October 6, 2008
Editorial
The Supreme Court’s New Term
The Supreme Court begins its term on Monday, and the indications so far are that it could be a quiet year. There will be at least a few high-profile cases, on issues ranging from obscenity to church-state separation, but the swing vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy is likely to keep the court on a generally centrist path. The real excitement this fall is occurring on the outside — in a presidential race that could shape the court for years to come.
Historians will remember this as the Roberts Court’s fourth term, but as a practical matter it is likely to be another year of the Kennedy Court. Poised between a bloc of four liberal justices and four conservatives, Justice Kennedy — a moderate conservative — has for several years been able to decide most close cases.
This term’s docket includes Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, a challenge by broadcasters to the F.C.C.’s policy on “fleeting expletives.” The commission, in a sharp reversal, started imposing large fines for television programming with brief profanities — like a Golden Globe awards show in which the singer Bono uttered a single offending word. A federal appeals court rightly struck down the policy, which seriously infringes on free speech. We hope the court sides with the broadcasters.
The court will also consider, in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, whether a Utah municipality that allows a privately donated Ten Commandments monument to be displayed on public property must let another religion put up its own statue of similar size. The court should rule that the Constitution does not allow government to favor one religion over another.
The court’s conservatives have been on a campaign to close the courthouse door to people with legitimate legal claims. They have expanded a variety of doctrines to send wronged parties away empty-handed, including one known as “pre-emption.”
That issue is central to a case being argued on Monday, a challenge by Maine smokers to Philip Morris’s marketing of “light cigarettes” as safer than regular ones. The smokers say the marketing violated Maine’s consumer protection laws, but Philip Morris argues that they are pre-empted by federal law. We hope the court agrees with the Boston-based Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that the smokers’ suit can go forward.
The court is still accepting cases for the term, and it could add major ones, including a challenge to the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, or the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, which raises the question of whether the president can order someone lawfully in the United States held indefinitely as an enemy combatant.
The same day the court hears arguments in the “fleeting expletives” case next month, Nov. 4, Americans will be voting for a new president. John McCain is promising to nominate more archconservatives, which could tip the court far to the right. Barack Obama would appoint justices who are more liberal.
The election’s outcome is likely to have an enormous impact on questions like the right to abortion, the wall between church and state, and the power of the president to detain Americans. Since several justices could depart in the next four years, this could be the most important election for the court in many decades.
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Monday, October 6, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
NYTimes Editorial: The Candidates and the Court
Here is an editorial on an issue I've been talking about for months now. Something that terrifies me about this election, the fact that the courts are at stake and that long outlasts the influence of a Presidential term. The article walks you through the concern, ladies and gents - its time to face up and sing...let's make sure that we continue to work to change this country for the better.
NYTimes article, text below...
September 21, 2008
EDITORIAL
The Candidates and the Court
Among the many issues voters need to consider in this campaign is this vital fact: The next president is likely to appoint several Supreme Court justices. Those choices will determine the future of the law, and of some of Americans’ most cherished rights.
John McCain and Barack Obama have made it clear that they would pick very different kinds of justices. The results could be particularly dramatic under Mr. McCain, who is likely to complete President Bush’s campaign to make the court an aggressive right-wing force.
Mr. Obama seems likely to pick moderate justices, who would probably not take the court back onto a distinctly liberal path, but also would be unlikely to create an unbreakable conservative bloc.
Mr. McCain has promised the right wing of the Republican Party that he would put only archconservatives on the Supreme Court. Even moderate conservatives like Anthony Kennedy, the court’s current swing justice, would not have a chance.
Mr. McCain, whose Web site proclaims his dedication to overturning Roe v. Wade, would appoint justices who could be expected to lead the charge to eliminate the right to abortion. The kinds of justices for whom Mr. McCain has expressed a strong preference would also be likely to undermine the right of habeas corpus, allowing the government to detain people indefinitely without access to lawyers or family members.
Mr. McCain’s justices are likely to join the conservative crusade against the power of Congress. They could be expected to strike down, or sharply limit, federal power to protect clean air and water; ensure food and drug safety; safeguard workers; and prohibit discrimination against women and minorities. They would also likely further erode the separation between church and state.
Mr. McCain has voted to confirm federal judges chosen by Mr. Bush who are radicals, not conservatives. One, Janice Rogers Brown, now on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has attacked Supreme Court decisions upholding New Deal laws as “the triumph of our own socialist revolution.”
