A thread for discussing the Supreme Court issue in the presedential election

[Craig234]

I think that the Supreme Court is at least one of the most important issues in this presidential election, and it's had very little discussion.

So, this thread is to note the issue and encourage discussion.

I think it's extremely important to our nation, to continue the protection of the judicial system that provides a safety net from radicals like Bush, that we vote for Obama.

As most know, the current court has four radical right-wingers (or wonderful judges, if you're part of the problem): Thomas and Scalia from before Clinton, and Roberta and Alito.

The impact of these four has not been appreciated because of all the 5-4 SC decisions which seem reasonable, and where the fact that the 4 justices were against them aren't noted.

They're one vote away from radical changes to our government. I'll not try to summarize the dangers of their ideology in this post, and leave too much out; there are books on it.

McCain in the last week came out saying Alito and Roberts are his MODELS for his nominees if elected.

In contrast, Obama cited moderates on the current court, but especially Earl Warren, and that's exactly the right answer.

Many on the right know little of Warren but for his status as an evil name to righties.

Warren was quite a man. He was not only governor of California, but he was the nominee of *both the democrats and republicans* for governor. Think about the respect people had for him for that to be the case. He was appointed Chief Justice by Eisenhower - who came to regret it, but that reflects poorly on Ike, not Warren.

Warren is best remembered for Brown v. Board of Education. You don't easily change the United States' culture on the huge issue of race, where there's been a century of racism since the civil war, and seprate but equal has been the legal doctrine since it was approved by the Supreme Court 60 years earlier. Yet that's just what Warren did. In doing so, he showed outstanding morals and leadership, and he was able to get, with great effort, all the rest of the justices to agree to increase the public acceptance of the ruling.

Today, it's a highly praised decision, and the one it reversed is considered one of the court's worst. He correctly identified the constitutional principles. That's the sort of justice we need.

I think that the importance of the next president's appointments is far underrated by the public, and hence this thread.

 

[EagleKeeper]

They're one vote away from radical changes to our government. I'll not try to summarize the dangers of their ideology in this post, and leave too much out; there are books on it.

Much depends on your viewpoint.

From the left, they may have reason to be concerned. From the right, it may be needed.

However, over the years, the ideology of a justice before appointment has been tempered with the responsibilty of the postion during their tenure.

The conservatives were concerned about liberal justices implimenting a certain agenda and the liberals the same (as you are demonstrating).

Packing the court with either type is not advisable and the ability of the WH to do so is limited by the American voter and Congress along with the existing justices

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

They're one vote away from radical changes to our government. I'll not try to summarize the dangers of their ideology in this post, and leave too much out; there are books on it.

Much depends on your viewpoint.

From the left, they may have reason to be concerned. From the right, it may be needed.

However, over the years, the ideology of a justice before appointment has been tempered with the responsibilty of the postiion during their tenure.

The conservatives were concerned about liberal justices implmenting a certain agenda and the liberals the same (as you are demonstrating).

Packing the court with either type is not advisable and the ability of the WH to do so is limited by the American voter and Congress along with the existing justices

The emergence of the far-right agenda for using the courts to implement the right-wing vision for society, bypassing the other branches, has changed the dynamic on the issue.

You can trace back these issues to milestones, such as Lewis Powell's famous memo to deer-in-the-headlights conservatives stunned by the success of liberals.

The Federalist Society, innocently founded by three right-wing law students feeling lonely, has blossomed into a radical and very powerful movement for changes in our judiciary.

They realized that the battles they cannot win with the electorate can be won in the nation's weak spot, where the trust in the judiciary can be violated to exploit the power that the law means nothing but what the judges say it means. The long-time paranoia of the right of the judges abusing their power becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In this era, with the radical federalist agenda, the polarization of the judges becomes difficult to avoid, and the comments you made are more about an earlier era.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

They're one vote away from radical changes to our government. I'll not try to summarize the dangers of their ideology in this post, and leave too much out; there are books on it.

Much depends on your viewpoint.

From the left, they may have reason to be concerned. From the right, it may be needed.

However, over the years, the ideology of a justice before appointment has been tempered with the responsibilty of the postiion during their tenure.

