.

[obamacon]

.

[philibusters]

I generally prefer teh style of the second essay, but I don't like that he starts out Plessy ought not be overturned.  I don't think Brown overturned the rule of Plessy, seperate, but equal--I think Brown just said in education it is  impossible to have two seperate school systems that are equal and therefore in education seperate cannot be equal.

[philibusters]

Man, Everytime I go to try to read these I get bored and end up skimming them, law schools answers are so boring to read!  If I was a prof, I kill myself or randomly assign grades, but definitely one or the other.

[philibusters]

I much prefer the first one. While I don't know what makes for a good answer, I don't like how the second one starts pontificating on social policy and what's best for the students -- that is outside the range of the court's expertise and is not their job.

Ah I think, and I am only guessing, that he was responding there to the actual argument.  In the real case the court cited stats that in education, segregation was inherently unequal if for no other reason than the school children could perceive they were being segregated and that made african american children feel inferior, so that even if the schools had had the same amount of money, quality of teachers, they still would have been inherently equal because it would be still be obvious that white politicians were deliberately keeping african american children away from white children so they still would have felt inferior.  I think, the second answer was trying to counter that, saying there is no inferiority complex upon african american children, it sounds like a policy argument, but its a loose application of the legal rule "seperate but equal" to the field of education and deciding if seperate is inherently unequal in that respect.

[kmpnj]

I would also say the first one is a more sound response.  It's argument is a sound, textualist argument.  Scalia would be proud.