Mr. Obama, a former professor of constitutional law, has clashed with Mr. McCain in the Senate over legal issues. Mr. McCain backed the odious Military Commissions Act of 2006, which the Supreme Court held to violate the right of habeas corpus; Mr. Obama opposed it. Mr. McCain was a rubber stamp for Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees; Mr. Obama voted against the worst.
Mr. Obama has said he wants justices who have “the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom” — as well as to be gay, poor or black. He has promised to make “preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as president.”
At the same time, Mr. Obama has put distance between himself and legal liberals on issues like the death penalty for child rapists and the constitutionality of gun control. As president, Mr. Obama would probably be more inclined to appoint centrist liberals, like Justice Stephen Breyer, than all-out liberals, like William Brennan or Thurgood Marshall.
Predicting vacancies on the court is difficult. But odds are that members of the liberal bloc, like 88-year-old John Paul Stevens, will leave first. That means that if Mr. Obama is elected, he might merely keep the court on its current moderately conservative course. Under Mr. McCain, if a liberal justice or two or three steps down, we may see a very different America.
NYTimes article, text below...
September 21, 2008
EDITORIAL
The Candidates and the Court
Among the many issues voters need to consider in this campaign is this vital fact: The next president is likely to appoint several Supreme Court justices. Those choices will determine the future of the law, and of some of Americans’ most cherished rights.
John McCain and Barack Obama have made it clear that they would pick very different kinds of justices. The results could be particularly dramatic under Mr. McCain, who is likely to complete President Bush’s campaign to make the court an aggressive right-wing force.
Mr. Obama seems likely to pick moderate justices, who would probably not take the court back onto a distinctly liberal path, but also would be unlikely to create an unbreakable conservative bloc.
Mr. McCain has promised the right wing of the Republican Party that he would put only archconservatives on the Supreme Court. Even moderate conservatives like Anthony Kennedy, the court’s current swing justice, would not have a chance.
Mr. McCain, whose Web site proclaims his dedication to overturning Roe v. Wade, would appoint justices who could be expected to lead the charge to eliminate the right to abortion. The kinds of justices for whom Mr. McCain has expressed a strong preference would also be likely to undermine the right of habeas corpus, allowing the government to detain people indefinitely without access to lawyers or family members.
Mr. McCain’s justices are likely to join the conservative crusade against the power of Congress. They could be expected to strike down, or sharply limit, federal power to protect clean air and water; ensure food and drug safety; safeguard workers; and prohibit discrimination against women and minorities. They would also likely further erode the separation between church and state.
Mr. McCain has voted to confirm federal judges chosen by Mr. Bush who are radicals, not conservatives. One, Janice Rogers Brown, now on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has attacked Supreme Court decisions upholding New Deal laws as “the triumph of our own socialist revolution.”
Mr. Obama, a former professor of constitutional law, has clashed with Mr. McCain in the Senate over legal issues. Mr. McCain backed the odious Military Commissions Act of 2006, which the Supreme Court held to violate the right of habeas corpus; Mr. Obama opposed it. Mr. McCain was a rubber stamp for Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees; Mr. Obama voted against the worst.
Mr. Obama has said he wants justices who have “the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom” — as well as to be gay, poor or black. He has promised to make “preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as president.”
At the same time, Mr. Obama has put distance between himself and legal liberals on issues like the death penalty for child rapists and the constitutionality of gun control. As president, Mr. Obama would probably be more inclined to appoint centrist liberals, like Justice Stephen Breyer, than all-out liberals, like William Brennan or Thurgood Marshall.
Predicting vacancies on the court is difficult. But odds are that members of the liberal bloc, like 88-year-old John Paul Stevens, will leave first. That means that if Mr. Obama is elected, he might merely keep the court on its current moderately conservative course. Under Mr. McCain, if a liberal justice or two or three steps down, we may see a very different America.
Friday, June 6, 2008
fundamental rights
A recent NYTimes article discusses the complications of illegal abortions (pre-Roe days) with some graphic detail and reminds us that Roe v. Wade was not the begining of abortions, rather it was the begining of a safer medical environment. That is until abortion clinics came under attack by individuals claiming to be protecting the unborn or doing God's work. Today we stand at a precipice, the next President of the United States will likely appoint a number of Supreme Court judges. The presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain has very different views on abortion than that of the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. Our next President will shape American policy long after their term through the function of their Supreme Court appointees. Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 the conservative right has tried everything to overturn this decision and force women to return to the days of back room practices, kitchen table procedures and coat hangers as medical tools. Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine discusses the inner workings of the Supreme Court through a series of cases and decisions, it is an excellent read and puts into focus just how important this election is, beyond the next four years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
