yet in Los Angeles, California, ALL Mexican gangsters are grouped together and are united in prison, this despite the fact that some of them fight each other on the streets like Latin Kings and Disciples do in Chicago.

In other words, when you hit California prisons, there is no longer a separation among gangs, there is only a separation among race. All races, even though they may be mortal enemies on the streets, unite in prison, and fight only other races. It is completely racial in California prisons, completely. To try to mix races in California prisons would be like trying to mix latin kings and disciples in Chicago, it just isn’t going to work.

hp, how is it that you know so much about chicago gangs?

A good friend of mine in college was a known Latin King. He did five years in prison, and grew up in, if I remember correctly, shy town. He would spend a lot of time with some of my more, shall we say, ‘troublesome’ friends in Compton, and would always fill me in on the differences between Chicago gangs and Compton gangs (he was especially surprised on how the gang lifestyle in Compton is much more pronounced, much more integrated in the culture, and in much more use of guns).

oso,

Come on bro, as much as I luv you, I got a reputation to uphold. What do you think would happen to my ‘vast right wing conspiracy’ membership if the word got out that I am close friends with a strong limousine liberal like yourself? j/k, besos.

What the fuck? Are you worried about your hizzies finding out about me or what? Anyway, I got here too late and this discussion has turned away from what my main point was so I’ll write my own post … eventually. Te felicito for a well written post that was written by … you. Hasta la victoria siempre. Haha.

So you could have two Mexican gangs on the streets that absolutely hate each other, killing each other all of the time, yet when they hit the prisons, they must and will get along, simply to fight other races.

i’ve been told its the same at cook county and other area jails. and unfortunately I do know what the difference is between a king and a disciple–i would probably seat them next to each other at a dinner party out of spite. hp, how is it that you know so much about chicago gangs?

and you are right i did misunderstand and didn’t realize that cali jails were already segregated.

And no, racial segregation has not resulted in fractured smaller splinter groups, for example, all (with the exception of Maravia) Latino gangs in Southern California get along in prison, and this despite the fact that on the streets many of these Latino gangs hate each other, and are constantly killing each other, yet in prison, they all get along.