Whichever way one feels about the impact of Parents Involved, his comment does point to one of the most interesting aspects of the Supreme Court's role in American society. Why in the world would any political actor acquiesce to a mandate from the Court?
Take, for example, President Roosevelt and the Four Horsemen; President Truman in the aftermath of the Steel Seizure cases; President Nixon, Watergate, and the US v. Nixon case. More recently, I have in mind Vice President Gore's concession speech in the wake of Bush v. Gore. This is what he said:
Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court’s decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity of the people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.This is a remarkable statement on many accounts. Gore disagrees with the Court "strongly," and yet accepts it. Why would he, or anybody else for that matter, ever do that?
Answers to this question demand far more care and attention than I could give them here. For the moment, it suffices to say that the Post article leaves me underwhelmed. Of course the Louisville district fought back, hiring consultants and retaining lawyers, redrawing boundaries and buying more buses. Why would be expect them to do anything else?
The better question is: why didn't every affected district respond similarly?