Suprime Court Were On Power Trip Even Before Bush v. Gore

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Supreme Court 5 Are on Power Trip
 By Jeffrey A. Segal and Harold J. Spaeth. Jeffrey A. Segal and Harold J. Spaeth are professors of political science at the State Univesity of New York at Stony Brook and authors of the forthcoming "The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revision

 IF THE Supreme Court's December decision handing George W. Bush the election tells us anything, it's that the Supreme Court is more secure and comfortable than it has ever been in pushing an agenda not only activist and conservative but blatantly partisan. Bush vs. Gore illustrates the partisanship while the disdain-and frequency-with which the court demeaningly voids congressional legislation best evidences the activism. Despite the attack on state sovereignty in Bush vs. Gore, an attack the conservative justices needed to produce Bush's victory, it is federal authority that the William Rehnquist court's guns have primarily assailed. Those guns likely will continue to be leveled for judicial assault. Four decisions handed down since 1999 illustrate the extent to which federal supremacy has become federal descendency. The court immunized states from suits by their own employees for violations of federal labor law and for violations of age-discrimination protections; by patent owners for infringement by states and their instrumentalities-for example, state universities; and by businesses injured by unfair competition. Accordingly, if a state wrongs somebody-resident or not-no remedy may right that wrong in the view of Justices William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas unless the state willingly submits to suit. An unwilling state may not be sued in its own courts or in federal court. As a result, a state can fire someone for reaching the age of 60 and the worker has no redress against the state. Or a state university may reproduce a copyrighted textbook, sell it to students and pay the author nothing. Perhaps financially straitened state colleges and universities might consider selling Microsoft Windows to alleviate their condition. How is this possible, given that the Constitution expressly authorizes Congress to enforce the equal protection of the laws and to regulate patents and copyrights? According to the edict of the Rehnquist Five, royal English immunity fundamentally applies in an immutable fashion to the principle of federalism, a principle moreover that the structure of the Constitution embodies. If this language does not compute, it shouldn't. Simply recognize that the states' rights legacy of early 19th-Century Sen. John C. Calhoun of South Carolina has been raised from the dead. The five have not restricted their limits on national supremacy to state immunity. Consider United States vs. Lopez, where the Rehnquist Five declared unconstitutional the Gun-Free School Zones Act, which prohibited firearm possession within 1,000 feet of school property. Perhaps this is hardly earthshaking, given that the law merely enabled Congress to elbow its way into the kids-drugs-crime grandstand. But the basis for striking this law was, for the first time since 1936, the Interstate Commerce Clause-opening the doors to far greater diminution of federal authority. Thus, in 2000, the Rehnquist Five declared unconstitutional the Violence Against Women Act, which permitted victims of rape, domestic violence and other crimes "motivated by gender" to sue their attackers in federal court. Where does the court go from here? After ruling that states need not abide by age-discrimination statutes, the court this year will rule on state disobedience to the Americans With Disabilities Act. Even without any new appointments by President Bush, the anti-federalists have five secure votes on matters of states' rights. As Bush pushes a states' rights agenda and lists Scalia and Thomas as his favorite justices, future appointments will only strengthen this bloc. But ultimately, whether the court follows its practice and eviscerates the disabilities act matters less than the strengthening of its position as king of the governmental hill. For the Rehnquist Five is less concerned with ideological purity -functioning unabashedly on behalf of hard-core conservative causes -than they are in extending authoritative judicial policy across the entire governmental spectrum. To wit: A Republican Congress meekly proffers a line-item veto to a Democratic president, thereby lessening the operation of self-serving pork-barrel projects. No, you don't, said the court. Constitutional silence on the subject means prohibition. In the interest of religious freedom, a virtually unanimous Congress banned government restrictions except for the most compelling reasons. The court again jumped in, imperiously trumpeting that it alone authoritatively construes the Constitution, and that Congress has no business doing so. Thus died the Religious-Freedom Restoration Act. Will the public continue to accept such behavior? The half-life of public reaction to matters judicial, excluding abortion or school prayer, is rather short. In January, the court's approval ratings, as measured by Gallup, were at a healthy 59 percent, down only negligibly from 62 percent before the election and Bush vs. Gore. Finley Peter Dunne's Mr. Dooley's, as has been noted, said "th' supreme coort follows th' iliction returns." No longer. These days, th' iliction returns follow the supreme coort.





