In one fell swoop yesterday the Supreme Court managed to strike a significant blow to the Constitution, limiting free speech and loosening the separation of church and state. In other decisions they decided in favor of developers over environmentalists and loosened restrictions on corporate and union financial contributions to political candidates.
All decisions were split along liberal and conservative lines. If it wasn’t obvious before Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts and the conservative majority favor big business over individuals.
The Supreme Court essentially dismantled the McCain-Feingold Act, part of which banned pre-election ads that mentioned a candidates name if they were paid for with corporate or union money. Chief Justice Roberts said this amounted to censorship of core political speech unless those advertisements explicitly urge a vote for or against a particular candidate.
This ruling will side step the ban of soft money and allow the unlimited flow of money from corporations to pay for broadcast advertisements. In other words, it will allow big business to essentially “buy” a candidate. Not that they haven’t already been doing so, but now it will be more blatant.
“Where the First Amendment is implicated,” the chief justice said, “the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.”
That may be true if you are a corporation or a union, but not so a student. In Morse v. Frederick, case No. 06-278, a student’s free speech was limited. In 2002 Alaska high school student, Joseph Frederick, while off campus, unfurled a banner along a parade route that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”, and was subsequently suspended for 10 days by the school principal. The principal, Deborah Morse, contended the banner could be seen by other students and advocated drug use. Frederick said Morse abused his right to free speech and sued.
Frederick won in a lower court decision, but was overturned by six justices yesterday. The most disturbing comments came from Justice Clarence Thomas who said “In light of the history of American public education it cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment “freedom of speech,’ encompasses a student’s right to speak in public schools.” (NY Times 6/26/07)
Where is there an age limitation in the First Amendment? And what about that fact that it is a public school?
Justice John Paul Stevens writing for the four dissenting justices said that “carving out pro-drug speech for uniquely harsh treatment finds no support in our case law and is inimical to the values protected by the First Amendment.”
Justice Stevens also wondered if “the court would support punishing Frederick for flying a ‘Wine Sips 4 Jesus” banner,” which he said might be seen as pro-religion and pro-alcohol. (NY Times 6/26/07)
The next case to take a decidedly right turn in favor of the White House was that of Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation. The Foundation felt the WH was using taxpayer’s money to support it’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. They challenged the constitutionality of that office running conferences instructing religious organizations on how to apply for federal grants.
The 1968 case of Flast v. Cohen allowed taxpayers to challenge spending on programs that they believed promoted religion. The ruling decision said that precedent did not apply in this case.
The opinion written by Justice Scalia and signed by Justice Thomas said that Flast v. Cohen “was an inkblot on our jurisprudence.”
(For more information on this case, see my article posted on Feb. 27; Supreme Court Case Hein V Freedom From Religion Foundation at this link:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976919520)
And finally, Bush Administration 1, Endangered Species 0. In a 5-4 decision, the court sided with the Bush Administration and developers by allowing the Environmental Protection Agency to turn over the power to grant water permits to the states. With this ruling states do not have to consult with endangered species experts, as provided in the Endangered Species Act, when issuing water permits which are often necessary for development.
Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said, “the endangered species law takes a back seat to the EPA handing authority to a state to issue water pollution permits.” (AP)
After this decision was made the EPA unveiled a plan to do for Alaska what it has done for Arizona, the right to issue water permits with no endangered species strings attached. (NPR)
It has taken years for conservatives to load the Supreme Court, but after yesterday, the Bush administration can definitely say, “Mission Accomplished.”
“Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who posses it.”
William Pitt the Elder (1708-1778)
Cheri Cabot, Politics Correspondent
Cheri’s column, “Personal About Politics”, published every Tuesday, will reflect on how the life of a 57 year-old, middle class woman is affected by politics, policy and the current state of the nation - a look at the personal aspects of politics. The articles will be posted to Politics.gather.com as part of Gather Essentials.
Cheri is a single teacher and writer, living in Southern California. She has two grown children, one in Iowa and one at Columbia University, and is the proud grandmother of two. Cheri is also a purveyor of fine coffee, warm chatter and dry wit.
You can find all of Cheri’s columns on Personal About Politics at www.ccabot.gather.com.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 102
it cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment "freedom of speech,' encompasses a student's right to speak in public schools.
I don't recall the first amendment having an age limit. I cannot even begin to fathom the reasoning behind the rationale that it is okay for corporations to use "freee speech" to buy votes, but not for students to exercise free speech in public schools. Mind-boggling.
I have mixed thoughts on the Hein v FFRF case. Though I would not want tax dollars going to any organization that advocates religion in any form, many faith based charities can effectively provide services to the community without the overtones of religion. We have witnessed this first hand in LA and MS following the storms of 2005. Volunteers with many faith-based groups and churches across the country were instrumental in helping gut and repair houses and cleaning up communities. Many are back in their homes because of these efforts. These groups have proven that they can and have done more than the Red Cross ever has, and should be commended for their efforts. All of this was done without any mention or advocacy of religion in any way, only a duty to help their fellow citizens.
We need to appoint more ????
Another sad day for America.
Watch and observe . . . we've been sold out!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
L.O.L., Don, didn't you read my email C+P article?
Cheri, all I can say is 'The Handmaid's Tale' by Margaret Atwood is looming ever closer!
