An Old Radical Response to a Newly Radical Court (by John Nichols for The Nation)

BLOG | Posted 07/08/2007 @ 12:24am
An Old Radical Response to a Newly Radical Court


As the Bush-Cheney administration enters its final 18 months, the White House is getting competition from the U.S. Supreme Court for status as greatest threat to the Constitution and the nation for which it is supposed to serve as a blueprint.

In recent weeks, the court headed by Bush-appointee John Roberts has attacked the sort of individual free speech that the Bill or Rights was written to protect while expanding the ability of corporations to warp and dominate the political debate. It has rolled back basic civil rights protections, especially in the area of public education. And it opened the way for the renewal of the sort of business combinations that the anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws of the past century were designed to prevent.

In other words, the court has gotten just about everything wrong -- so wrong that its rational members have begun to express disbelief with regard to the extremism of the new activist majority.

Make no mistake: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are right-wing judicial activists who seek to use the court to legislate from the bench. Rather than interpreting the law, they are taking up cases with an eye toward advancing a political agenda. It is an agenda that is in conflict with established law, the will of the American people and the intentions of the founders. And when the relatively more moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy joins them to form a five-member majority on the court, Roberts and his judicial wrecking crew is free to attack the Constitution without restraint or mercy.

There is no question that the court is a reflection of the Bush-Cheney White House. The president's appointments of Roberts and Alito have tipped the balance far to the right, making the court's most extremist member, Scalia, a frequently definitional player. .....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=211733

FDR couldn't do it in the immediate aftermath of winning the largest EV landslide ever and the largest popular vote landslide up to that time (Johnson did a little better in 64). If he couldn't do it, we sure won't be able to with the narrow win we are likely to have.

our country, then the U.S. deserves what it gets. The most reactionary justices on the court in FDR's time shaped up after the threat to pack the court. If Johnson tried to pack the Court in '64, I missed that.

not packing the court. We won't get anywhere near 60.8% of the popular vote nor will we get 523 electorial votes. No Democrat since before the civil war who isn't FDR or LBJ has gotten more than 51% of the popular vote and only two Democrats who aren't FDR or LBJ have gotten a majority of the popular vote since pre civil war (Tilden in 1896 and Carter in 1976) Tilden got 51% of the vote and Carter got 50.1%. Tilden ran in the aftermath of Grant while Carter ran in the aftermath of Nixon.

* has fucked up everything he's touched.

But that's JMHO.

If you want to see how bad electing judges would be go to Texas or Ohio. Ask an African American if they would have wanted elected judges deciding civil rights cases in the 1950's - 1970's in the US South. Ask women if they would want elected judges deciding women's rights cases in MS or AL today. Ask some black kid who killed a white woman but whose rights were violated by the police if he would want an elected judge in some lily white locale deciding if the confession should be excluded. The solution to this problem is to never again fall for the siren song of "there is no difference".

and no concept of how much damage they are doing.

I cannot see that either Roberts or Alito is any more well qualified that a run of the mill, reasonably competent constitutional lawyer, if that.
They lied out their asses to get their jobs and they will lie out their asses to keep them.

The solution to which is of course, impeachment-

catch both Scalia and Thomas on the take

He was the district attorney who convicted Charles Manson. He decided to not press for impeachment after the 9/11 attack.

I don't know if the passage of time might prevent impeachment for this reason. If it is still possible that decision would seem to me to be worthy of removing the remaining 3 who voted Bush in.

the elected senate and house have been, pretty much for twelve years, but for sure during the * presidency.
The "conservative" congress, pursuing the same lame, discredited ideological goals that have proven inadequate and faulty, as well as crooked and anti-human, many times before.

We'd have gotten the same set up as now, but at least we could change them easier. I have seen what elected judges do in Missouri and it ain't pretty. If they are "conservative" or republican, they are crooked, vicious and unworthy of judging a cock fight. If they are democratic, they might be.

Maybe it would be different on a national level, as opposed to state, but I'm not so confident.

live than the good old USA. Perhaps a reverse Ayn Rand! The workers can leave for France, Canada, England and Cuba and let the big shots fend for themselves.