Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   6 comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

EXACTLY WHAT ARE CONSERVATIVE JUDGES CONSERVING?

By       Message William Fisher     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 7
Become a Fan
  (11 fans)
- Advertisement -

If you listen to their rhetoric, the mission of the Conservative movement is to get big government off the people’s backs and out of their lives, live by what the framers of the Constitution intended, and help the least of us to enjoy the same liberties as the most of us.

 

That’s what they say they expect from our lawmakers and from our courts. And they’ll tell you it’s the reason they get apoplectic about what they call “activist judges.”

 

If we needed any more proof of their hypocrisy after the disgrace of the Terry Schiavo affair, it would be easy to find in the decisions of the Supreme Court session just ended.

 

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the last resort for the least of us, the one door always open to ordinary citizens seeking justice.

 

So consider how the Court ruled this term:

 

It struck down the modest and voluntarily adopted plans of Seattle and Louisville to re-integrate their public schools. By a 5-4 vote, the Justices decided, as The New York Times put it, that the equal protection clause of the14th Amendment was really intended to protect white students from integration.

 

It ruled against a prison inmate who filed an appeal based on a deadline set by a federal judge because the judge gave him a wrong date.

 

It overturned a jury’s award of $79.5 million in punitive damages against cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris.

- Advertisement -

 

It ruled that it was OK for manufacturers to impose minimum prices on retailers.

 

It upheld the federal ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortions.

 

It ruled that taxpayers lacked the ‘standing’ to challenge the Bush administration’s faith-based initiatives.  

 

And it rewarded the most powerful of us by striking down parts of the campaign finance law that limited the funding of so-called “issue ads” by wealthy contributors.

 

Most of these decisions will make life tougher, not easier, for the least of us. And some thumbed their noses at the stare decisis riff that Chief Justice John Roberts sang so sonorously during his confirmation hearings. 

- Advertisement -

 

The Philip Morris decision overturned a ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court  based on the manufacturer’s 40 years of lying about the connection between smoking and cancer. The campaign finance ruling was a gift to big money interests and the K Street mob. The retail price case, another gift to the rich and powerful, overturned a 96-year-old precedent. The missed deadline case overturned two previous decisions. The faith-based case sidestepped the Constitution’s separation of church and state mandate, but ignored the role of the Court itself as the last safe harbor for ordinary citizens who are hurt when government policies damage the society they live in. In the so-called abortion case, the Court overturned its own 2000 decision, which mandated protection for the health of the mother. And in the racial integration cases, the justices stood Brown v. Board on its head.

 

The ideology of the current court has been cemented by the addition of President Bush’s two nominees – Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. During their confirmation hearings, these two men went to great pains to paint themselves as “incrementalists” who regarded stare decisis – previous decisions – as near-sacred. They testified ad nauseam to their “modest” approach to legal change.

 

Having used these platitudes to snooker enough members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to win their lifetime seats on the nation’s highest Court, they are now to free to join their two ideological brothers – Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – to form the solid four in five-to-four decisions. The fifth brother is Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was expected by some to stand in the “middle ground” so often occupied by now retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

http://billfisher.blogspot.com
William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and elsewhere for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration and now (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



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

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)

Liberties Lost Since 9/11

The Silence of the Sheep

BAHRAIN: UNION LEADERS ON HUNGER STRIKE

Law Professors Outraged by Senate Vote on Indefinite Detention

Feel Safer Now?

The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable -- A Must-Read.