I understand that the justices know who hired them, but of all these decisions, they had an easy shot at doing the right thing by upholding McCain-Feingold with little repercussion -- and even then they sold out. There's not even much fun in waiting for Scalia to drop dead any more, unless he does it in 2009.
I've been waiting for this actually. It's not shocking to me that the bias is there. It's more shocking that it took so long to show itself. Remember the good old days when the question was whether a judge was a "strict constructionist " or not. Now we can just ask with way they vote in the election to determine the direction of their future rulings.
Please tell me this is sarcasm . . . The judiciary has always been political . . . just not as blatantly activist as the current "court" which initially appointed Geo. II in a one-time only, non-precedent setting decision.
This administration has defiled everything it touches . . . and the dignity of EVERY branch of our government (just three despite Cheney's claim) . . . has been soiled for a long time to come.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
"Had the student carried any sign advocating change, i.e., Legalize Marijuana for Jesus . . . "
Luckily the law of the land was never intended to be free speech as long as it is free speech with a message advocating change . . . well . . . at least not before these weasels turned our Constitution into bathroom tissue. T-Shirts that say "I'm with Stupid" advocate no change . . . nor does "Pot Rules!" . . . even Bong Hits for Jesus worn by an older non-student would be ok (Off-campus no less) . . . but THIS kid is not permitted. How can you not see the distinction? Are you so convinced that Bong Hits for Jesus is not advocating a change?
"Your synopsis of each of the other rulings is equally tainted."
Wow. Way to slam her with the facts!! Oooops. You forgot the facts. This is unsubstantiated opinion. So . . . ( *ahem* ) . . . . NAH Unhhh!
"It appears your interpretations are guided by your politics."
Now that's freeekin' hilarious!!! HAHAHAhahahaa!! It's NOT the court . . . it's Cheri!! Please . . . just stop . . . (my side's starting to hurt from all the laughter) . . . !
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I'll go to Canada with you, Don.
Actually you could say it is more sad and ugly than it is funny. My wife has an old Ohio saying: "It's just as easy to laugh as cry". Yeah, laughing is better for your blood pressure. But really it is a bad thing that the Supremes have taken this rightward lurch- especially when you consider that many of them were selected especially because they were so young. (In Clarence Thomas' case, that was the only reason. He is not much of a legal mind.) Result: the Court will lean Right for the next couple decades. Yeah, mission accomplished.
Democrats unite... we can no longer be as divided as a political party as we have been in the past. Of Course we should continue to think independently and disagree all we want, but when it comes to elections we MUST come together and VOTE!!!! And vote Democratic. Our country is being bastardized, undermined, and transformed into an imperialistic, conservative empire. I look around me and I no longer see the America of my ancestors. This is a fight we cannot lose. I've been hearing even the conservative pundits say the Democratic Party has the upper hand for 2008, but they also said if there was anybody who snatch away victory, it's Democrats them selves. And they're right, we have to think about the collective good of this nation and put a put a solid majority of Democrats in the House and senate and the White House....
And Liberals, it's much, much worse than you think : Justice Stevens is 87, and Justice Ginsberg is 74. All the Conservative Justices are quite young in comparison. If even one of these two elderly judges dies, a Conservative will be nominated. The fireworks should be fun to witness at that testimony.
You know, you made a statement . . . "Your synopsis of each of the other rulings is equally tainted." without support. Sorry you don't like it but that's the way it is.
The 'one' example is NOT, in fact, supportive of this statement. THIS statement refers to all the others . . . fallacious logic.
Perhaps an example . . . let's say I mention your comment about Jonestown bottled verbiage sales was sarcastic. This would be accurate . . . yes? Oh, and by the way . . . ALL your other comments are equally sarcastic . . . (I DID provide you with one example) . . . See how it doesn't follow?
Interesting how you didn't bother to get into the first part of the response . . .
Oh, and by the way . . . The Judiciary, especially the SCOTUS . . . is charged with interpreting the law. Cheri had mentioned it has become too activist in her opinion and was, basically, continuing to erode our country's reputation and the rights of its citizens. Her position . . . tainted political interpretation . . . your response . . . tainted political interpretation . . . HERS, not theirs! How can you not see genuine amusement in that play of words?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Thanks for your comments and support Doyle. I try to respond to a lot of the inane comments made on here by neo-cons, but there is only so many nice ways (or not so nice) to say "duh".
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-157.ZS.html
The key question in this case is really just one about legal standing. A potential litigant only has standing in a case if he/she can prove some tangible harm has been done to him/herself. Generally, we as taxpayers don't have standing to sue the government simply because we don't like the way our tax money has been spent. An exception to this is a case called Flast, in which SCOTUS held that a taxpayer did have standing to sue the government, if the government spent money in a way that violated the Establishment Clause, but only if the money was specifically appropriated by Congress for the allegedly unconstitutional activity. This makes sense, since if a taxpayer is indeed harmed by tax money spent in an unconstitutional way, the part of government that is doing the harm to the taxpayer is the part that levies the taxes - Congress. In the Heid vs. FFRF case, everybody agrees that the money spent in ways that allegedly violated the Establishment Clause was not specifically authorized by Congress for this activity, rather it was spent out of general appropriations to the executive branch. Hence, Congress didn't specifically set out to violate the Establishment Clause and the taxpayers have no standing. Hence the decision. SCOTUS did NOT say anything at all about whether the activities themselves actually violated the Establishment Clause. SCOTUS did NOT say anything at all about whether the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives was a good idea or not. They simply and narrowly reviewed the dispute over standing. So all this talk about how the SCOTUS has "loosened the separation of church and state" is nonsense. That wasn't even a part of their decision.
