Power of Story Send a Tweet        

Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 1 Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (3 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   60 comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

Consider the Supreme Court Before Rejecting Hillary Clinton, If She Secures Democratic Nomination.

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message ML Ross       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     Permalink

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 2   Valuable 2   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 4/19/15

Author 95327
- Advertisement -
From flickr.com/photos/47422005@N04/5985153020/: The US Supreme Court Justices
The US Supreme Court Justices
(Image by DonkeyHotey)
  Permission   Details   DMCA

- Advertisement -
A few days ago, on one of the Facebook pages I regularly contribute, a progressive resigned their membership based upon the group's support of Hillary Clinton's 2016 Democratic Presidential bid. I respect their opinion, but I can't agree with their shortsightedness. Democrats feeling disaffected, chose to travel the moral, chase ground in several previous elections cycles by expressing their defiance and remain home or cross party lines.

Ultimately, those cycles elected conservative presidents, yielding five disastrous appointments. Even so, the dynamic of the Supreme Court denies a determined emerging, electorate majority intent on moving forward, while five MAD men heed the directives of an unhinged, fear-filled vocal minority and greed driven plutocracy.

Many Americans are painfully aware only four justices critically, fairly evaluate, and adjudicate cases ever cognizant of the country's best interest, absent an external directive. However, there is reality within the next nine years. By 2020, barring unforeseen accidents or terminal illnesses, four justices, two each from both sides of the political spectrum will be in their 80s. There is a likelihood, one of the four will not be on the court at the end of a 2020 presidential term. And a higher probability due to age, at least two replacements be required before 2024 given Ginsburg will be in her early 90s, while Breyer, Kennedy and Scalia will be in their late 80s.

Boycotting or not supporting the presumptive democratic nominee may effectively vacate the party's competitiveness in securing the presidency. Consider affecting pole taxes, complimented by deceptive gerrymandering, thus efficiently contracting voter access for many 'left leaning' districts. Before persisting upon the path of voter absence, contemplate overriding decisions favoring corporations, relentless access to firearms as antithetical to public safety and embracing inequality at the expense of a contracting democracy. Below are snapshots, summaries taken from Supreme Court Review, the Justices pages with some edification and narratives added for clarity:

- Advertisement -

Breyer -

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) the Justice's expressed the Court effectively anointed Bush the 43rd President in the opening millennium election by ignoring the electorate's choice.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) As Justice Breyer stated, "the Second Amendment does protect a self-defense interest of individuals by precluding a legislature from finding that curtailing gun ownership will advance goals of great public importance, namely, saving lives, preventing injury, and reducing crime.

I truly believe American society has crossed the threshold of the individual's rights superseding the collective good.

The casualty of this ruling obliterated common sense and overturned 200 years of jurisprudence by nullifying several statutes, including an 18th Century Boston law imposing a fine upon "any Person" who carried a loaded firearm into common public areas.."

Sotomayor --

- Advertisement -

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission She nailed it by summarizing this decision turned a blind eye to the common sense judgment of the American people in deciding that corruption still occurs at the independent expenditure level and that campaigns would be less beholden to corporate interests if limits were placed on the ability of global business to spend unlimited sums to influence elections.

J.D.B. v. North Carolina The Justice stated Miranda Rights to Minors should consider a child's age is relevant to a Miranda custody analysis".the lower court held". . . that a child's age is never relevant to whether a suspect has been taken into custody--Justice Sotomayor argued in her opinion to ignore the very real differences between children and adults--would be to deny children the full scope of the procedural safeguards that Miranda guarantees to adults.

Ginsburg --

Kentucky v. King (2011), She believed this decision arms the police with a routinely way to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases. Her opinion highlighted that in lieu of presenting evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, and then break the door down, despite possessing ample time to obtain a warrant. The rational presented is exigency should exist when the police come upon the scene, not subsequent to their arrival.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Given April 14, 2015 was Equal Pay Day, Mrs. Ginsburg opinion on the case's argument concentrated upon the disparity between genders as apparent and sizable. Most egregious examples demonstrated through future raises calculated as a percentage of current salaries, that an employee in Ledbetter's situation is likely to comprehend her plight and, therefore, to complain."

Gagan --

Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, discussed the hypocrisy capitalized on Citizens United and unfortunately paved the path for McCutcheon to expand the money excess destroying the veracity of the individual vote to culminate into the majority. She accused the majority (GOP occupants on the high court) of playing a "game" with democracy by thwarting legislators' efforts. This legislation intended to implement with the "greatest hope of eliminating corruption lying in creating an effective public financing program, by breaking candidates' dependence on large donors. A complete contradiction by the hypocritical conservative majority that viewed Citizens' United as political free speech except that source is private finance. The 'gang of five' claimed Arizona violated plaintiffs' First Amendment rights by disbursing funds to other speakers even though those SAME plaintiffs'could receive (but chose to spurn) the exact financial assistance,"

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

Well Said 2   Valuable 2   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Hi - East coast liberal, part of Organizing For America and Editor for the Civil Rights Section - Progressive Congress News. Blogging some 'snark', facts, data & my opinion for 2 yrs....politics need to reflect and address people's (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Is CrowdFunding a boon for making bigotry profitable?

Consider the Supreme Court Before Rejecting Hillary Clinton, If She Secures Democratic Nomination.

Opinion: MSNBC's Betrayal of the "LEFT' & Fairness

David Brooks' Potential Impending 'Brian Williams' Moment

Auspicious Disappointment Today, A Reflection of November 8, 2016