If the conservatives decide that they can sidestep the Constitution
to
negate Congress's choices on crucial national policies, the court's
legitimacy — and the millions of Americans who don't have insurance —
Gee, Tommytomtom,
If you believe this article and what it says above then the court has
NO right to do away with DOMA either... talk about being the pivot man
in a reverse circle jerk... you just fucked yourself and showed
absolute hypocrisy..
On Apr 1, 11:17 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Roberts Court Defines Itself
> Published: March 31, 2012
> Recommend
> Twitter
> Linkedin
>
> comments (158)
> Sign In to E-Mail
>
> Print
>
> Reprints
>
> Share
> CloseDiggRedditTumblrPermalink For anyone who still thought legal
> conservatives are dedicated to judicial restraint, the oral arguments
> before the Supreme Court on the health care case should put that idea
> to rest. There has been no court less restrained in signaling its
> willingness to replace law made by Congress with law made by justices.
>
> Related in Opinion
> More on Health Care »Readers' Comments
> Share your thoughts.
> Post a Comment »
> Read All Comments (158) »
> This should not be surprising. Republican administrations, spurred by
> conservative interest groups since the 1980s, handpicked each of the
> conservative justices to reshape or strike down law that fails to
> reflect conservative political ideology.
>
> When Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy were selected by the Reagan
> administration, the goal was to choose judges who would be eager to
> undo liberal precedents. By the time John Roberts Jr. and Samuel Alito
> Jr. were selected in the second Bush administration, judicial
> "restraint" was no longer an aim among conservatives. They were chosen
> because their professional records showed that they would advance a
> political ideology that limits government and promotes market
> freedoms, with less regard to the general welfare.
>
> There is an enormous distinction to be made between the approaches of
> the Roberts court and the Warren court, which conservatives have long
> railed against for being an activist court. For one thing,
> Republican-appointed justices who led that court, Chief Justice Earl
> Warren and Justice William Brennan Jr., were not selected to effect
> constitutional change as part of their own political agenda.
>
> During an era of major social tumult, when the public's attitudes
> about racial equality, fairness in the workings of democracy and the
> dignity of the individual proved incompatible with old precedents,
> those centrists led the court to take new positions in carrying out
> democratic principles. Yet they were extremely mindful of the need to
> maintain the court's legitimacy, and sought unanimity in major
> rulings. Cooper v. Aaron, the 1958 landmark case that said states are
> bound by Supreme Court rulings, was unanimous. So was Katzenbach v.
> McClung, the 1964 case upholding the constitutionality of parts of the
> Civil Rights Act under the commerce clause.
>
> The four moderates on the court have a leftish bent, but they see
> their role as stewards of the law, balancing the responsibility to
> enforce the Constitution through judicial review against the duty to
> show deference to the will of the political branches. In that respect,
> they and the conservatives seem to be following entirely different
> rules.
>
> That difference is playing out in the health care case. Established
> precedents support broad authority for Congress to regulate national
> commerce, and the health care market is unquestionably national in
> scope. Yet to Justice Kennedy the mandate requiring most Americans to
> obtain health insurance represents "a step beyond what our cases have
> allowed, the affirmative duty to act, to go into commerce." To Justice
> Stephen Breyer, it's clear that "if there are substantial effects on
> interstate commerce, Congress can act."
>
> Likewise, Justice Scalia's willingness to delve into health care
> politics seems utterly alien to his moderate colleagues. On the
> question of what would happen if the mandate were struck down, Justice
> Scalia launched into a senatorial vote count: "You can't repeal the
> rest of the act because you're not going to get 60 votes in the Senate
> to repeal the rest." Justice Breyer, by contrast, said firmly: "I
> would stay out of politics. That's for Congress; not us."
>
> If the conservatives decide that they can sidestep the Constitution to
> negate Congress's choices on crucial national policies, the court's
> legitimacy — and the millions of Americans who don't have insurance —
> will pay a very heavy price. Chief Justice Roberts has the opportunity
> to avoid this disastrous outcome by forging even a narrow ruling to
> uphold the mandate and the rest of the law. A split court striking
> down the act will be declaring itself virtually unfettered by the law.
> And if that happens along party lines, with five Republican-appointed
> justices supporting the challenge led by 26 Republican governors, the
> court will mark itself as driven by politics.
>
> More:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/the-roberts-court-de...
> --
> 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.