I agree completely. I certainly hope you don't think I was implying otherwise.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Well thought out . . . I grant you . . . on that ONE case. Even so, your argument fails to persuade me. This case and case law in general is set in precedence. There IS precedence in this case too . . . in section 3 of the summary you generously provided it is clear that they passed both prongs for standing . . . where the case fell to standing was not in who could sue . . . but, rather, in who could be sued. This is tax money being spent . . . no question . . . and if it were by Congress . . . the case had merit. But having provided the money to (Surprise Surprise) the Executive Branch for discretionary use . . . This court chose to deny the analogous impact on the citizens . . . apparently we pay . . . but the WHO gives the money is the factor.
THIS court determined not to extend the reasoning of the case as it does all the time or as it decides not to do all the time. It was a decision to rule 'no standing' and not a forgone conclusion nor a technicality. The law is a living, breathing thing. And developing from precedence is the core of the legal method and used to provide consistency. The interpretation is not just the key . . . even the intent of the makers of the law is open for their interpretation.
Pertinent Excerpt:
Respondents argue to no avail that distinguishing between money spent pursuant to congressional mandate and expenditures made in the course of executive discretion is arbitrary because the injury to taxpayers in both situations is the same as that targeted by the Establishment Clause and Flast—the expenditure for the support of religion of funds exacted from taxpayers.
So rather than applying the logic they used in Flast . . . they found a difference and ruled there was no standing. Every single case is different . . . they actively chose to toss this.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Thanks for your comments. Yes indeed there is precedence in this case. You claim "it is clear that [the taxpayer litigants] passed both prongs for standing." Actually, it isn't clear. The two part test is:
"First, the taxpayer must establish a logical link between that status and the type of legislative enactment attacked. Thus, a taxpayer will be a proper party to allege the unconstitutionality only of exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, §8, of the Constitution. It will not be sufficient to allege an incidental expenditure of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute… . Secondly, the taxpayer must establish a nexus between that status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged. Under this requirement, the taxpayer must show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, §8."
(quoted from Alito's opinion, quoting Flast)
The test was not passed because what Congress did in this case is levy taxes in order to fund _general expenses_ of the executive branch. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about that.
Besides, and Alito makes this point more clear in his opinion, consider the alternative - consider if these taxpayers do have standing. Then what in principle is to stop a lawsuit against the government for "endorsing religion" if, say, the President makes a favorable reference to religion in a State of the Union speech? Taxes levied by Congress paid the expenses for the speech, after all. Unless you think that the First Amendment prohibits the President or any public employee from even talking about religion while on the clock, which would be absurd.
As to the rest of your comments, I would not agree that "the law is a living, breathing thing". Words have meaning and the law means what it says. I have always found it odd that Democrats are the ones who tend to believe in the "living Constitution" hypothesis, because it is inherently anti-democratic. It is just begging for unelected judges of all political persuasions to just make stuff up and call it "the law".
Best regards,
Jeff W.
This is a copy paste quote from the decision summary that YOU cited:
"The Court then held that the particular taxpayer had satisfied both prongs of the test. Id., at 103–104. Pp. 11–12. "
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I got the drift of the argument why they were not following the logic of the Flast case already . . . make no mistake . . . they CHOSE to not extend that logic when they COULD have extended the reasoning . . . hence the term decision or judgement. Your argument, in part, (well, your response) is simply referring to what I agreed . . . they will not extend protection under the same principle to us from Executive malfeasance. Got it. Shocker, huh?
The failure in standing comes ONLY from their unwillingness to extend similar protection to the people from the Executive Branch that it now enjoys from the Legislative Branch.
Either you have some legal BG or you have an uncanny skill in understanding some of the intricacies in case law. I have to guess it's not from formal legal training so that I can give you the benefit of honest inquiry . . . if you were educated formally in this subject, I would have to conclude you are being purposely misleading. Your contention that the law is not living adds substance to my assertion.
I do applaud your going to the text . . . inquirey like that is laudable . . . and leads to well thought out and cogent arguments . . . rather than name calling. Remember as a kid it was NEVER a shock to hear someone 'change their mind'? You hear that almost never when you get older. Only reasoned, rational argument can accomplish it . . . and a serious attempt to get to the truth.
Now . . . did you ignore every other case example for a reason? Or because there's only so much time in a day? :)
Respectful Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Welcome to reality Jeff - uhhhh . . . keep in mind that decisions can be overturned up to the SCOTUS!
I do not have a formal training in law, no. But it is an amateur interest of mine (hence my participation here). Here is the entire paragraph 3 from the syllabus of the decision, from which you quoted the last sentence:
"3. In Flast, the Court carved out a narrow exception to the general constitutional prohibition against taxpayer standing. The taxpayer-plaintiff there alleged that the distribution of federal funds to religious schools under a federal statute violated the Establishment Clause. The Court set out a two-part test for determining standing: "First, … a taxpayer will be a proper party to allege the unconstitutionality only of exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, §8… . Secondly, the taxpayer must show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, §8." 392 U. S., at 102–103. The Court then held that the particular taxpayer had satisfied both prongs of the test. Id., at 103–104. Pp. 11–12."