-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 25, 2001

Answers

Supreme Court...Geeze

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 25, 2001.

Gosh Cherri, I'm surprised at you. All courts and judges are above reproach. Ask poole, flint, and porter.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), February 25, 2001.

Clearly, the Supreme Court is not above the reproach of a couple of professors of political science at the State Univesity of New York at Stony Brook. Not even law professors, even.

Gee, I'm sorry these guys are so unhappy. Do you suppose the Supreme Court will reverse themselves to cheer them up? Do you suppose it took some effort to find someone this obscure to cut and paste here? Do you suppose Cherri will ever learn to format her propaganda? Stay tuned for the next exciting installment!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 25, 2001.


Government is God, Cherri, and the robotic trio are his lower level managers.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), February 25, 2001.

"Attitudinal Model Revision". Holy jumpin' jargon, Batman!

-- (DickGrayson@bat.guano), February 25, 2001.


Isn't SUNY-Stony Brook where CPR got his MS in math which led directly to a successful real estate career? Hmmmmmmmmmm.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), February 25, 2001.

Cherri, based on the ongoing revelations regarding the ‘Clinton Legacy’, you should be on your knees kissing the feet of the five SC justices. Using Constitutional law, they stopped the outrageous and criminal recounts that the Democrats were orchestrating in Florida and gave us the quality leadership we so dearly needed. Bill and Hillary Clinton have disgraced themselves and shamed this country. Hard to imagine that we have that many ignorant citizens to keep scum like the Clinton’s at the throne for 8 years.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 25, 2001.

Flint, I see you expend quite a lot of intellectual energy hacking down the pretensions of liberals with the sharp edge of your logical mind and your principled philosophy.

Why not spend a few moments of your energy addressing the validityof Barry's immortal screed in this thread (just above). Unless, of course, Barry's position appears to you to be fully in consonance with your own politics...

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), February 26, 2001.


"criminal recounts"

Bwaaahahaahaahaha!!

Just goes to show you the warped and twisted delusions that the sicko Republicans are suffering from. The criminal act of the last election was commited by the Supreme Court, denying the right of thousands of voters to have their vote count.

-- Barry (is one sick @ mutha. fucka), February 26, 2001.


Barry, Barry, Barry....
You are falling for the spin hook line and sinker. *****shaking my head in dissapointment*****



Using Constitutional law, they stopped the outrageous and criminal recounts
The recounts were legal and according to the laws that existed on the books. The Florida Supreme Court was attempting to standardize the the methods that were to be used to determine a vote. Had they chosen to have any ballot with a chad attached discarded you would be singing their praises right now.
The FACT is (and a fact that you cannot deny) that more people voted for Gore then Bush in Florida. The republicans don't want people to think about this fact, so we get one Clinton scandal after another which takes the attention away from the votes that are finally being recounted. There are a lot of reasons that votes were discarded, but the fact remains that the people in Florida voted Gore in as president.
that the Democrats were orchestrating
They were doing as the law allowed. They had a LEGAL right to ask for recounts!!! Since when does your dislike for a law negate it? At the same time, Republicans were orchestrating outrageous and criminal recounts in other states by your standards. Why have you not expressed your dismay over that?
in Florida and gave us the quality leadership we so dearly needed.
Quality?

Bill and Hillary Clinton have disgraced themselves and shamed this country.
How?

