No More Mr. Nice Guy The Supreme Court’s stealth hard-liner.
18 May 2009 2:28 pm by djjl
http://tinyurl.com/phxh94
To reiterate what Taylor Marsh repeatedly said during the Presidential Campaign – It’s the Supreme Court, Stupid!
This post was submitted by djjl.
No tags for this post.
from Jeffrey Toobin’s article:
http://tinyurl.com/pbejzh
“Roberts’s hard-edged performance at oral argument offers more than just a rhetorical contrast to the rendering of himself that he presented at his confirmation hearing. “Judges are like umpires,” Roberts said at the time. “Umpires don’t make the rules. They apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.” His jurisprudence as Chief Justice, Roberts said, would be characterized by “modesty and humility.” After four years on the Court, however, Roberts’s record is not that of a humble moderate but, rather, that of a doctrinaire conservative. The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.”
more from Toobin:
“The case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear, brought by a sympathetic grandmother who had been paid far less than men doing the same work at the tire company, became a political flashpoint because the conservative majority, in an opinion by Alito, imposed seemingly insurmountable new burdens on plaintiffs in employment-discrimination lawsuits. (Ginsburg, in an unusual move, read her dissent from the bench.) In all these cases, Roberts and Alito joined with Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Kennedy to make the majority. On this final day, Breyer offered an unusually public rebuke to his new colleagues. “It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much,” Breyer said.”
In one respect, Roberts’s series of prestigious jobs all amounted to doing the same thing for more than twenty years—reading and writing appellate briefs and, later, appellate decisions. During the heart of his career, Roberts’s circle of professional peers consisted entirely of other wealthy and accomplished lawyers. In this world, a hundred and sixty-nine thousand dollars a year might well look like an unconscionably low wage. “Some judges have actually left the bench because they could make more money in private practice, and some Justices have complained privately about how it’s almost impossible to educate your family on that kind of money,” Prettyman said. “You don’t want an unhappy court, judges who are worried about their salaries. John saw that.”
Roberts’s career as a lawyer marked him in other ways as well. In private practice and in the first Bush Administration, a substantial portion of his work consisted of representing the interests of corporate defendants who were sued by individuals. For example, shortly before Roberts became a judge, he successfully argued in the Supreme Court that a woman who suffered from carpal-tunnel syndrome could not win a recovery from her employer, Toyota, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Likewise, Roberts won a Supreme Court ruling that the family of a woman who died in a fire could not use the federal wrongful-death statute to sue the city of Tarrant, Alabama. In a rare loss in his thirty-nine arguments before the Court, Roberts failed to persuade the Justices to uphold a sixty-four-million-dollar fine against the United Mine Workers, which was imposed by a Virginia court after a strike.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/18/supreme-court-top-us-offi_n_204600.html
Seems Ashcroft and Meuller had their own “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” when it came to doling out prisoners.
Supreme Court: Top U.S. Officials Can’t Be Sued For Post-9/11 Abuse
A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft can’t face a lawsuit from a former Sept. 11 detainee who argued they were responsible for his restrictive confinement because of his religious beliefs.
snip
The court’s liberal justices _ David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens _ dissented from the court’s opinion.
“There is no principled basis for the majority’s disregard of the allegations linking Ashcroft and Mueller to their subordinates’ discrimination,” Souter wrote
snip
A 2003 Justice Department report found “significant problems” with the treatment of post-Sept. 11 detainees at the facility in Brooklyn, including physical abuse and mistreatment.
djjl I read that article this morning. I really hope that a couple more right wing Supreme Court Justices retire. But they probably won’t just to spite Obama and the dems. That article is very revealing.
and then there is this from the Republican’s we’re supposed to be playing nice with. Hard to do when all they do is punch you in the face Mr President.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/18/sessions-obamas-court-nom_n_204566.html
“Sessions: Obama’s Court Nominees No Longer Get “Powerful Deference”
The rationale is gradually being put in place for Republicans to mount a filibuster of Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.