In context, it is clear that the Court is saying that the taxpayer-petitioners had satisfied both prongs of the test in Flast, not in the current case. Further down, here is paragraph 5:
"5. The link between congressional action and constitutional violation that supported taxpayer standing in Flast is missing here. Respondents neither challenge any specific congressional action or appropriation nor ask the Court to invalidate any congressional enactment or legislatively created program as unconstitutional. That is because the expenditures at issue were not made pursuant to any Act of Congress, but under general appropriations to the Executive Branch to fund day-to-day activities. These appropriations did not expressly authorize, direct, or even mention the expenditures in question, which resulted from executive discretion, not congressional action. The Court has never found taxpayer standing under such circumstances. Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U. S. 589 , distinguished. Pp. 13–18."
Thus, the Court goes on to say that in the current case, the Flast test was not met.
Best regards,
Jeff W.
You write:
"The failure in standing comes ONLY from their unwillingness to extend similar protection to the people from the Executive Branch that it now enjoys from the Legislative Branch."
This is correct, because the proposed remedy - to vastly expand the definition of "legal standing" - would open up an entire can of worms for any taxpayer to challenge any expenditure whatsoever that involved some reference to religion, not even necessarily an endorsement of it. Oddly, Souter's dissent doesn't even mention this potential problem. His argument is that if the government spends money in violation of the Establishment Clause, it doesn't matter if it was Congress doing it or the President doing it - the damage is the same either way. I agree with his sentiment, but I disagree that hugely expanding the meaning of the term 'legal standing', as was advocated by FFTF, is the way to do it. It would cause more harm than good, IMO, and a majority of the Court agreed. Predictably, the liberal members of the Court focused on the alleged harm, while the conservative members of the Court focused on the proposed remedy.
Perhaps I misspoke when I said that the law IS NOT a "living breathing thing." Of course it is, in the current context. What I meant to say is that I believe the law ought not be regarded as a "living breathing thing." This is the strict constructionist approach and it is one followed by the majority of the court in this decision - where there is some ambiguity, err on the side of enacting the least amount of change in the law. This is why I tend to support Republican appointment of justices to SCOTUS and elsewhere (Souter being a very notable exception). It remains a mystery to me why so many people on the left reject "strict constructionism" as a principle - strict constructionism preserves and enhances democracy by making sure that the will of the elected legislature and the plain meaning of the Constitution are the dominant considerations for judicial decisions, not merely the opinion of unelected judges. Democrats claim to be the grass-roots party, yet they want unelected judges to enact their views for them? How is this consistent with grass-roots democracy?
I only focused on the Flast case because, honestly, that is the most relevant case to this discussion, and I didn't intend to write a legal treatise. If you would care to introduce other cases to the discussion, please be my guest.
The bottom line, though, is that this case was NOT an Establishment Clause case, and claims that SCOTUS "weakened separation of church and state" are false.
Best regards,
Jeff W.
Obama is too far Left, and doesn't have enough experience.
Edwards isn't even on the radar screen.
Bill Richardson could be good, but isn't in the top tier.
Gore could win, but he doesn't want to run.
The biggest problem is that every Democrat is just so far Left that they don't have the broad appeal to get any votes from the Right or many votes from the Center.
That should pave the way for a Conservative Republican to win again in 2008. And of course, that means at least one new Conservative on the Supreme Court in the next few years.
That said, if anyone reads the Declaration of Independence and the Consitution, paying close detail to the Bill of Rights, they will find that it is very simple, despite the rather long wording in the Bill of Rights. To take one semester of U.S. History will help you get into the minds which drafted these instruments of law. Those on the bench were appointed with a political agenda, but they have a civic duty, a duty as U.S. citizens with vast power yet charged to protect our rights and liberties. To follow any agenda, personal or political, is to abuse this power and fail in duty as a U.S. citizen.
Many blast the ACLU. It has been underfire since its conception. But many of lawyers working for the organization have gone to the wire defending citizens of all kinds against the power of the government. Sometimes, they have defended the expression the ideas of people who, if they had their choice, would see these lawyers dead. But the heart of the ACLU believes so strongly in preservation of freedom that they defended them anyway, whether or not their beliefs were extreme or not.
As citizens we should be alarmed at a Court which defends the freedoms of any group over another. This is my obstacle to the differing opinions of the Court. Freedom of speech cannot be selectively chosen, whether or not we believe in the voice that is attempting to speak. The sad fact is that our Courts have not always done the best job of protecting our individual rights, but for the most part, they have turned around to reverse such abuses.
Ron B.: Other justices will come, but they have life appointments and present a unique dilemma to correct. I would have to research how often a Justice has been called out on his/her decisions, I have not heard of it during civics, history of personal experience during my life. The wait may come so far away that we will regret having lived during the current Court's reign.
I heard this proposal 20+ years ago, 10 years ago, and now. The first 2 times it was shot down before it even got a thorough vetting in the House. As I understand it, this would require a Constitutional Amendment. I don't see that as very likely, do you?
Jeff w.:
The heart and soul of the living, breathing thing. You cannot have identical cases with identical events. It simply is NOT possible to prevent interpretation and Republican interpretation, well, Conservative interpretation, is slightly different than liberal interpretation. I was referring to Flast since you had been but the fact is that the two-prong test is set by the court . . . not written into a law but into a decision.