The media's journalistic bias distorts the truth, when a blatant lie just won't do;

The "White House Trashed" scandal - false, fizzled out
- The "Air Force One Trashed" scandal - false, fizzled out
- The "Clinton Gifts" scandal - false, fizzled out
- The "Hillary Gift Registry" scandal - false, fizzled out
- The "Expensive Office Space" scandal - false, fizzled out
- The "Clinton Stealing Furniture" scandal - false, fizzled out

This charge "stuck" because events could be twisted to SOUND LIKE Clinton took a bribe. (Sound familiar?) Never mind that like all the Clinton "scandals" the charges are false if the evidence is closely examined.

Yet daily we are treated to yet another article regarding the now infamous Clinton pardons as if access to the President has never been a significant factor in obtaining an eleventh-hour reprieve. And the alternative would be what? Did former President George H.W. Bush spend the waning hours of his presidency reviewing, individually and in detail, the prison records of millions of incarcerated felons across the country? No. Former President Bush's list of the exonerated included six men who were indicted and/or convicted for selling weapons of mass destruction to a hostile foreign power under the direct supervision of Poppy’s former boss, Ronald Reagan. Let's see. Do we think these men had access to President Bush, Sr.? Do we think that there may be a qualitative difference in pardoning a man accused of tax evasion and six men accused of treason?

Since when is a person considered guilty just because rumors and propaganda are spread? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Why do you believe every thing negative said about Clinton without the least amount of doubt and without any proof ?
Do you honestly believe that the brothers let them know what they were doing? Just how were people who wanted a pardon supposed to get it placed in front of Clinton anyway if not by going through someone who had access to him? Also it is very unlikely that Clinton was told all of the negative things against them, more likely he was given an abundance of positive information justifying a pardon. It was up to him to weigh the information and decide whether or not to grant a pardon. He has a legal right to pardon people. He has done nothing that other presidents haven't done. Have you looked into Bush SR.'s pardons? You might be surprised to find that he blatantly pardoned people for his own personal financial (as well as legal) benifit.

Hard to imagine that we have that many ignorant citizens to keep scum like the Clinton's at the throne for 8 years.

It is really hard to imagine that we have that many ignorant citizens who believe all of the lies and biased reporting they are fed by the media. Clinton was voted into office, not deposited on the throne like Bush.

Clinton was a good president, he worked very hard to make world peace, he got undeserving people off of welfare, he helped keep the economy flourish. If you take away all of the false (and unproven) accusations leveled against him , except for messing with Monica, there are no rational complaints left against him. From the moment he got into office he has faced one false, unproved charge after another. Who did this and why? Think about it? Perhaps some people were not happy that Bush sr wasn't re-elected so he could do all the things Jr. has now been manipulated into doing.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 26, 2001.



You're wasting your time Cherri, sick fucks like Barry don't listen to reason. They'll continue to use slander and false accusations against Democrats just so they can get the greedy fat bastard Republicans into power. The fact that our judicial system is being corrupted and our entire Democracy is being destroyed is of no consequence to scum like Barry, a wastoid loser like him might get an extra $500 a year from Dubya's tax cut, and to him it's worth it.

-- Repugs (no conscience @ no. integrity), February 26, 2001.

Who better then a person with CIA connections to be able to use CIA methods of brainwashing the masses? You really should sit back and think about all of the charges that have been leveled against Clinton in the past 8 years and where investigations went with them? Do you think that Congress suddenly decided to check into the actions of president when Clinton became president? Why not Bush and his lies to congress about the Iran Contra scandal? He lied. He testified before congress and refused to give them documents they asked for.

Funny how attention was switched from these facts to "alleged" crimes Clinton committed. Can you conceive the possibility that you and millions like you have been played like a fiddle? Name crimes Clinton has been accused of that, after expensive investigations, where proven to be true. Had he not been stupid and messed around with Monica, what would there be to complain about? One person could not have done all the things he has been accused of and gotten away with them. Someone somewhere would have found something on him. But no, it was all hot air. Spoon fed to the American public to eat up and believe, even when discounted. These actions did take the attention away from the crimes Bush sr and others committed. And you and many others fell for it. Like I have said many times before, I was a life long republican until I used my own mind and started seeing what was going on. Some people do not accept what others tell them to think, they think for themselves.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 26, 2001.


