High court curves in conservative direction

High court curves in conservative direction
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — In the term that ended Monday, the Supreme Court shifted more to the right, making it harder for people to bring civil rights claims, rejecting challenges by environmentalists and raising the standard for older workers alleging bias on the job. One of its more consequential decisions came on the last day of the term, when the justices imposed a new hurdle for employers trying to scrap tests and other seemingly neutral practices that favor whites at the expense of racial minorities, or men at the expense of women.

Even in the cases where the Roberts Court did not rule as conservatively as expected, it trimmed legal remedies. Although a recent ruling said school officials' strip search of an eighth-grade girl violated her rights, the majority nonetheless decided she could not obtain money damages because the officials made a good-faith mistake about the law. Though the court spurned a constitutional challenge to the landmark Voting Rights Act, it created an opportunity for counties and other political entities to get out from under federal scrutiny of their election laws. "There has been a modest evolution toward narrower, less sweeping opinions," says Harvard University's Richard Fallon. "Roberts' style in dealing with iconic precedents is to distinguish the older cases, leave them standing, but start tacking in the opposite direction — as in the (voting rights) case." ...

"The Roberts Court (has shown) a desire to close the courthouse door," said Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan, who noted that the court boosted the requirements in early litigation stages for people alleging a range of civil rights violations. In one such case, the court ruled against a Pakistani man trying to sue former attorney general John Ashcroft for alleged abusive treatment in a federal jail after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The decision sets a high bar for people trying to hold officials accountable for acts of abuse by underlings.

Many of the conservatives, including Chief Justice John Roberts and senior conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, have long argued that aggrieved individuals should in many situations look to legislators, rather than appointed judges, to solve societal problems. In a dissenting opinion this term, Scalia scoffed at the "quixotic quest to right all wrongs and repair all imperfections through the Constitution." ...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-29-courtanalysis_N.htm

--------------------------------------------

Another reason why that right-wing asshole Roberts should have been filibustered into oblivion.

Let us hope we retain the White House long enough to reverse most of BushCo's impact . . .

Enjoyed this discussion about this term:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&tID=5&src=atom&atom=todays_events.xml&products_id=287321-2


AND note decision issued today, written by Scalia for the Court, upholding Spitzer (+Cuomo) enabling states to protect the public from banks:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/70985.html

will end up settling for.
I think Obama just needs to increase the number of members on the court by executive order.
It is NUTS that decisions of this magnitude are being left to those illegal fuckers who enabled the worst piece of judicial activism in American History (Bush v. Gore).

The question to him was basically, "Why don't you do your fucking job and nail down the issue, instead of rendering these mealy mouthed opinions that leave aspects of the debate in motion?"

His answer was essentially that it would be too much work for the Court.

And I'm sorry, but unless he has a medical condition causing it, that wide eyed getting goosed with a feather look on his face, deer caught in the headlights is not what I would call inspiring confidence. Why anyone thought he was Supreme Court material is beyond me. At least Scalia can explain why he does what he does.

but what do you expect when you get yer legal analysis from USA today...

example:

"Although a recent ruling said school officials' strip search of an eighth-grade girl violated her rights, the majority nonetheless decided she could not obtain money damages because the officials made a good-faith mistake about the law"

they did NOT rule that she could not obtain money damages. they ruled that the individuals involved could not be sued as INDIVIDUALS due to qualified immunity. the issue as to suing the school district, etc. reverted to the state. iow, she CAN sue based on state law, she just can't sue them as INDIVIDUALS. flat out wrong analysis

"when the justices imposed a new hurdle for employers trying to scrap tests and other seemingly neutral practices that favor whites at the expense of racial minorities, or men at the expense of women."

there has been no determination that the new haven test FAVORED whites. in this particular instance, whites outperformed blacks disproportionate to their representation in the test pool. that is an ENTIRELY different thing.

again, complete rubbish legal analysis

I think that their qualifications for hiring reporters is, "Do you know what a newspaper is?"
If you can answer in either the affirmative or negative, then you are hired.