Two Visions of the U.S. Supreme Court

[H2O Man]

John McCain and Barack Obama: Two visions of the Supreme Court
By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 19, 2008

Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.), in a speech two weeks ago, echoed the views of conservatives who say "judicial activism" is the central problem facing the judiciary. He called it the "common and systematic abuse . . . by an elite group . . . we entrust with judicial power." On Thursday, he criticized the California Supreme Court for giving gays and lesbians the right to marry, saying he doesn't "believe judges should be making these decisions." ….

Obama has thrown the charge of judicial activism back at Republicans.

"The nation has just witnessed how quickly settled law can change when activists judges are confirmed," he said last year. "In decisions covering employment discrimination to school integration, the Roberts-Alito Supreme Court has turned back the clock on decades of hard-fought civil rights progress."

He referred to the 5-4 decision that struck down the voluntary integration guidelines that were adopted by school boards in Seattle and Louisville, Ky. The same 5-4 majority also rejected a jury's discrimination verdict in favor of Lilly Ledbetter, a longtime manager for Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. She showed she had been paid far less than men in the same job over many years. The court's opinion, written by Alito, said her lawsuit was flawed because she had not filed her claim within the time frame required by law. ….

"Sen. Obama certainly doesn't share Sen. McCain's remarkable view that the greatest threat to American values and traditions comes from our independent federal judiciary," (Harvard Law School professor Lawrence H.) Tribe said. "On the contrary, Sen. Obama would find it crucial to preserve judicial independence in part to hold in check the excesses of unilateral executive power that have threatened our democracy under the Bush-Cheney administration.

More at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-scotus19-2008may19,0,6551508.story?page=2

(Note: The 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections will determine the nature of the appointments to the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. The cases that will be decided in the next four years will include those involving issues abortion rights, as well as numerous others involving the nature of citizen rights in our society. This is a good reason for all democrats to put minor differences behind them, and to unite to support all democratic candidates in November.)

[Texas Hill Country]

1. with as strong as the democratic congress is gonna be, SCOTUS is not a worry.

[demodonkey]

2. And you are going to have that Dem Congress for the next 30 years that these new SCOTUS noms are in?

And they are going to stay strong and active, let alone keep that majority going for 30 years?

45-50 year old SCOTUS nominees can be wielding power for at least that long. If they are GOP / neo-Con activists, OMG.

[bicentennial_baby]

4. Bingo

This is why the "Dem congress" argument falls flat on its face.

:thumbsup:

[Texas Hill Country]

12. and how do they get to SCOTUS?

[H2O Man]

5. I'm confident that

all intelligent democratic voters understand the significance of winning the White House in 2008, as well as making gains in Congress. Certainly the republicans have an appreciation of the roles of each of the three branches of the federal government. Hence, they will try to divide democrats in order to keep as much control over each branc as possibile.

No good democrat would suggest that we don't need to be concerned about the executive branch.

[Alexander]

3. Yeah they sure stopped Alito and Roberts.

Oh wait...

[msallied]

7. Exactly.

And there was little TO stop them. If they are qualified judges, then they are basically in there regardless of their ideologies.

[msallied]

6. How effing naive can you get?

Congressional elections are every two years and majorities can change with the wind. Second, the idea that they can simply hold back SCOTUS appointments is ridiculous. Unless the nominee is found to be blatantly incompetent (ala Harriet Miers), then there is little the Senate can do. The idea is to chose a President who will select the right people, period.

[Forkboy]

13. And you're willing to take that risk in a fit of petulance?

[Me.]

8. Has Obama Voiced His Views

on habeas corpus, and restoring it?

[H2O Man]

9. Yes.

He favors the restoration of the Great Writ.

[Me.]

10. Excellent

And with Edwards as AG we are on a good course

[TexasObserver]

11. Rehnquist brought rightwing judicial activism. Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito ... activists.

The meme used by the right is a LIE. The biggest judicial activists the past 15 years have been the rightwingers. They are completely object oriented. They don't have any compunction about using any kind of activist method to reach the result they want.

[cascadiance]

16. Actually Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito are all WORSE on corporate personhood...

... and other corporate serving issues. At least Rehnquist recognized and was a bit more pure on this being a sense of judicial activism when he dissented on corporate personhood ruling. I have NO doubt that none of these newer drones would ever touch overturning the "court clerk activist" corporate personhood ruling of the 1800's.

[Forkboy]

14. It's clear that some of Hillary's female supporters aren't really concerned about women's rights.

They were just lying about their concern all along.

[H2O Man]

15. In real life,

I have not met a single Clinton supporter, male or female, who has expressed any doubt about if they are going to support Brack Obama in November. More, Senator Clinton has said that she will support the democratic ticket. Thus, there are good reasons to question if those who peddle the "I won't vote for Obama" baloney are true Clinton supporters, much less real democrats.

[cascadiance]

17. If they are just shilling for her to win in 2012 and nothing else matters...

... then they aren't real Democrats. It would seem in that case sheltered power for themselves is the ONLY thing they care about!

Shouldn't they care if McCain were to win (in order for Hillary to run in 2012) and we get a few more wingnuts on the court and Roe v. Wade gets overturned?