The conservatives were concerned about liberal justices implmenting a certain agenda and the liberals the same (as you are demonstrating).

Packing the court with either type is not advisable and the ability of the WH to do so is limited by the American voter and Congress along with the existing justices

The emergence of the far-right agenda for using the courts to implement the right-wing vision for society, bypassing the other branches, has changed the dynamic on the issue.

You can trace back these issues to milestones, such as Lewis Powell's famous memo to deer-in-the-headlights conservatives stunned by the success of liberals.

The Federalist Society, innocently founded by three right-wing law students feeling lonely, has blossomed into a radical and very powerful movement for changes in our judiciary.

They realized that the battles they cannot win with the electorate can be won in the nation's weak spot, where the trust in the judiciary can be violated to exploit the power that the law means nothing but what the judges say it means. The long-time paranoia of the right of the judges abusing their power becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In this era, with the radical federalist agenda, the polarization of the judges becomes difficult to avoid, and the comments you made are more about an earlier era.

Read your post from a conservatives viewpoint and change 'right' to 'left' and it's exactly the complaints a right winger would make. In the abortion debate liberals skipped the electorate and got the SC to make it legal everywhere. If states were given the choice no doubt some would make it illegal. Sodomy laws were outlawed in Lawrence v Texas though I doubt you'd have gotten such laws passed most state legislatures.

You can argue those are the "correct" decisions, but whether or not a judge has done a good job seems to stem ultimately from a person's agreement with the decisions.

 

[ProfJohn]

Don't forget to add gay marriage to your left-wing skip the court approach.

Is there a state in the country that has passed a law to allow gay marriage?
Meanwhile something like 30 states has passed some law to make sure 'marriage' is between a male and a female.

Yet the left ignored the will of the people and heads to court every chance they can.

 

[NeoV]

how many truly important issues has the supreme court changed over the years?

Other than Roe v Wade, and Brown v Board of Ed - what are the other 'monumental' cases?

Both sides can use this argument, and both do.

 

[ProfJohn]

BTW... what right wing issues are being taken to the court Craig?

And which judges, by name, does Obama like. There are only nine members I am sure Obama can pick one of them out by name...

 

[Lemon law]

The most notable issue may be a reversal of Roe v Wade and that may well be an explosive political issue. I think a number of supreme court members are with holding their
resignations to make sure their replacements will not be appointed by GWB. Many of the left leaning are hoping that Scalia will die of natural causes in the near future reducing the dangerous cabal to only three.

Meanwhile the religious right almost has to come out in numbers for McCain in the hopes that the four justices friendly to them could become five, six, or seven. But even if McCain becomes President, he will likely be facing a very hostile Senate Judiciary committee unlikely to allow the religious right's choices.

On the other hand, a more probable President Obama will likely face a very friendly Judiciary committee who will confirm whomever Obama chooses. And I will go on to predict that a resultant Obama added supreme court, will spend the bulk of its first few terms undoing the damages to our constitutional rights inflicted in recent years by a GWB augmented supreme court.

The OP here , Craig 234 is 100% correct in starting this thread because the stakes are huge.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

They're one vote away from radical changes to our government. I'll not try to summarize the dangers of their ideology in this post, and leave too much out; there are books on it.

Much depends on your viewpoint.

From the left, they may have reason to be concerned. From the right, it may be needed.

However, over the years, the ideology of a justice before appointment has been tempered with the responsibilty of the postiion during their tenure.

The conservatives were concerned about liberal justices implmenting a certain agenda and the liberals the same (as you are demonstrating).

Packing the court with either type is not advisable and the ability of the WH to do so is limited by the American voter and Congress along with the existing justices

The emergence of the far-right agenda for using the courts to implement the right-wing vision for society, bypassing the other branches, has changed the dynamic on the issue.

You can trace back these issues to milestones, such as Lewis Powell's famous memo to deer-in-the-headlights conservatives stunned by the success of liberals.

The Federalist Society, innocently founded by three right-wing law students feeling lonely, has blossomed into a radical and very powerful movement for changes in our judiciary.

They realized that the battles they cannot win with the electorate can be won in the nation's weak spot, where the trust in the judiciary can be violated to exploit the power that the law means nothing but what the judges say it means. The long-time paranoia of the right of the judges abusing their power becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In this era, with the radical federalist agenda, the polarization of the judges becomes difficult to avoid, and the comments you made are more about an earlier era.

