The Supreme Court has been busy lately and has been especially unkind to radical political activists everywhere as well as to sloppy thinking. SCOTUS is America’s most respected institution – a circumstance uniquely deserved and well earned. Beginning with the failed candidacy of Judge Bork, the United States Senate has besmirched its own institution by turning confirmation hearings into the basest of grandstanding for the basest of purposes – subverting national interest for political gain, intentional rabble rousing and political fund raising. This is what the House is for; the Senate is intended to be the home of statesmanship.
Even some of my friends believe that the SCOTUS is political and – without thinking it through – believe it should be political. This, despite all the historical evidence and testimony to the contrary. We hear from so many how important it is that we elect the right President so that she can select the right Justices – thus “moving the court in the correct direction”. Please folks, the correct direction is for the Court to apply the Constitution. Confirmed Justices are pillars of American society and even those few that have had no previous judicial or Constitutional experience take their responsibilities incredibly seriously. The institution seems to have an almost magical ability to instill sacred duty in its Justices – as so many Presidents, hoping for political loyalty, have found to their deep frustration.
I have fresh evidence for my views. We have four new decisions that that embarrass the rabble rousers and elevate the Court.
1. Most recently we have the somewhat startling but sublimely correct decision, 8-1, in Snyder v. Phelps.
You remember that this is the case of the most hateful Church, pastor and tiny congregation in America holding up the most hateful signs near the funerals of innocent third parties after they have been killed in the service of their nation. The group is anti-homosexual and engages in hate speech that puts even President Obama’s [ex]pastor to shame.
But; this is America; we have free speech; may it always be so. This case was so obvious that the despicable, brain dead, Bible thumping, hate mongering, lawyer daughter of the lunatic pastor argued it herself.
Allow me to digress: we need tort reform – righties listen up, we can’t have it both ways. It is outrageous and unacceptable that any jury in the land could award a family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8 million in punitive damages for exercising the right to free speech in a lawful demonstration and when no crime has been committed.
So, two questions: who is the most hated right winger on the Court today? Answer, Scalia with Alito second and Roberts – very wrongly – a close third. And, who was the lone dissenter in this decision? Answer, Alito, one of the two [with Scalia] leading conservative Constitutionalists on the Court. How in the world could he express this view???
The church's "outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury and the court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered. In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner."
What? This is politically correct, wrong-headed, left wing, progressive nonsense. Where is our radical conservative? How dare he abandon his literal Constitutionalism? He is impure, off with his head!
2. Before that, we had two – count them – unanimous decisions. How can an ideologically rabid and split Court reach so many unanimous decisions? In this case, the Court basically upheld the rights of individuals over those of an employer and the government. You can read the details in the NPR link below but basically the “divided” Court doesn’t look very ideological at the moment – their arguments are a little boring because they are about the law and not politics.
Note that the Court’s “left” voted with both individuals even though they are soldiers and the “right” voted against an employer and against a lawful government deadline. You’ll hear somebody – Beck or Hannity probably – claiming these were lefty decisions and the fix is more righties everywhere. Nonsense.
3. Finally, we have Michigan v. Bryant. This is another lawyerly case that doesn’t rouse much rabble. What is interesting is who dissented in this 8-2 decision.
In 2001, police officers in Michigan found Anthony Covington mortally wounded with a gunshot wound to the stomach. They asked him who shot him and he said it was Richard Bryant. Covington later died. At his trial, police testified that the victim identified Bryant as the shooter and the jury quickly convicted him.
Now one of the reasons that we have trouble convicting gangsters is that American law guarantees that you have the right to confront your accuser. If the accuser is dead, there is no case. So, the Michigan high court ordered a new trial for Bryant to be held without the Covington death bed testimony. Michigan took the case to SCOTUS and they decided with Michigan 8-2.
Once again, you can read the opinions in the links below. The subject is relatively dull because we like the decision and the argument is legal not political.
So, two questions: who is the most hated left winger on the Court today? Answer, Ginsburg with Breyer a close second. And, who were the two dissenters in this decision? Answer, the hated righty Scalia and the hated lefty Ginsburg. How in the world could these two dare to agree??? Where is their commitment to ideology?
Good job SCOTUS.
Want a little more? The hated super lefty – Ginsburg – ain’t no Nancy Pelosi. Consider these tidbits:
· Scalia and Ginsburg are close friends and have been for decades. [My lefty friends won’t talk to me anymore. I know; that’s not about my politics. But they used to like me.]
· On New Year's Eve 2007, as they have done for more than two decades, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Antonin Scalia joined with their spouses and another couple or two at the Ginsburgs' home. After the caviar and wine, they often dine on something Scalia has bagged on one of his hunting trips.
· During Ginsburg's confirmation hearings in 1993, senators asked about her bond with Scalia. Democrats seemed to fear that he might influence her. [Picture the hearing today for a friend of anyone on the Court.]
· In 2007, in non-unanimous cases, she disagreed with Scalia 52% of the time and Stephen Breyer 13% of the time. [To me, that does not suggest an ideological chasm.]
· Ginsburg gained a national reputation for her fight against sex discrimination and was appointed to the D.C. Circuit by President Carter. Scalia gained attention for railing against judges who broadly interpreted individual rights and was named to the D.C. Circuit by President Reagan.
· On the Bush v. Gore case, Ginsburg’s view is that the Court should never have agreed to hear the case but she does not impugn the forever hated but unanimous decision of the Court nor her vote.
· On the 1973 Roe v. Wade case, Ginsburg – a strong supporter of abortion rights – agrees that the Court went too far and that the issue is one of state’s rights and should have been delegated there.
There are important places where I disagree with Ginsburg – and even more so with Breyer – as others might with Scalia, Alito or Roberts. But I think politicizing the Court – looking for political rather than civic and character standing – is a serious mistake both during and after confirmation.
No comments:
Post a Comment