3 Scary Decisions Handed Down by the Far Right Supreme Court

[xchrom]

Last edited Mon Jun 11, 2012, 09:33 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.alternet.org/rights/155761/3_scary_decision_handed_down_by_the_far_right_supreme_court/


_310x220


As the country waits in fear and loathing for the high tribunal to drop the dime on Obamacare and give its blessings to Arizona’s “papers please” immigration law, court watchers might do well to parse the damage Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues have already done this term to our collective rights and liberties.

With more than 70 cases on its total docket and more than a dozen still undecided, including the health care and Arizona blockbusters, it’s difficult to single out the opinions issued to date that best illustrate the court’s hard turn to the right. But here are three that should make any short list:

1. Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, County of Burlington

In March 2005, Albert Florence, a 34-year-old African-American car dealership executive, was riding in the passenger seat of his SUV. His pregnant wife was at the wheel and the couple’s three children were nestled in the back when a New Jersey state trooper pulled the vehicle over for speeding. The trooper ran a routine records check on a statewide computer database, which disclosed that Florence had an outstanding arrest warrant for nonpayment of a fine stemming from his arrest seven years earlier after he had fled the scene of a traffic stop.

Although the fine in fact had been fully paid, Florence was taken into custody. Over the next week, he was housed in two county detention centers and was subjected in each to full-body strip-searches during which he was made to stand naked, squat, cough, spread his butt cheeks and move his genitals. “It was humiliating,” Florence later told The New York Times. “It made me feel less than a man. It made me feel not better than an animal.”

[no_hypocrisy]

1. 4th Scary Decision by SCOTUS

Governor Don Siegelman

By opting not to grant certiorari and review his case, the Court sanctioned the standard of conviction without evidence, indicting without a crime, and jail for the innocent.

It would be bad enough if they reviewed his case and then deferred to the federal appellate court. But it's unconscionable that they wouldn't review.

[OnyxCollie]

14. +1. nt

[JNelson6563]

2. Really puts the idiocy to "Why should I vote for Obama?"

If someone is so blind as to the many obvious answers, there's always the SCOTUS.

Julie

[Pab Sungenis]

3. The Supreme Court is not a valid argument for re-election.

If Romney wins, he'll appoint three more Samuel Alitos. If Obama wins, he'll appoint three more Elena Kagans. Only about two degrees of difference there, the difference between Fascism and Conservatism.

Focus on the economy and issues we can actually win on; the Court is gone no matter who wins.

[libinnyandia]

8. In 2000 people didn't think it was an issue and as a result we got Roberts and Alito.

[Pab Sungenis]

16. And people thought it mattered in 2008, but we got Elena Kagan.

The Supreme Court is not a winning issue for us. Stick to where Romney is weakest: the economy and social issues.

[libinnyandia]

23. If McCain had won we would have a 7-2 right wing majority on the Court and who knows what

evil decisions would come down. With the GOP so right wing it dosn't make sense to say there are no differences between the 2 parties.

[Pab Sungenis]

26. And right now we have a court with

Five Conservatives, three "moderates" and one liberal.

After that liberal retires in 2013, as expected, we will have a court with, at best, five Conservatives and four moderates.

[libinnyandia]

28. Moderates are better than conservatives. They are not crazy. If Romney gets in he will appoint

more Thomases and Scalias.

[Pab Sungenis]

29. But they're not better than liberals.

And Obama replaced two liberals with two moderates (one bordering on conservative).

As I said, either way this election goes, the Court is lost.

[libinnyandia]

30. Obama does not = Romney.

[Pab Sungenis]

36. No.

But on the Supreme Court issue it doesn't make much difference. Either way there will be no liberals left on the Court by January 2017.

[bvar22]

39. We got Alito & Roberts because of the betrayal by the "Centrist" Democrats.

Google: "Gang of 14"

Without their active help of these "Democrats",
there would be NO Alito & Roberts,
which begs the question.......

