Clarence Thomas and the Tea Party

Waylon, Brown vs. Board of Ed was great justice, extremely bad law. 1) It created a new Constitutional right made up by the nine justices, but 2) postponed its application, which is incomprehensible and made the ruling itself useless -- it wasn't until the Civil Rights movement gathered steam on its own outside of court rulings that desegregation really happened, and 3) it based the decision on bullshit psychological criteria, not the Constitution or any precedent.

The decision was supported by zero in terms of legal reasoning.

However, it also socially achieved something that was long overdue and may have required a more prolonged battle without the Court imposing its social will on the States. So it creates a pickle for a lot of people. It achieved something important. The means were messed up, though.

The question is did the desirable ends justify the means? I can't speak for Scalia. I have no idea what BS he is going to rationalize his agenda with at any given time. Many of the court's rulings after Brown vs. Board of Ed were way more egregious than ascribing new protections to the 14th Amendment. At least they tried to spin the Brown ruling around the Constitution, even if they had no legal reasoning for it. By the time they got to Griswold v. Connecticut, just 9 years later, they weren't even bothering with that, and they were tossing the Constitution aside completely with their made-up rights. That was made possible by Brown -- which is the bad side of what Brown did.

Brown v. Board achieved social justice. The harm in it, though, was that it opened a barn door and all of the animals ran out in the process and that created other problems we have had to deal with.