[Vision2020] (no subject)

[Sue Hovey]

That reasoning I wrote of is what I have always heard and read, but who's to 
say...One of the very interesting points of the Brown decision was that it 
was unanimous.  Supposedly Warren told the other justices, "We aren't going 
to take this one on if we can't agree in advance it will be unanimous.  He 
wanted that decision to be very clear.  Obviously, if Warren actually did 
say this, it is a pretty strong twisting of the standard procedure of the 
Court.  But I read it in Warren's writings, as well as in history books 
detailing the court case.

Sue
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
To: <suehovey at moscow.com>; <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>; <lfalen at turbonet.com>; 
<vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)


> Sue -
>
> I was of the impression that Eisenhower appointed Warren to the Supreme
> Court to ensure that the court remained strongly conservative.  Realizing
> that Warren, during WW2, was in favor of Japanese internment camps,
> Eisenhower felt that Warren was the perfect conservative choice.
>
> I also felt that, perhaps, Brown vs. Board of Education was an opportunity
> for Warren to "make amends" for his alleged anti Japanese-American
> sentiment during the war as a result of his support for the internment
> camps.
>
> Could this have simply been confusion on my part?
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>> The twist that is most memorable to me is when Eisenhower made Earl
>> Warren chief justice to keep him from running for Prez, and it was the
>> Warren court that came in with the unanimous decision in the 1954, Brown
>> v The Board of Education of Topeka--possibly the most significant
>> education decision of our times.
>>
>> Sue H.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent by First Step Internet.
>           http://www.fsr.com/
>
>