We are free to agree or disagree with the self-imposed test or its application in any particular situation (Particularly since we are powerless to DO anything about it). Generally, absent a political motivator . . . the logic of the imposition of factors in consideration of cases is based on the practical relationship between the factors considered and the purpose of the factors to begin with. This case COULD have gone either way.
"His argument is that if the government spends money in violation of the Establishment Clause, it doesn't matter if it was Congress doing it or the President doing it - the damage is the same either way. I agree with his sentiment, but I disagree that hugely expanding the meaning of the term 'legal standing', as was advocated by FFTF, is the way to do it."
Congrats . . . the court agrees with you and FFTF. I don't. You win (along party lines). And I'm not buying the argument that this opens a can of worms allowing people to sue . . . SCOTUS only hears cases it wants to hear. People sue for all kinds of things . . . and . . . silly me . . . I think the executive branch of the government handing MY tax money to any church BUT mine should give me the right to sue.
The flip side of the coin is that Congress can now give money to their favorite Religious organization that is essentially stolen from taxpayers . . . they just need somebody in the Executive Branch with low enough ethics to be a 'bagman'! Oooops. See the problem?
Rich . . . can you check for me what's on FOX news next . . . I grow weary and need a laugh! :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Currently we can have a supreme court locked into one or another ideology for a huge swath of years, even if it's totally out of sync with the will of the American people. Of course we want some stability, and don't want the court to sway according to whim, or to enforce a "tyrrany of the majority." So justices should serve for a nice chunk of time, but should not be clinging on for life, desperately waiting for a president who will appoint a similar replacement, as they do now.
In theory this should appeal to both liberals and conservatives, and certainly to centrists. I admit that I consider the current young appointees dangerous ideologues, who will rule, for instance, in favor of the wealthy and powerful and against the less powerful, as they have in recent decisions on the role of free speech. They've also ruled against the federal government's authority to regulate the environment, overturning decades of precedent at a time when environmental issues are becoming increasingly important. And they favor dangerous expansion of executive powers to spy on U.S. citizens.
Frankly I don't think this is really "conservative" in the sense of conserving the balance of power, or of conserving precedent. This is a dangerous, radical, activist bunch. I always thought that Roe versus Wade was judicial activism and overreach, reading into the constitution rights that aren't there. Bush v Gore in 2000 was another example of throwing out precedent, and the constitution, to arrive at the results individual justices want. And we're seeing more of this. Why conservatives should cheer this is beyond me.
regarding your comment: "The country will simply not tolerate tampering with the high court."
apparently we have been tolerating tampering with the high court, which is why we are in this position now.
The senate no longer has a conservative majority. Your sugarplums dancing in your head of another conservative on the bench are highly unlikely. They would NEVER confirm him or her. Similarly, if the republicans win in 2008 and don't take back a majority in the Senate, they will never get one confirmed, either. Middle of the road is the best you can hope for. You can quit dancing those sugarplums anytime.
I know of no tampering . . . just activist judges turning the SCOTUS along the directions indicated by whim . . . the structure remains as it always has been . . . number of justices, preocedures . . . simply people who have taken the court in a new direction and as far as they can get away with it . . . by activist decision making.
But you do make a point . . . the "people" have shown more tolerance for being abused than I ever would have believed possible . . . and the political parties have seen the toleration and become emboldened by it to disregard the 'will of the people'. I refer to both mainstream parties and I suspect tolerance is rapidly drawing to a close just as some feel anything goes.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
The Liberal Activist experiment on the Supreme Court has had its 30 year run. Now its time to return to what made the Supreme Court so great for the previous 200 years : Conservative, traditional, strict constitutionalism.
I suppose if you're looking at things in the past 30 years as the norm, this shift back to a Conservative majority looks like upheaval and a shift away from "the norm". However, the longer-term "norm" is strict Constitutionality and Conservativism. I understand you're probably upset if you're a Liberal. However, with the makeup of the current Supreme Court, you'd better get used to it.
Since when does executive privilege give the president the right to do whatever he wants and be heald unaccountable to no one? Kind of throws the whole system of checks and balances (the cornerstone of democracy) out the window.
I'm sorry, but being the president of a democracy is not all about getting your way all the time, its about maybe getting your way some of the time and learning to swallow your pride and compromise other times in order to uphold the ideals of democracy, which I might add, is more important in the long run than any particular policy or agenda.
The scary thing about extremist Supreme Court Justices is that they are in for life. If they say the corporate rich can have free rein in America, and that certain constitutional rights are mutable, then a whole generation (and democracy) loses out.
So very sad.
The Bush administration has exposed itself as the incompetent ideologues they are, and the sane majority of Americans will have to spend years cleaning up the mess. Meanwhile they've left us with a radical, ideological court that will only hurt America.
Looks like Mr. Bush had to swallow his pride on that Immigration bill today, right?
Hey, the Supreme Court is shifting back to what it was pre-1970. Don't fear it - embrace it. Strict Constitutionalism is the wave of the future.
Progressivism is the wave of the future. Saying something doesn't make it true. Incidentally . . . pre-1970 is, in point of fact, the wave of the past.
Ethan:
"Looking at the Supreme Court as part of a contest, with two sides, with one winning and the other losing, is the worst problem facing the United States right now."
Not sure about that buddy . . . I'm thinking the criminals who have hijacked this Country . . . filled the Federal Government with non-thinking clones at all levels who pride themselves on not being educated . . . Illegal Wars and massive debts . . . I suspect these are more serious issues . . . but Hey . . . that's just me watching 3,000 illegals stream across the borders while our military is at risk in a war for oil. What do I know?
