On the Wrong Side of 5 to 4, Libs Talk Tactics

[red states rule]

Now the left will go after Judges who do not make laws from the bench


snip

Liberals talking about the Supreme Court in recent days are a bit like those cellmates — both in the dire nature of their plight, now that the conservative victory at the court has revealed itself in full dimension, and in their belief that there must be something they can do about it.

Political activists within the liberal camp came up with a plan quickly enough: to “take back the court,” in the words of Norman Lear, a founder of People for the American Way, which sent 400,000 e-mail messages last week as part of a campaign to make the court a central issue in the 2008 Senate and presidential elections.

In mid-June, before the final flood of decisions but after the court voted 5 to 4 to uphold the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation mailed an appeal in envelopes with a line from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion in that case, her complaint about the majority’s resurrection of “ancient notions about women’s place.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/weekinreview/08greenhouse.html?_r=1&ref=weekinreview&oref=slogin

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They can always Impeach. Of course that won't work till the American public is dumb enough to vote in 67 Democrats to the Senate.

 

[red states rule]

They can always Impeach. Of course that won't work till the American public is dumb enough to vote in 67 Democrats to the Senate.

When the liberal wing of the SC was running things - libs were very happy

Now when the US Constitution is correctly enforced, they are having a meltdown

 

[ReillyT]

The Democrats would not attempt to impeach a justice of the USSC because they disagree with his judicial philosophy. That is just silly fear mongering.

However, while the Court definitely has swung to the more conservative membership, I don't know why conservatives should feel particularly happy about the last term. There were two major 1st Amendment cases, one upholding free speech with respect to corporate and labor union electoral statements, the other siding with a school district in limiting student speech. (Seemed like these should go in the same direction). One case overruled a long-term decision on taxpayer standing, which seems neither overtly liberal or conservative to me. The final case acknowledged a compelling interest in maintaining diversity in education, although the particular plans at issue were struck down. Only the first of these would seem to necessarily support a strict interpretation of the Constitution, whereas in two of them, the Court interpreted freely the words of the document. An interesting term, but nothing that I would classify a wholesale turn of the Court towards strict constitutionalism.

 

[red states rule]

The Democrats would not attempt to impeach a justice of the USSC because they disagree with his judicial philosophy. That is just silly fear mongering.

However, while the Court definitely has swung to the more conservative membership, I don't know why conservatives should feel particularly happy about the last term. There were two major 1st Amendment cases, one upholding free speech with respect to corporate and labor union electoral statements, the other siding with a school district in limiting student speech. (Seemed like these should go in the same direction). One case overruled a long-term decision on taxpayer standing, which seems neither overtly liberal or conservative to me. The final case acknowledged a compelling interest in maintaining diversity in education, although the particular plans at issue were struck down. Only the first of these would seem to necessarily support a strict interpretation of the Constitution, whereas in two of them, the Court interpreted freely the words of the document. An interesting term, but nothing that I would classify a wholesale turn of the Court towards strict constitutionalism.

abd what is the downside to the Court moving toward strict constitutionalism?

 

[maineman]

They can always Impeach. Of course that won't work till the American public is dumb enough to vote in 67 Democrats to the Senate.

you mean like the right wing tried to impeach earl warren?

 

[red states rule]

you mean like the right wing tried to impeach earl warren?

and libs have to go back 40 years to try and provide an argument to what is going on today

 

[ReillyT]

abd what is the downside to the Court moving toward strict constitutionalism?

I never said there was a downside. It just doesn't appear that the Court has wholly embraced the notion this term.

 

[red states rule]

I never said there was a downside. It just doesn't appear that the Court has wholly embraced the notion this term.

We are one Judge away from having a conservative majority and returning sanity to the Court