On Sunday, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions, suggested that the country had moved to a place “in which there is not as much deference” — “this automatic powerful deference” — given to the President’s Supreme Court nominees as in the past. Earlier, he refused to “rule out” using a filibuster. ”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/17/supreme-court-filibuster_n_204351.html
“Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Sunday that he would not rule out employing a filibuster to block Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee despite having vehemently opposed the use of the parliamentary procedure over judicial appointments four years ago.”
How do you develop a consensus with Republican politicans who are only interested in their power?
I’ve been so frustrated over everything that’s been happening this last week.
Betsy
I think we are talking to ourselves ;-(
HEYA! I’ve been buried today, so just wanted to stop by to say that you’re not kidding, djjl.
Granholm is going to the White House tomorrow and there’s also sorts of scuttlebutt about it.
djjl says:
18 May 2009 at 3:09 pm
Betsy
I think we are talking to ourselves ;-(
LOL. I’m listening. And djjl, your question is a good one: “How do you develop a consensus with Republican politicans who are only interested in their power?” . That’s the 64,000 dollar question. I hope Obama can figure it out.
Lynette,
Thanks to you.
You know, the reason I say they are interested in their power is because their polices are about their self interest and not the interest of the common good. It’s about what they’ve got and they are determined to get more at our expense.
The answer is elementary, my dear Watson. From whence does Republican power derive? Cultural conservatives and business interests. Depending on the issue, you can coopt one if not both of those constituencies, and the Republicans will fall into line. That’s what happened with the Waxman-Markey bill. From the Ron Brownstein article I linked to yesterday:
That could leave congressional Republicans alone at the station. To the extent that Obama can shear off support from businesses usually allied with the GOP, he will make it more difficult for Republicans to portray his agenda as a lurch to the left. Even if Hill Republicans continue to oppose Obama’s health care and climate-change ideas en masse, backing from prominent business leaders would provide the president with tangible evidence that he is assembling inclusive coalitions that reach beyond traditional Democratic ranks. Support from utility and energy company executives, for instance, could help Democrats rebut GOP charges that global-warming curbs would sink the economy. ‘These CEOs are not about to preside over the destruction of their business,” Markey said. “They are doing this because they believe they can make money … even as they create this new clean-energy future.’
[snip]
But in the energy and health sectors alike, important industry leaders are clearly growing more comfortable working with an administration that Republicans daily portray as an enemy of free enterprise. “What I really got excited about was [that] in every conversation we got the sense that [administration] folks from all levels wanted to hear what the stakeholders thought would [work],” said a key health official involved in the White House talks. One utility executive offered the same verdict on climate-change discussions with Waxman: By retreating to absolute opposition, congressional Republicans “almost completely” marginalized themselves.
_____________________________
Like Obama’s diplomatic feat with China and France at the G20 summit, this is what transformative leadership looks like: strategic, with an eye for the angles and how to play them such that your enemy is left isolated and braying at the moon. In miliaty parlance, it’s a pincer movement rather than a direct attack. And it looks like it’s working quite well. So I say, let the Republicans continue to shout, to obstruct, to prevaricate. They only hasten their own demise, and Obama is holding the dirt shovel. Again, the money quote from the Ron Brownstein article: “Obama’s instinct for inclusion could allow him to expand his political coalition even while advancing two of his party’s top priorities. That’s how lasting majorities are built.“
Thaanks Ogensc
You’re welcome, djjl. You know, I was really moved by Obama’s speech at Notre Dame. I think this op-ed by Dionne nailed it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051701773.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Back in November, the Monsignor at my church essentially called on the congregation to vote McCain over Obama. I was so angry, I wrote him as follows:
I am a Sacred Heart parishioner. I attended the 10 am mass yesterday. I am writing to express my profound disagreement with your comment yesterday about the election. The comment was a thinly-disguised admonition to your parishioners to vote for McCain over Obama, because of the “life” and “traditional values” issues.