[libinnyandia]

40. We got Roberts and Alito in part because the left was divided. Too many thought that it didn't

matter who was president if their candidate couldn't be president.

[JonLP24]

9. Agree

Though in general I didn't feel they were bad except that moderates replaced the liberals which affects the balance towards the right.

Along with the Supreme Court argument, I feel most other arguments are based on Republicans will do worse. There are actually post-9/11 policies that started w/ Bush that carried over to this President.

I will vote for him due to several factors but few due to what I feel are good(by good here I mean actually good rather than better than Republican). He is great on most social issues & economy has improved. The driving factors for me is Romney, I live in Arizona which is solid Republican though lately not by much. There is roughly an equal % of registered Republicans, Democrats, & Independents. There will be plenty of people not voting for him (for reasons that aren't based in reality) so don't want to help them out.

After nearly completed this post I may have figured out you were referring to speaking out to potential voters not that I completely missed that. I focused on the Supreme Court argument which seems similar to a lot of issues where the President or whatever Democrat sucks at but the Republican sucks worse.

[caseymoz]

10. Wrong. You can't be sure about Obama

You have no reason to be so fatalistic. One term dealing with conservatives has likely taught him what kind of people they are, and has possibly turned him away from wanting to lead from the center. After conservatives smeared him and adopted a scorched earth policy toward him, Obama has no reason to like them or see anything good in their ideology. In a second term, he would have nothing to gain from pleasing them and every reason to want to screw them.

He also appointed Sotomeyer, so three Elena Kagans was not a good extrapolation to begin with.

Yes, I can foresee a much more favorable outcome from his SCOTUS nominations than you can. It is a legitimate point.

[Pab Sungenis]

17. I'd like to think so.

But you can't use it as an effective argument. "He'll be different next time around" doesn't work.

[caseymoz]

41. But you'll agree it's a better bet than Romney.

You know what he'll be like the first time around. With Obama, I can see uncertainty. It's a choice between certain loss and a slight possibility of winning, or at least getting the tie.

[Pab Sungenis]

42. You see, that's the problem.

For a lot of people, they DON'T know what Romney will be like. Look at Obama. We elected a man who we thought, at least judging by his stump speeches, was a fire breathing progressive who was going to change the way Washington works. Instead we wound up with a conservative Democrat who shoved one liberal constituency under the bus after another.

Who's to say that once he's in the Oval Office Romney won't suddenly revert to the Romney of 1994? We saw Barack Obama do a 180 degree turn practically overnight once he was elected. Now he's turning back to the man we all thought we elected, but for a lot of the Democratic base memories are long. For much of the past four years it's been a question of would we rather have an enemy who stabs us in the gut or a friend who stabs us in the back.

Of course we can't take a chance that Romney will revert the same way Obama did. If he governs the way he campaigns we are all screwed for generations.

Using the Supreme Court, which is one area Obama shafted us by replacing two liberals with one moderate and one anti-gay "moderate," as an argument for re-election is not a good one. We can, and must, make a better case for re-election than more "think of the Court" fear mongering.

[caseymoz]

43. Romney of 1994 was close to Bush I

And from his history at Bain Capital, we know that he's very pro-corporate and considers corporate the exact way the country should be run. In government, that comes out as close to legalizing bribery. Bush I gave us that entrenched, corrupt, conservative paperweight, Clarence Thomas. Like Bush, the Romney is too banal to consider morality. It's the way Bush got us into Iraq in the first place, but suddenly deciding Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was the moral equivalent of Hitler.

Plus, though personally moderate, Bush I was one of the worst panderers to the RW that there was. Like Bush, if he sometimes swings liberal, it's not because any deep conviction will drive him there.

As a historic lesson to Romney, the alienated right threw Bush's ass out and instead voted for Perot, who was kind of the sink for alienated voters at the time. From Bush I, we got the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and I think those are it.

Also, since all of Obamas judicial nominations beneath the Supreme Court have been blocked, along with any liberal legislation he might propose, we can't see how liberal he could be domestically. It's against any political calculations for a President to put up legislation you know is going to be turned down. Those are all political defeats. You have to grade him on a curve.

