Federal Judge rules "No fundamental right to literacy"

[Joods]

But it's more than a desire. According to our own constitutional amendments, it is a right of all US citizens. Surely the judge, in all his wisdom, should at least have a basic understanding of the constitution. If not, then he needs to be removed from the bench.

You'll have to cite the specific amendment you're referring to here, as I'm not aware of any such amendment addressing the question. (And while it's been a while, I'm reasonably confident that it's not in the original constitution, from what memory serves.)

According to the Bill of Rights: All citizens have the right to "life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Article 26, which was quoted by wyrd, a few posts above, would logically include those things.

[Astreja]

What. The. Actual. Fuck. I'm sorry, neighbours, that you have to put up with crap like that.

[Joods]

What. The. Actual. Fuck. I'm sorry, neighbours, that you have to put up with crap like that.

Got room at your place? I'll gladly leave here.

[Rev. Rye]

The judge is in violation of Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Even an illiterate lawyer should be able to win that case before the old buzzards in the SCOTUS.
A person isn't really educated unless he can read and write at least one language.  

Detriot and Chicago are two of the most racist cities in America against blacks.  Their intent is to drive all of the blacks out of those cities.

I hate to break it to you, but in America, it actually isn't binding law. According to Sosa v. Alzarez-Machain (2004), "The United States ratified the [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] on the express understanding that it was not self-executing and so did not itself create obligations enforceable in the federal courts."

Why, yes, that does suck. The fact remains (as I argued on another thread) that, barring what is explicitly provided for by the Constitution, our laws are ultimately at the mercy of judges who have their own agendas and prejudices and given the right opportunity and a sufficiently changed set of circumstances, all our laws are potentially up for grabs. Normally, this isn't much of a problem, but with this presidency and the Republican Party's turn into a Far-Right party that doesn't even try to hide its contempt for the people (especially the minorities) it's something that we have to watch out for, especially with Anthony Kennedy's imminent retirement and his inevitable replacement.

[Angrboda]

You'll have to cite the specific amendment you're referring to here, as I'm not aware of any such amendment addressing the question.  (And while it's been a while, I'm reasonably confident that it's not in the original constitution, from what memory serves.)

According to the Bill of Rights: All citizens have the right to "life,  Liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Article 26, which was quoted by wyrd, a few posts above, would logically include those things.

I'm sorry, but that would be an incredibly weak argument even if it were true. The fact is that the line about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution. So it is not in any sense binding law. If it were a part of the constitution, it's not necessarily the case that literacy would be guaranteed as a result of those inalienable rights, as literacy doesn't appear to be a prerequisite for obtaining any of them. One might be more successful in pursuing happiness if one is literate, but it doesn't guarantee the successful pursuit of happiness, only that one, ostensibly, cannot be forbidden from pursuing it.

As to Article 26, beyond what Rev said, the guarantee of an education only mandates that one should be provided, not the specifics or accomplishments of such an education. As the article quoted in the OP says, that's left to more local powers to decide.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

This is a very clever case and the results can be used in all sorts of ways. For instance, some school districts have students that speak over 100 different languages. That puts a tremendous strain on the teachers to communicate with them. So, according to this ruling all that's required is for the teachers to present the information in English and if the kids are incapable of understanding it then that's too bad. If they are given an assignment to write an essay about paint drying on a wall and they can't do it then it's the kids' fault and not the school.

So in effect the ruling opens up the door for all schools across the country to dump their programs for teaching foreign kids how to be literate in American English. That's a very good way to ultimately reduce the influx of illegal aliens.

In the case of black students there's no reason for them to be illiterate. Their parents and grandparents went to school and know how to read and write. They understand American English. All they have to do is look at a piece of paper or a sign and they should be able to read and understand it. So the parents should invest the personal time and energy to push their rug-rats to excel in at least the basics. That's their responsibility.

It will be very interesting to see if other areas become as restrictive as Detroit is now able to become. This could be become a transformative moment in American history.

[Rev. Rye]

So the parents should invest the personal time and energy to push their rug-rats to excel in at least the basics.  That's their responsibility.  

It will be very interesting to see if other areas become as restrictive as Detroit is now able to become.  This could be become a transformative moment in American history.

And in the many cases where the parents can't invest the time and energy to do so? Because in Detroit, as of 2011, 70% of the children live in single-parent households. 57% live under the poverty line. While 49% of work-aged people are unemployed, many poor people actually do work, and often with unusually long hours where they can barely even spend much time with their kids. And the 49% of unemployed people tend to be too busy with needs lower on the Maslovian pyramid (read, making sure they have food and a roof over their heads) to be able to help their children excel.

Yes, if what just happened in Detroit happened across the nation, it could very well be transformative. I can see it now. And if you fast-forward to about 20 minutes into this video, you'll be able to see it, too:

[Minimalist]

When it comes to human rights we are largely full of shit. We like to lecture other countries but they have long since figured out how hypocritical we are. And now, with orange shitgibbon in the WH there is no longer even a pretense.

[Amarok]

This is an assault on the enlightenment itself

[Angrboda]

This is a very clever case and the results can be used in all sorts of ways.  For instance, some school districts have students that speak over 100 different languages.  That puts a tremendous strain on the teachers to communicate with them.  So, according to this ruling all that's required is for the teachers to present the information in English and if the kids are incapable of understanding it then that's too bad.  If they are given an assignment to write an essay about paint drying on a wall and they can't do it then it's the kids' fault and not the school.

So in effect the ruling opens up the door for all schools across the country to dump their programs for teaching foreign kids how to be literate in American English.  That's a very good way to ultimately reduce the influx of illegal aliens.

In the case of black students there's no reason for them to be illiterate.  Their parents and grandparents went to school and know how to read and write.  They understand American English.  All they have to do is  look at a piece of paper or a sign and they should be able to read and understand it.  So the parents should invest the personal time and energy to push their rug-rats to excel in at least the basics.  That's their responsibility.  

It will be very interesting to see if other areas become as restrictive as Detroit is now able to become.  This could be become a transformative moment in American history.

Saying that it's not a basic right isn't the same as saying it's not a worthwhile goal. I think you're interpreting the court's opinion as a policy statement, and I don't think that's right.