Judges have broad discretion to interpret law. "Textualist" jurists claim to look solely to the letter of the law, interpreting it as literally as possible. Thus Justice Hugo Black could not bring it upon himself to overturn a 1958 Connecticut law that criminalized the use of contraception. He could find no right of privacy, even for married couples, in the Constitution. "Non-textualists" are more willing to interpret laws in ways consistent with both the original intent of the authors and the evolution of both technology and culture. Thus Justice Black's brethren could look beyond the literal words of a clause or statute to determine the law's real purpose and render a decision faithful to that. They found that a law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated an inherent Constitutional right to privacy intended by the founders.
But no judge is a pure "textualist" or a pure "non-textualist". Good judges try to ensure a just outcome consistent with the law they are called upon to review. But some judges decide the outcome they would like to see and then reason backwards to get there. And if those judges want to see a particular party win, they can always find a way to interpret the law to ensure that win. The neoconservative radicals on our current Court have worked hard, torturing the laws and our Constitutional guarantees, to ensure that the corporate elite win, even when an objective application of the law would call for a very different result.
Let's look at a few of the decisions that these Republican -nominated and quite radical jurists have given us.
National elections are governed largely by state laws. The U.S. Supreme Court had no business granting certiorari in the case, but when they did, many Constitutional scholars realized that political influence was at work. In a rare unsigned opinion, the neoconservative majority awarded the Presidency to George W. Bush. In what was clearly a political decision wholly bereft of any constitutional foundation, the Court stopped the legitimate counting of votes in the state of Florida to ensure a Republican president. The neoconservative majority served its own interests by consciously and deliberately thwarting Florida law and the will of the people. This decision marked a sea change for many constitutional scholars. The abject corruption of the court was now on undisguised display for all of the world to see. Jeffrey Toobin wrote that Justice Souter was so appalled by the behavior of the Court that it was difficult for him to continue. He retired as soon as he was eligible under federal law in 2009. It is a rare event for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice to resign at such a relatively young age, yet that's exactly what he did.
It took orchestrated corruption of our election system to install George W. Bush as President, and the U.S. Supreme Court had to torture the Constitution to ensure the desired outcome. George W. Bush brought us two of the most disastrous presidential terms in our nation's history. The terrible ramifications of his presidency will continue for decades, perhaps for generations. Al Gore was the true winner of that 2000 election, and it is apparent that the entire world would have been better off had he taken his rightful place in the White House.
Ledbetter v. Good year Tire and Rubber Company (2007)
Lily Ledbetter proved that she had been discriminated against on the basis of her gender under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She proved that she had been paid substantially less for the same work as her male counterparts. A federal jury in the U.S. District Court awarded her back pay and damages after hearing strong evidence of gender discrimination against her by Goodyear. Overturning that jury's decision, the neoconservative majority held that the plaintiff could not recover damages because she had not filed her complaint within 180 days of the unlawful employment practice as allegedly required by the statute. According to this callous neoconservative majority, each pay period constituted an employment practice, and the clock was reset every time Goodyear issued a paycheck. It refused to consider or accept the harsh reality that Goodyear was engaging in a continuous act of overt discrimination against the plaintiff over many years. Nor did the majority consider the fact that such pay discrimination is nearly impossible to discover since salaries of private employees are not public information. They cleverly and effectively found a way to find in favor of the corporation and avoid a just outcome.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).