Busing —Not Integration— Opposed:
Invoke Our Color-Blind Constitution to End It  /  Chapter Seven
  		 110
Invoke Our Color-Blind Constitution
to End Busing
PreviousNext
Wilks concluded by holding that the white firefighters were entitled to a hearing on their reverse discrimination claims notwithstanding their failure to intervene in the suit in which the decree was rendered out of which said claims arose. 109 S.Ct. at 2187-2188. Movants, similarly, by virtue of the current impact of the court-ordered assignments upon movant students under a decree to which they are not privy, are absolutely entitled to a hearing on their claims of "reverse" discrimination. A fortiori, since they seek such hearing under rules, quoted below, specifically enacted to ensure that opportunity.

In particular, to paraphrase the Supreme Court's acknowledgment of the unique situation of public school students, movant students do not shed their constitutional right, upon enrollment, to challenge judicial assignment, solely because of their race, away from their "home" schools to distant schools. Compare Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, at 574 (1975).

    Point 2: Movants Should be Allowed to Intervene, in any Event, in an Action Where They have a Direct Interest in the Outcome of the Public School Assignment of Movant Students and Where Their Absence will Irreparably Impair Their Ability to Protect that Interest.

    Rule 24, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides in pertinent part:

    (a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: ...(2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.

    (b) Permissive Intervention. Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action: ...(2) when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common....
     
Lopez Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)
 
Wilks Martin v. Wilks, 109 S.Ct. 2180 (1989)
  
  — Busing: Chapter 7, pages 100 - 130 — PreviousNext
  
Busing —Not Integration— Opposed
Invoke our Color-Blind Constitution to End It
A Reasoned Opposition to Race-Based
Affirmative Action in Public Schools
by Elmer Enstrom, Jr. 		Contents
History of the 30-year Carlin affirmative action lawsuit:
a pro bono case history of applying Constitutional principles.
  
© 1998-2006, 2013 Enstrom Foundation www.EnstromFoundation.org Bookmark and Share