Read your post from a conservatives viewpoint and change 'right' to 'left' and it's exactly the complaints a right winger would make. In the abortion debate liberals skipped the electorate and got the SC to make it legal everywhere. If states were given the choice no doubt some would make it illegal. Sodomy laws were outlawed in Lawrence v Texas though I doubt you'd have gotten such laws passed most state legislatures.

You can argue those are the "correct" decisions, but whether or not a judge has done a good job seems to stem ultimately from a person's agreement with the decisions.

I understand, and I don't entirely dismiss the right-winger's issue at all.

But I do note that the right *hated* Warren, wrongly, for great decisions like Brown.

And I do note that the left has no equivalent organization or agenda to the Federalist Society. There has always been some left-right issue, but the Federalists are radically new.

The Roe decision is somewhat unique, not the sort of pattern of radical ideology the Federalists represent. It has a more complicated background, such as the Griswold decision, that needs to be taken into account. You can find room to ultimately condemn Roe (written, I'll note, by a Republican appointee) without it being any equivalent to the Federalist movement. Flawed or not, it's much more clearly a decision written in good faith, misguided or not, and not part of any larger 'radical agenda', paranoid righties notwithstanding.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Many of the left leaning are hoping that Scalia will die of natural causes in the near future reducing the dangerous cabal to only three.

Yet another example of the left wishing for the death of people...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW... what right wing issues are being taken to the court Craig?

And which judges, by name, does Obama like. There are only nine members I am sure Obama can pick one of them out by name...

As I said, I'm not going to try to summarize the Federalist agenda now.

Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) said he was most concerned about a conservative court that tilted to the side of "the powerful against the powerless," and to corporations and the government against individuals. "What's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves," he said in response to McCain.

During one campaign stop, Obama spoke admiringly of Chief Justice Earl Warren, the former California governor who led the court in the 1950s and '60s, when it struck down racial segregation and championed the cause of civil rights.

Obama has also praised current Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter. "I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through," Obama said.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Many of the left leaning are hoping that Scalia will die of natural causes in the near future reducing the dangerous cabal to only three.

Yet another example of the left wishing for the death of people...

I don't, and that's funny coming from someone who supports so many deadly policies.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

This is an important issue and one that may make me get off my hands instead of sitting on them. From the OP's standpoint there are 4 "radical" judges but there are also 4 "radical" judges from my standpoint - just not the same 4.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Don't forget to add gay marriage to your left-wing skip the court approach.

Is there a state in the country that has passed a law to allow gay marriage?
Meanwhile something like 30 states has passed some law to make sure 'marriage' is between a male and a female.

Yet the left ignored the will of the people and heads to court every chance they can.

You pretend (I hope you pretend) not to understand the concept of the constitution being at odds with public opinion.

Every side can try to demagogue when that happens, and condemn the side that is with the constitution and against public opinion. But it's foolish.

This is one of those issues, like 'separate but equal', in which right is on the other side from public opinion.

The constitution has enough vagueness that justices predisposed to a view can read it differently.

As you attack gays for 'running to the court', which really means 'following the constitution over public opinion', do you want to attack opponents of 'separate but equal' who did, too?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This is an important issue and one that may make me get off my hands instead of sitting on them. From the OP's standpoint there are 4 "radical" judges but there are also 4 "radical" judges from my standpoint - just not the same 4.

Except that you have to be deluded and/or utterly ignorant to call Souter/Ginsburg/Stevens/Breyer "radical", when they're clearly in the historical norm.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This is an important issue and one that may make me get off my hands instead of sitting on them. From the OP's standpoint there are 4 "radical" judges but there are also 4 "radical" judges from my standpoint - just not the same 4.

Except that you have to be deluded and/or utterly ignorant to call Souter/Ginsburg/Stevens/Breyer "radical", when they're clearly in the historical norm.

From your viewpoint....

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This is an important issue and one that may make me get off my hands instead of sitting on them. From the OP's standpoint there are 4 "radical" judges but there are also 4 "radical" judges from my standpoint - just not the same 4.