I will be voting for Obama tomorrow, and I will do so proudly. On the issue of abortion, I do not understand Obama, or the Democratic party, to contend that abortion should be a common practice. Rather, I understand them to say that the decision is personal. I also understand them to say that their fervent wish and hope is that abortions become increasingly rarer. Regardless of where we fall on the choice/life continuum, I hope that we can all agree to focus on those things that are likely to reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies and, hence, abortions. Obama has spoken about that on many occasions. So, to me, the abortion issue is a red herring.
Let us focus on the other side of the equation. I am an adherent of the “seamless garment” position advocated some years ago by Cardinal Bernadin. I oppose the death penalty, and I oppose the wanton destruction and loss of life in the Iraq war. You did not speak to that, and to the further destruction of life that would occasion a McCain presidency. Quite simply, I am revulsed by his militaristic tendencies and the bloodthirsty chants of his supporters. I find it incredibly curious that you and other Catholics are not similarly repelled.
You also talked about growing up with traditional values, such as prayer in schools. But, constitutional issues aside, what do you propose to do for people who practice a different faith? Does your conception of prayer extend to Muslim prayers? And, if so, should non-Muslims be compelled to attend such prayers? And if not, why not? I am lucky to have grown up in a country and a time when people of different religions can practice their faiths freely. I am all for that; I take tremendous joy and pride in being Catholic. I would never want to feel compelled to supress that part of me. But that is the coercive effect of school prayer. And that is the reason it is banned. True adherents of the Word know that this is not a particular imposition, as nothing prevents them from taking a few minutes to pray at home, at work, or even at school. Like Jesus taught us to say the Lord’s Prayer — in private. Matthew 6:5 – 7.
I think the Church oversteps its bounds when it wades into the politics/public policy morass. I wish it would focus more on counseling the person, not the polity. Because we are told to render unto Caesar that which is his, and unto God that which is His. Being a good Catholic is much more than the abortion issue or school prayer. It is also about alleviating poverty; about civility to your neighbor; about stewardship of the earth; about helping the less fortunate; and about caring for the sick. Again, I am astounded that so many Catholics believe that a vote for Obama runs counter to their faith. For me, my faith compels me to vote for Obama. And it is my sincerest hope that he wins.
Warmest Regards,
____________________________
Yesterday’s speech reaffirmed it for me: my own sense of Catholic values compels me to support Obama’s policy agenda. I’d be interested in your view.
Ogenec
I, too, was pleased with his talk. I think your letter to the Msgr was right on in many areas.
But, we all try to make this much simpler than it really is. Abortion is not a new development in human history – or Catholic history for that matter.
Consider this:
Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216):
* He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not “animated.”
* Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of “quickening” – when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.
St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, by returning to the Aristotelian Pagan concept of “delayed ensoulment.” He wrote 7 that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). He wrote extensively on sexual matters, teaching that the original sin of Adam and Eve are passed to each successive generation through the pleasure generated during sexual intercourse. This passed into the church’s canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed “fetus animatus” (animated fetus) was punished as murder.
Personally, I am opposed to abortion. I just don’t think I have the right to force my faith belief on another person – like my friend of many years ago carrying an anacephalic child. Her faith, Judaism, did not tell her that the abortion was ending life. Why would my faith be more important legally than hers or anyone elses?
It shouldn’t.
I wish all the people who like to call themselves pro-life (as if anyone who doesn’t follow their personal proscription is anti-life) would show the same concern for human life after birth. It would be a beautiful change.
djjl, agree with you. And the excerpts you quoted are quite revelatory — I’ll have to look deeper into this. Wonderful stuff.
ogenec says:
18 May 2009 at 7:26 pm
What a great and thoughtful letter you wrote. Right on the money, too. I also liked Obama’s Notre Dame speech as well as Michelle’s at Merced.
djjl says:
18 May 2009 at 7:53 pm
That’s right.
djjl says:
18 May 2009 at 7:51 pm
Interesting history. I just don’t think the government should be deciding personal issues like abortion for people.