By Brent Budowsky - 04/04/12 02:41 PM ET
President Obama is absolutely right about this: If the Supreme Court
rules the healthcare bill unconstitutional, it would be an overreach
that would be an extreme example of judicial activism that violates
the most core principles of what is called conservatism and, I would
argue, would lead to a destructive historical break point in the
history of the United States Supreme Court that would tarnish forever
the reputation of the chief justice and the conservative majority of
justices for centuries to come.
Last week I wrote that never before in the history of the nation had a
Supreme Court reversed the popular vote for president; never before in
the history of the nation had a Supreme Court ordered a state, against
its will, to stop counting popular votes, with the result determining
the electoral vote count in a way that negates the popular decision of
the people; and never before in the history of the nation had a
Supreme Court so deformed democracy that it virtually legalizes the
buying of elections by interests with huge amount of money that can
dominate and destroy the will of the vast majority of the people of
the nation.
These actions by the court make a mockery of the time-honored notions
of judicial precedent that the chief justice himself promised to
uphold during his confirmation hearings. They make a mockery of the
notion that courts should be impartial adjudicators of the law, not an
aggressive intervener in partisan politics. They make a mockery of the
core notion of the American idea that is under attack even without the
intervention of the court, and under even greater attack because of
it, that we are a nation of laws in which the people rule and not the
factions that the Founders warned us against but which find such favor
with the current court majority.
J'accuse: The Supreme Court is on the brink of putting itself on trial
in the eyes of the nation, and certainly with much of the nation that
vehemently disagrees with the court's view that America is a nation in
which the money rules over the people and that free speech is a
property that can be bought by those who have the most money and
thereby destroyed by those who do not.
Chief Justice John Roberts is a brilliant and charming man, but he is
a man with a hard ideological agenda who is taking the court in
dangerous and in some important ways unprecedented directions. The
chief justice might be a moderate and temperate man in a personal
sense, but he is a conservative movement man who is taking the court
in directions that help one political party over another in ways that
violate core principles of judicial precedent, and core principles of
conservative judicial philosophy that warn against judicial activism
that the current court majority has taken to radical and extreme
levels in decisions such as Citizens United.
I find it ironic, outrageous and profoundly troubling that a Supreme
Court majority of five men would join and at times lead an ideological
attack on laws and programs that benefit women. This is unbecoming and
unwise for a partisan party in the legislative and executive branches.
It is radical, unprecedented and outside of American judicial
tradition when a Supreme Court majority of five men wage an
ideological crusade that places laws and programs benefiting women, by
result if not design, under attack by the judicial branch while under
attack by Republican partisans in Congress.
It appears the court majority is determined to usurp and destroy
traditional rights, prerogatives and responsibilities of the
legislative and executive branches. It appears that this court
majority knows no such thing as the traditional judicial notion of
avoiding political decisions; indeed, the court majority is
increasingly dominating national elections and the justices act as
though they are expert campaign managers while their decisions wreak
havoc on the electoral process.
What is next? Will the court majority overturn the Voting Rights Act?
Will the majority endorse voter suppression using the same
states'-rights argument it mocked in Bush v. Gore? Will the court next
attack Medicare, Medicaid and insurance coverage for pre-existing
conditions and overturn Roe v. Wade? Will every election in the coming
decades be preceded by election-eve Supreme Court decisions in which
factions using their fortunes to buy elections wins, and voting rights
loses?
My warning to the Supreme Court majority is this: Be careful. Stand
down from extremism. Uphold the law but respect the prerogatives of
the legislative branch, the executive branch and the people of the
nation.
Be warned: One more overreach and the Supreme Court will be on trial,
in the eyes of the people the court serves and in the eyes of
historians and future generations who will agree that the court should
uphold the law but has become a partisan and ideological warrior
fomenting another civil war.
Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and Bill Alexander,
then chief deputy majority whip of the House. He holds an LL.M. degree
in international financial law from the London School of Economics. He
can be read on The Hill's Pundits Blog and reached at
brentbbi@webtv.netThis e-mail address is being protected from
spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
More:
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/brent-budowsky/219995-supreme-court-on-trial
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment