Procrustes Stretched
Dante's Manifesto
- Banned
- #141
Derideo_Te if you are a serious person who would rather educate yourself than remain ignorant of what legal scholars believe, view the video, read the transcript
Book Discussion Uncertain Justice Video C-SPAN.org
Having watched the entire video I can make the following observations;
1. Professor Tribe is an astute observer of the court and well versed in it's history.
2. He did highlight what are clearly exceptions to bias but he also substantiated that the court is conservatively biased. e.g.
THE CURRENT COURT IS MOVING AGAIN RATHER FRIGHTENINGLY TO SOME PEOPLE IN THE DIRECTION OF REVIEWING LAWS THAT AFFECT THE ECONOMY IN A SERIOUS WAY. FOR EXAMPLE, THE LAWS THAT WERE PASSED IN VERMONT TO MAKE IT HARDER FOR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES TO JACK UP THE DRUGS BY GETTING INFORMATION ABOUT DRUGS TO CERTAIN DOCTORS THAT THEY WOULD PRESCRIBE MORE COSTLY DRUGS. THE COURT STRUCK DOWN ON THE BASIS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. SOTOMAYOR JOINED THE CONSERVATIVES ON THAT AND JUSTICE BREYER WENT ALMOST POINTED. HE SAID THIS IS THE RETURN OF WHAT WAS CALLED THE LOCHNER ERA THE PERIOD FROM THE 1890s AND 1937 WHEN THE COURT WAS STRIKING DOWN ECONOMICS REGULATIONS RATHER LOOSELY. BECAUSE IF YOU STRIKE DOWN IN AND ECONOMIC REGULATION SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH SPEECH IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND IT DEALS WITH INFORMATION IN OUR SOCIETY IS AT THE HEART OF ALMOST EVERYTHING. AND USING THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN THAT WAY COULD GIVE THE COURT THE KIND OF COVER THAT IS PRESUPPOSED IN YOUR QUESTION. SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT. THE FEAR IN OUR ECONOMIC LIVES IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PREMISE OF LIBERTY AND OTHER PEOPLE THINK THAT MEANINGFUL LIBERTY REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. THEY MIGHT RATHER DANGEROUSLY IN THE DIRECTION THAT IN 1937 WE ABANDONED
3. This link does not substantiate your claim that my opinion is "uninformed and confused". While the Professor has a far more indepth knowledge base of the history of the SCOTUS than myself (hardly surprising given what he has done for a living versus what I have done) but he didn't say anything that was outside my understanding of how the justices make their decisions. In that respect what he did say confirmed a lot of what I already knew.
4. Many of the examples he gave substantiated my opinion of the court's conservative bias. There were very few exceptions and most of those centered around voting anomalies in the positions taken by the justices on certain decisions that were counter to their perceived liberal/conservative positions.
So thank you for providing one single example of a legal scholar and one that actually substantiated that I am neither "uninformed" or "confused" in this matter.
I bet Illman thinks wingers do not hide behind the flag too5-4Bush v Gore was a partisan decision.
Citizens United was a partisan decision.
Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.
Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision.
Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.
Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision.
Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.
The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.
Saying that any one (or more) of those decisions was a "partisan" decision doesn't make it so.
Can you get more partisan?
You can't get a closer vote. But if it's partisan to try to adhere to the commands of the Constitution, then I am ok with partisan.
Hiding behind the "our side defends the constitution" is pretty lame
It's lame to suggest that they are doing any such thing. They are instead defending that which they believe the Constitution demands.