"The Bush administration has exposed itself as the incompetent ideologues they are, and the sane majority of Americans will have to spend years cleaning up the mess.
Sad fact is they never even attempted to hide it . . . but yep . . . it's obvious to anyone with both a pulse and a functioning brain.
Sean:
"Since when does executive privilege give the president the right to do whatever he wants and be heald unaccountable to no one?"
It doesn't. Since not one of our elected representatives feels fit to call him to account . . . he is, essentially . . . immune.
"The scary thing about extremist Supreme Court Justices is that they are in for life. If they say the corporate rich can have free rein in America, and that certain constitutional rights are mutable, then a whole generation (and democracy) loses out. "
Welcome to the party pal!
"YOU LOSE LIBS!!!!
LoL! Love those visits from the GOP buffoon Jester!!! Keep it up Rich!! LoL!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
But, gee...I thought you were a "life long democrat?" What gives, liar?
"Progressivism is the wave of the future. Saying something doesn't make it true. Incidentally . . . pre-1970 is, in point of fact, the wave of the past."
Not according to today's landmark Supreme Court ruling. Conservative thought is making a huge comeback..........and is highly likely to do so for a long time.
Progressive (liberal) Supreme Court rulings are over.
I've never hidden that I'm a Conservative. And since there are no political parties on the Supreme Court, it makes it easy to choose sides.
I still like the Democratic party, and this won't cause me to tear up my membership card..........but I'm still in the extreme minority in the party. But I'm in the majority on the Supreme Court....lol.
So then you're a big fan of imminent domain I guess? Strictly Constitutional, right. And you pals now say they can take YOUR house and give to me if I'm going to build a hardware store. No worries, you'll get a check. :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Rich: LoL!!! Awesome. Bet a million dollars I had a different picture pop into my mind about your crystal balls than you intended!!! :) Oh . . . WAY too funny!!!
Let's not get too excited here, just yet.
- The Supreme Court has been eroding Roe vs. Wade for many years now, but it still has a little bit to go............however, in the long run this will be defeated.
- I foresee just about the same number of Illegal Aliens being deported as now. The only way that's changing is if it's done legislatively.............and that means a new Immigration bill. I hear that won't even come up again until next year..........right before the election. I can't wait.
This issue alone should be enough to defeat any Liberal who pokes his/HER head up high enough to be noticed.
- English probably won't be the official language as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. The High Court seems to like the Founding Fathers' idea that an official language should never really be adopted. Just my interpretation.
- Capital punishment? It will probably stay at about the same levels as it always has.
- There's no way all social programs will ever be dropped. And that has very little to do with the Supreme Court unless some draconian law is passed. I'm sure they'd knock that down, even as Conservative as they are.
However :
Liberal rulings in general are bound to be limited in the future, unless there's an incredible amount of precedent, and it doesn't get in the way of Strict Constitutionalism. We've all been waiting a LONG time for that.
Rich, you have crystal balls? That only proves to me that God is nicer to some people than others......lol.
I think the Court has already seen that Imminent Domain is a disaster. There's not much precedent on the record yet, and the negatives vastly outweigh the positives. I see a Conservative court knocking that down pretty soon.
For once I actually agree with you on Imminent Domain. I think that decision struck too close too home, and could cause them immedate problems. Groups have tried to get some of their personal property under imminent domain to use as an example. It's easy to make decisions about someone else's property, but not so much when it belongs to you...as in a justice.
I found that decision very, very scary. What and who determines what is good for the greater public? A mall or a farm?
Ammendment V (Bill of Rights)
"No person shall....be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Hmmmm . . . mentioned right there in the VERY inception . . . by definition it IS Constitutional . . . Thought you were strict Constitutionalist? My mistake. That Constitution getting in the way of what YOU want to do again? By the way, the US Constitution which was written to permit this ongoing process to continue; it's not remotely new. A link for you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
Imminent Domain was around for Centuries before the American Revolution and dealt with in this country in court in 1833 . . . After the Civil War, in 1897 The SCOTUS applied the new 14th Ammendment protection to it for the first time to ensure people were compensated at Fair Market Value . . .
Some History:
http://www.answers.com/topic/eminent-domain?cat=biz-fin
"There's not much precedent on the record yet"
I beg to differ.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
As intended . . . it was a simple and logical thing. Our latest decision, however, has broadly interpreted the "Public Good" to mean almost anything. For example . . . to put in a freeway . . . property MUST be purchased . . . and it does NO good for a lone holdout to stop or to hold the government (taxpayers) hostage for exhorbitant fees. Hospitals, military installations, airports . . . a lot of these things were considered "public good". Now, however, they can take your home and give it to me to build my own hardware store if they determine the community would profit from a hardware store . . . I think we all see the danger in this given the current corporate climate. MY hardware store would go out of business after they take Bret's home so Rich can build a Wal-Mart . . . since . . . more jobs is "for the public good . . .
Doesn't pass my sniff test and though I KNOW people want to turn this into a Conservatism vs. Liberal thing . . . it's corporatism and greed. Nothing less.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I'm not in favor of Imminent Domain or any of its horrible consequences.
The latest Supreme Court interpretation is what I was talking about. The actual rule of Imminent Domain has been around for hundreds of years, going all the way back to English and even Roman law. However, the latest Supreme Court rulings are the most oppressive. I think even the Justices themselves have seen that.