At best with Romney, you'll end up with a less professional Obama. At best with Obama, you'll end up with somewhere better than Bill Clinton. The argument is clear cut, if not compelling.

[treestar]

31. And you can't see the difference between Kagan and Alito?

[Pab Sungenis]

33. On my most important issue right now?

No. Alito is against gay marriage, and so is Kagan.

[Zoeisright]

32. BullSHIT.

Do you think Elena Kagan is going to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Obviously you're a man, or you wouldn't think that Kagan is as bad as Alito.

[Pab Sungenis]

34. Kagan may not overturn Roe v. Wade

but she will uphold the bans on gay marriage, which is as much an intrusion into my life as overturning Roe v. Wade would be to a woman.

[Pab Sungenis]

35. And thank you for using "man"

as a pejorative term.

[Creideiki]

37. I'm of two minds here

First, Obama has continued the trend noted by Justice Stevens that every Justice has been replaced upon retirement with someone more conservative than him or her.

Second, there's the possibility of one of the ultra-right conservative douchebags in robes keeling over or killing one another while quail hunting. In that case, it's possible that he'll buck that trend just once. I wouldn't say it's guaranteed--Justice Ginsberg will likely be replaced with someone more conservative than her. But if Alito or the sockpuppet die, Obama just may grow a damned spine for once and tell the Republicans just which layer of Hell they can go to.

[JNelson6563]

38. I completely disagree

But then again, I'm hoping Scalia is called to account, as it were, any day now. That evil bastard.

Julie

[woo me with science]

20. Obama, who sent attorneys to SC to argue FOR strip searches

for any arrestee. And warrantless surveillance.

The police state is advancing rapidly under this administration. It is one area, along with war and economic policy, in which Third Way Democrats and Republicans clearly agree.

This is why Occupy is so important.

[chervilant]

4. hmm...

Is something wrong with your link? I cannot access the article. Might be my ancient computer...

[xchrom]

7. i don't know -- it's working for me. nt

[chervilant]

13. Nope

Not working.

[skydive forever]

5. Yeah, link isn't working

[xchrom]

6. it's working for me. nt

[joeglow3]

11. Link gives me nothing

[xchrom]

12. i've put the link in again -- it works for me -- if more say link doesn't work i will delete. nt

[Hatchling]

18. Works for me.

And I'm on an old computer using old FIrefox and dial up.

[xchrom]

19. ok -- cool. nt

[hfojvt]

27. that may be the problem

I am using IE 7.

I hate Firefox.

[OnyxCollie]

15. K&R. nt

[woo me with science]

21. DU Rec. nt

[pampango]

22. Link is good. "As scary as these three decisions are, they’re merely a warm-up

for the main act to come later this month when the court hands down its Arizona and Obamacare opinions. If the court, as many predict, strikes down the Affordable Care Act and upholds the Arizona immigration law, it will confirm that a profound alteration of the nation’s legal architecture is under way, aimed at rewriting constitutional principles at the expense of working people, minorities and the poor."

These three decisions are certainly not a hopeful sign of how the SC will rule on these two big cases.

[OnyxCollie]

25. I would add AT&T Mobility v Concepcion.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/att-mobility-v-concepcion/

Holding: California state contract law, which deems class-action waivers in arbitration agreements unenforceable when certain criteria are met, is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act because it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.

Plain English Holding: Under the Federal Arbitration Act, California must enforce arbitration agreements even if the agreement requires that consumer complaints be arbitrated individually (instead of on a class-action basis).

Judgment: Ninth Circuit Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on April 27, 2011. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor.

I would also add the case about the police who lost track of a crack dealer who ran into an apartment complex. The police didn't know where he was, but claimed to have smelled marijuana and heard the sound of evidence being destroyed, so they entered an apartment and arrested the people inside (not the crack dealer.) The SCOTUS found that action to be constitutional.