Cherri, You ROCK!

-- Go Girl! (cherri@fan.com), February 26, 2001.

Miami Harold reported Bush won by 140 votes.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 26, 2001.

Read about it anon@ymous.com), February 26, 2001.


Nobody mentions the Florida Supreme Court. Now that was a court on a power trip, overturning every lower court ruling they could find.

-- which court is ona power trip? (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), February 26, 2001.

Read about it here

Screwed that one up.

I saw the interview last night on 60 minutes with Bois. It amazes me how people (the sore losers) talk about the court's decision even after the facts stare them in the face. Gore took it to court. Gore thought it should be decided in the courts because he didn't think he had a shot outside the courts. Gore lost in the courts. He's just a loser all the way around.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 26, 2001.


Unlike most folks, I just plain love Monday’s! After a weekend of judicial hiatus and ‘news on hold’, it is a day that traditionally brings forth all manner of new and interesting revelations.

Cherri…

I have great confidence in your ability to reason when presented with a factual premise. By now, I’m sure the news out of Florida has reached even the outpost known as Seattle. But wait…this week has just started to roll out and I promise you an entertaining experience not to be forgotten.

Little Nipper…..

My ‘position’ that you can not seem to grasp is not politically based….just the facts dude, just the facts. The ‘validity’ of my ‘screed’ is being certified on a daily basis. So, I have to ask you….Are You In?

Brain-Dead Anon….

Your words speak for themselves….thanks!

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 26, 2001.


- The "Expensive Office Space" scandal - false, fizzled out

Don't think so!

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 26, 2001.


This charge "stuck" because events could be twisted to SOUND LIKE Clinton took a bribe. Cherri, even James Carville is saying this. Even he, the mad dog hounding all enemies near and far, thinks that Clinton has done wrong.

Yet daily we are treated to yet another article regarding the now infamous Clinton pardons as if access to the President has never been a significant factor in obtaining an eleventh-hour reprieve. Who's eleventh-hour? Not the criminals' eleventh hour but Clinton's eleventh hour. Clinton ignored the process in granting these pardons. You're comparing it to someone on death row seeking a reprieve from the governor, a part of our judicial process. No comparison sweetie. It's becoming extremely obvious to even the dimmest of bulbs, that Clinton had other motives in granting these pardons.

Former President Bush's list of the exonerated included six men who were indicted and/or convicted for selling weapons of mass destruction to a hostile foreign power under the direct supervision of Poppy's former boss, Ronald Reagan. Oh it's OK if you say "he started it" but not OK when a right-wing conspirator says it.

Do we think that there may be a qualitative difference in pardoning a man accused of tax evasion and six men accused of treason? Absolutely, but you have your facts switched (oh my what a surprise!). Rich's actions were treasonous. He sold to the enemy for the sole purpose of profit. He gained personally in dealing with Iraq. Bush's friends on the other hand were trying to rescue American hostages. Big difference my dear, that your blind eyes can't see.

Since when is a person considered guilty just because rumors and propaganda are spread? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Why do you believe every thing negative said about Clinton without the least amount of doubt and without any proof? But you do the same thing with w's rumors, no proof, of AWOL. Please I can't think straight after reading the above post. You dumb fuck actually defending Rich's pardon. A guy who has denounced and renounced the US. You make me sick.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 26, 2001.


"Please I can't think straight after reading the above post."

LOL, you NEVER think straight, talk straight, or spell straight. It has nothing to do with the above post, it is because you are the DUMBEST of the dumb cunts. Pull your head out of your ass and get a brain transplant.

-- asshole kicker (filling in @ for. manny), February 26, 2001.


‘asshole licker’, Manny will be so proud.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 26, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