I just don't see a Conservative court allowing the stupidity to go on much longer. They're probably just scouting good cases so they can slam-dunk it, with a precedent-building case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case of Seattle and Louisville public schools using race as a determinant for choosing public schools on Thursday, was shocking. I didn't think the Supreme Court would make such an incredible ruling so soon. I applaud them for their wisdom, and hope that they take on the nonsense of Affirmative Action............soon.
Your response to Bret (the strict Constitutionalist when it's convenient) seemed to suggest you were opposed to it in all cases since you claimed to agree with Bret and his first sentence seemed to indicate overall rejection. If your reference was to the last decision (which the remainder of your comment did) then we are completely agreed.
Bret:
You can be a 'Strict Constitutionalist' if you do not agree with imminent Domain as listed in Ammendment 5 and hundreds of years of usage . . . even in this country. You want to turn the clock back on Roe v. Wade but NOT on imminent domain.
"The actual rule of Imminent Domain has been around for hundreds of years, going all the way back to English and even Roman law."
Thanks for repeating the history lesson back to me that I provided for you in the link . . . but I can read and repitition is dull . . . not insightful.
"I just don't see a Conservative court allowing the stupidity to go on much longer."
Hmmmmmmm . . . over 230 years is long enough. Got it.
You're dodging buddy . . .
"I'm not in favor of Imminent Domain or any of its horrible consequences."
"The latest Supreme Court interpretation is what I was talking about."
Ummmm . . . not too clear for me and I'm a well known idiot . . . perhaps you can draw me a picture. Let's forget the second line for a second, shall we? My original question was do you support imminent domain? Say . . . last year's imminent domain. Unless you agree with the current one . . . it's hardly a strict constitutionalist position, is it?
This quote of yours: "There's not much precedent on the record yet" is incorrect. I'm curious to know if you retract that now. (Gives me a better idea of whom I am dealing with).
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~~
"You cannot be a 'Strict Constitutionalist'"
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
And I agree with you that he is only a Strick Constitutionalist when it suits him and his personal beliefs.
Hence the confusion . . . I'm not sure where he stands . . . against it at all counts (like the other Republicans) or just this case.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
"Ammendment V (Bill of Rights)
"No person shall....be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Hmmmm . . . mentioned right there in the VERY inception . . . by definition it IS Constitutional . . . Thought you were strict Constitutionalist? My mistake. That Constitution getting in the way of what YOU want to do again? By the way, the US Constitution which was written to permit this ongoing process to continue; it's not remotely new. A link for you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights"
I do not consider the mention of "without just compensation" as a ringing endorsement of Imminent Domain. When the Founding Fathers wanted to make a point, they usually took time to define it pretty clearly. This quick mention has been blown so far out of proportion, that it obviously doesn't represent what the Amendment author meant. Isn't that completely obvious, Doyle?
In addition, do you really think that Imminent Domain presents a good case of due process? I think that was Clarence Thomas' comment after the ruling in 2005. Just the mere fact that Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority tells me that this has the Liberal stamp all over it. With the new shift in the Supreme Court, this nonsense won't last long.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/
AR2005062300783.html
"I do not consider the mention of "without just compensation" as a ringing endorsement of Imminent Domain."
Luckily your personal opinion has had no bearing on the hundreds of years this has been done. Who cares what your idea of a ringing endorsement is? The fact is this HAS been done and the INTENT was to continue it when the US Constitution was written!
"When the Founding Fathers wanted to make a point, they usually took time to define it pretty clearly."
Something unclear in the Ammendment to you?? You CAN take it, but NOT without compensation. Simple, really.
"This quick mention has been blown so far out of proportion, that it obviously doesn't represent what the Amendment author meant."
There was nothing . . . NOTHING . . . 'quick or thoughtless about the Bill of Rights. The right to take property was VERY clear. Except maybe to you and you alone.
"Isn't that completely obvious, Doyle?"
Nope. Complete denial and a delusional position to take from ANYONE with a knowledge of either the history or the necessity of it.
"In addition, do you really think that Imminent Domain presents a good case of due process?"
Look up due process . . . it's not rocket science. Clearly, by asking, you have no concept what-so-ever of what the term means.
"Just the mere fact that Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority tells me that this has the Liberal stamp all over it."
Brilliant. A mention (again) in 2oo5 makes it obvious this Centuries old tradition is 'Liberal'. I knew you'd go there. Shocker, huh?
"With the new shift in the Supreme Court, this nonsense won't last long."
More showing of the true colors. Only delusional freaks like you would refer to the parts of the US Bill of Rights you don't like as nonsense.
"This quote of yours: "There's not much precedent on the record yet" is incorrect. I'm curious to know if you retract that now. (Gives me a better idea of whom I am dealing with)."
I think I know all I need to know. Particularly since you didn't bother to answer. Look, I get it . . . I'd be embarassed too if I were unwilling to support the US Constitution after I had been calling for a strict interpretation . . . I'd be ashamed to admit it too. You need to check a different box next time you register to vote . . . that way you can lie like the rest of your Republican friends when you swear to uphold a Constitution you simply do not believe in.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Don't mean to harp, but I simply cannot get over how you can take:
. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation . . . " and in ANY way see this as NOT allowing taking of private property in CLEAR and VERY SIMPLE terms! If they were so clear . . . why not just say you CAN NOT take private property?