Except that you have to be deluded and/or utterly ignorant to call Souter/Ginsburg/Stevens/Breyer "radical", when they're clearly in the historical norm.

From your viewpoint....

Yes, which is the viewpoint from any credible legal analyst I've seen, including conservative.

You don't have a shred of evidence for calling them 'radical'. Not a shred.

To show how asinine your little 'I'm not but you are' claim is, the one most widely considered most liberal of the 4, Ginsburg, *was suggested by the Republicans as a compromise*.

 

[OrByte]

The most important issue of this election by far.

I am glad to see that we will be in a political environment whereas we get either Obama selecting Justices and a Democratic Legislature to vet said nominees

OR

we get McCains selections that still must go through the same Judiciary committee


Either way, we won't be getting right-wing radical activist judges. Thank goodness.

 

[PokerGuy]

Actually, based strictly on SC choices, there is a stronger argument to go with McCain than Obama. We know Congress will be strongly democratic, so Obama could conceivably fill positions with unqualified lefty nuts without a challenge from congress. McCain on the other hand could not, because the democratic congress would smack him upside the head for trying.

Personally I'm afraid of any situation where the WH and Congress are controlled by the same party. We've seen over the past 8 years how much of a disaster that can be. Balance is the key. Clinton + republican congress = good. Reagan + democratic congress = good. Bush plus republican congress = bad. Obama + democrat congress = Ack.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This is an important issue and one that may make me get off my hands instead of sitting on them. From the OP's standpoint there are 4 "radical" judges but there are also 4 "radical" judges from my standpoint - just not the same 4.

Except that you have to be deluded and/or utterly ignorant to call Souter/Ginsburg/Stevens/Breyer "radical", when they're clearly in the historical norm.

From your viewpoint....

Yes, which is the viewpoint from any credible legal analyst I've seen, including conservative.

You don't have a shred of evidence for calling them 'radical'. Not a shred.

And you don't have a shred of evidence for calling the 4 you listed as "radical".

The point here is that it depends on where you start from as to who is right/wrong and what you think the purpose of the court is.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Actually, based strictly on SC choices, there is a stronger argument to go with McCain than Obama. We know Congress will be strongly democratic, so Obama could conceivably fill positions with unqualified lefty nuts without a challenge from congress. McCain on the other hand could not, because the democratic congress would smack him upside the head for trying.

Personally I'm afraid of any situation where the WH and Congress are controlled by the same party. We've seen over the past 8 years how much of a disaster that can be. Balance is the key. Clinton + republican congress = good. Reagan + democratic congress = good. Bush plus republican congress = bad. Obama + democrat congress = Ack.

I know that's the 'moderate mantra' and I used to think it had a point. Now, I don't, and see it like saying "all fallacies, or all logical, is bad. You need a mix of the two."

I'm looking for what we really need to worry about with the all democratic government, and don't see it, outside the myths of the right, or the wrong assumption it's like Bush.

The huge deficits are inventions of the Republicans, not all-democrat government. The best example perhaps is the Vietnam war, but that had strong Republican support.

I'd like to hear any evidence form history why the all-democrat government is so terrible. I'll agree that after a point, you can see entrenchment be bad, but for a while to fix Bush?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This is an important issue and one that may make me get off my hands instead of sitting on them. From the OP's standpoint there are 4 "radical" judges but there are also 4 "radical" judges from my standpoint - just not the same 4.

Except that you have to be deluded and/or utterly ignorant to call Souter/Ginsburg/Stevens/Breyer "radical", when they're clearly in the historical norm.

From your viewpoint....

Yes, which is the viewpoint from any credible legal analyst I've seen, including conservative.

You don't have a shred of evidence for calling them 'radical'. Not a shred.

And you don't have a shred of evidence for calling the 4 you listed as "radical".

The point here is that it depends on where you start from as to who is right/wrong and what you think the purpose of the court is.

There's huge, massive evidence and proof the 4 righties are radical, and I'm sick and tired of spending hours to collect the data for those like you who don't give a crap to read it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm looking for what we really need to worry about with the all democratic government, and don't see it, outside the myths of the right, or the wrong assumption it's like Bush.

The huge deficits are inventions of the Republicans, not all-democrat government. The best example perhaps is the Vietnam war, but that had strong Republican support.

