Whittling
In a sad, historical twist the Rehnquist Court will forever be remembered for its decision in Bush v Gore, a miasma that came about with the willing assistance of a lesser jurist by the name of John Roberts. By pure coincidence (wink, wink) upon Rehnquist's death John Roberts was appointed to succeed him by the man who the Rehnquist Court had chosen to accede to the White House. Supreme Court justices are not term limited; they remain on the bench until they die or choose to retire. Keep in mind that John Roberts, as judges go, is a young man.
Out of the many cases the current bench has considered, three are prominent:
The Roberts Court, deciding in Citizens United to essentially enfranchise corporate dollars, negatively impacted the effectiveness of voters' ballots.
The Roberts Court has essentially gutted the Voting Rights Act, very negatively impacting the voting rights of millions of Americans.
Then, with the decision in favor of Hobby Lobby's request, the Roberts Court has very negatively confounded the reproductive rights of millions of working women.
The Roberts Court seems to be flaunting, with blatant and increasing frequency, a chilling determination to whittle away the rights of whole swaths of the American population. Since when is it the purpose of the Court to remove rights? And how do we go about taking the knife out of their hands before there's nothing left to whittle?
= new reply since forum marked as read