Truly sorry - just didn't have you down as that ignorant in my book.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Sean asked the question: "Since when does executive privilege give the president the right to do whatever he wants and be heald unaccountable to no one? Kind of throws the whole system of checks and balances (the cornerstone of democracy) out the window.and center!
The answer -- whenever the corporate elite and other 'deciders' choose to make it all up as they go along -- especially the 'language.' Pay attention to the 'language.'
Imminent Domain won't stand for exactly the reasons I stated. No retractions. Sorry you don't like my logic, but that won't matter when its struck down. Clarence Thomas commented on the due process piece, and I noted that. Are you saying you actually LIKE Imminent Domain the way it has recently been interpreted and applied? Because we Conservatives definitely don't.
"The principle that members of the executive branch of government cannot legally be forced to disclose their confidential communications when such disclosure would adversely affect the operations or procedures of the executive branch."
http://www.answers.com/topic/executive-privilege?cat=biz-fin
The 'corporate elite and other deciders' have nothing to do with it. Executive Privilege has been around a while. No one in 2007 made this up.
The issue first arose when President Washington withheld information on the Jay Treaty from the House of Representatives, and congressional leader James Madison recognized that the untimely disclosure of otherwise pertinent information could jeopardize national interests.
With great power comes great responsibility, which means one must be moral and upstanding, and upfront with the American people (you know, the one's who put you in office). If Bush did not break the law then he has nothing to worry about and he can be candid and upfront with the American people, and accountable to them, which is what a democracy is supposed to upholds.
And by the way Bret, just so you don't think it is liberals picking on neo-cons, executive privilege has been scrutinized and debated over since its inception. So, it's not as if executive privilege is an inalienable right, or even a correct principal. The verdicts still out on that... but it may not be for much longer.
Well said. Let the trials begin -- internationally, here -- I'm not fussy. Where's my pitchfork and where are my knitting needles -- this is going to be interesting.
Executive privilege hasn't been ruled on one way or the other for 200+ years. It isn't like to be ruled on anytime soon. The Supreme Court thinks its a hot potato, and won't touch it, even though they've had dozens of opportunities to do so in the past.
Missy..........trials? Over what?
Didn't this latest brouhaha start over Mr. Cheney's refusal to disclose who had visited him in the Vice Presidential residence? What an insane thing to get nutty about.........
"Sorry you don't like my logic . . . "
Ok, now THAT was funny! Sorry . . . but there is NO logic.
---You claim to be against activist judges but wish to see them overturn a portion of the Fifth Ammendment in the US Bill of Rights.
---You claim to be a strict Constitutionalist but don't want the clear and obvious words from the Constitution to guide our laws.
It's not a matter of what I like . . . and though you are unwilling or unable to admit it . . . you were wrong when you mentioned their was only recent precedence.
Our positions have been made crystal clear with your words . . . .
I support and defend the US Constitution.
You do not.
"Are you saying you actually LIKE Imminent Domain the way it has recently been interpreted and applied?"
I already answered this in my reply to Cheri . . . you might learn more about the topic if you bothered to read the comment string:
"If your reference was to the last decision (which the remainder of your comment did) then we are completely agreed."
This does not seem unclear. We're speaking only about the Court's interpretation in their last ruling being too broad and permitting the imposition of Imminent domain to transfer private property to another private interest.
"This quote of yours:
"There's not much precedent on the record yet" is incorrect. I'm curious to know if you retract that now."
"No retractions."
Fine . . . wallow in ignorance. Your statement is not just inaccurate any longer. It is now an intentional lie.
"Because we Conservatives definitely don't. "
No - current Republicans (even those who register as Democrats) don't support the US Constitution a whole heckuva lot. I agree with you there!
"Executive privilege hasn't been ruled on one way or the other for 200+ years. "
Weeee HAAAAA! Yet another Lie from your delusional world . . . Ever hear of President Clinton?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/05/executive.privilege/
If you read anything about Nixon at all you might have recalled Justice Powell cut through Nixon's central claim: that executive privilege gives presidents an absolute right to keep their communications secret. After the oral argument, the court unanimously ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes. (Only seems like 200+ years ago, huh?)
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html (This is a cute webstie about things NOT in the Constitution . . . but it has relevant United States vs. Richard Nixon data. You'll note they did NOT list imminent domain).
So . . . you do NOT support Constitutional use of Imminent Domain but DO support Executive Privlege which is NOT a Constitutional right. Got it.
Dude . . . quit just making stuff up to make your argument seem sound and trying looking it up . . . you MIGHT become better informed and POSSIBLY come to more reasonable conclusions. I wish it were as easy as making a decision and then making up "facts" to support them!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
So you're FOR Imminent Domain then?
Just a simple yes or no. Just a question between you and me.
"During the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower invoked executive privilege by refusing to turn over to Senator Joseph McCarthy's investigatory Committee the notes of Eisenhower's meetings with members of the United States Army, "claiming that matters of national security might be breached if administration officials were forced to testify under oath." However, this was merely a ruse to destroy Senator McCarthy since Eisenhower invoked executive privilege only just before McCarthy was preparing to defend himself against accusations during the hearings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege
Executive Privilege has been used and will continue to be used by the President, no matter who he is. The rulings tend not to be 'etched in stone', as I think you wish they were. The Supreme Court has gone against it, and for it - depending on the situation.