I'd like to hear any evidence form history why the all-democrat government is so terrible. I'll agree that after a point, you can see entrenchment be bad, but for a while to fix Bush?

Sigh. You sound like the democrat version of Rush. If the republicans said water was wet you'd argue it was all a lie, just like Rush would argue it was a lie if the democrats said it.

Irrespective of your ideology, having no checks in place to prevent bad ideas from going through simply because of the 'one party' mentality is a bad idea. A single party is much more likely to go into "group think" mode and do things to benefit a certain group of constituents instead of the whole country. You need a balance in poitns of view. We just saw 8 years in action of just having one side represented. To my knowledge, there has never been a time when the WH and both houses were controlled by the democratic party, and I don't wish to see that happen now. I didn't want to see that happen in 2000 either. It's just a bad idea, no matter what your ideology.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm looking for what we really need to worry about with the all democratic government, and don't see it, outside the myths of the right, or the wrong assumption it's like Bush.

The huge deficits are inventions of the Republicans, not all-democrat government. The best example perhaps is the Vietnam war, but that had strong Republican support.

I'd like to hear any evidence form history why the all-democrat government is so terrible. I'll agree that after a point, you can see entrenchment be bad, but for a while to fix Bush?

Sigh. You sound like the democrat version of Rush. If the republicans said water was wet you'd argue it was all a lie, just like Rush would argue it was a lie if the democrats said it.

Irrespective of your ideology, having no checks in place to prevent bad ideas from going through simply because of the 'one party' mentality is a bad idea. A single party is much more likely to go into "group think" mode and do things to benefit a certain group of constituents instead of the whole country. You need a balance in poitns of view. We just saw 8 years in action of just having one side represented. To my knowledge, there has never been a time when the WH and both houses were controlled by the democratic party, and I don't wish to see that happen now. I didn't want to see that happen in 2000 either. It's just a bad idea, no matter what your ideology.

That's insulting and false. Instead, you merely make the easy attack that anyone not in agreement with you must be 'biased'.

If Republicans said water is wet, I'd say good for their telling the truth. The problem is their saying it's not wet, which you fail to address in your easy little attack of assumption.

Who says there are no checks? The democrats have some 'checks' themselves. Your blind faith for 'balance' flies out the window when one of the two sides you want represent goes 'radical'. Do we need the Marxist 'side' to get a 'check' on our government's policies? If not, why should the newly radical right get one, since they're far different than the traditional 'conservatives' of the past?

AGAIN, you simplistically equate 8 years of the REPUBLICANS with 8 years of DEMOCRATS as if they're equally corrupt, equally incompetent, and that's not the case.

It's an easy fallacy, but a fallacy. You don't say women shouldn't marry men because Nicole war murdered by OJ; you say OJ was bad.

I'm not saying your point is without any merit; as I noted above, at some point it has some, but now we're at a point needing to undo the last 8 to 30 years of Republican wrongs.

After the great depression, we didn't need 'balance', we needed FDR and a democratic congress to take strong corrective action. You pretend the Bush administration isn't there.

There have been many times the WH and congress were both controlled by democrats, including Clinton's first two years and almost every year for every democrat since FDR.

By the way, I did a bit of research before, on party and economics, and picked some key economic indicators then tracked them over the last 10 presidents (5 of each party).

Remarkably, on most of them, if I ranked the presidents, the lists came out democrats 1-5 and republicans 6-10, surprising me. Democrats' average indicators were clearly higher.

So, try to back up your 'commom sense' concern with the fact, and see if it stands up.

The 'moderate bias' is just as much a bias as a left or right bias, and it's more insidious in that people who have it easily assum they can't be biased if they're in the middle, but they are prone to simply assume the right and left are largely wrong and 'balance' in the wonderful solution, but they can fail to note when one side is actually correct over the other, and miss when one side shift a lot like the right has. Conservatives who have an idea what they're talking about have largely left the Republican party and criticized its move.

 

[lupi]

I don't think it matters much. I find it difficult to see anyone getting by the senate to seriously change RvW and it seems so many items that could be interesting are just not seen by the court. The 2nd amendment ruling I think could be a signal for things to come regardless of any individual member changes.