Letters to the Editor
-
I never took "judicial activism" criticism seriously, but ...
I never took "judicial activism" criticism by wingers seriously, but after Bush v. Gore it became downright ludicrous. How could any winger criticize "judicial activism" with a straight face after cheering that decision?
-
What it means
"judicial activism" simply means the judiciary acted in a way I don't like. Its a cloak to provide your negative reaction to the outcome with intellectual phrasing some cover from the shame of only supporting the law when it agrees with you.
-
Thanks for the great work
Thanks for the great work Glenn. You have become a must read for me!
-
Why Right-Wingers Care
At first I couldn't understand why right-wingers would care about this, then I remembered they don't want to be forced to allow Ron Paul into debates either. Ha!
-
Projection, again
A recurring theme recently has been the extent to which the neocons and associated RWNM folks engage in projecting their own faults onto their opponents. This article presents yet another case study in such projection.
What better example of "judicial activism" can there be other than the outcome of the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore?
More recently, of course, we have the appeals court ruling this week on former Guantanamo prisoners:
A federal appeals court Friday threw out a suit by four British Muslims who allege that they were tortured and subjected to religious abuse in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a ruling that exonerated 11 present and former senior Pentagon officials.
It appeared to be the first time that a federal appellate court has ruled on the legality of the harsh interrogation tactics that U.S. intelligence officers and military personnel have used on suspected terrorists held outside the United States since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
/snip/
``It was foreseeable that conduct that would ordinarily be indisputably `seriously criminal' would be implemented by military officials responsible for detaining and interrogating suspected enemy combatants,'' Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the court's main opinion.
Judge Janice Rogers Brown dissented with parts of the opinion, saying that ``it leaves us with the unfortunate and quite dubious distinction of being the only court to declare those held at Guantanamo are not `person(s).'
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/24654.html
So there we have it. After decades of decrying "judicial activism" Republicans have stacked the courts now with judges who will impose those outcomes most desired by the Republicans, whether that is the awarding of the presidency or deciding that torture is a "foreseeable outcome" that is of no consequence if one is not a "person". Can someone please point out the legal precedent for declaring that "seriously criminal" conduct is legal simply because it is "foreseeable"? That even one of the most controversial of such judicial appointments, Judge Brown, stumbles over the declaration of non-personhood, speaks volumes.
-
The Irony of "Federalists"
Another hallmark of right-wing judicial rhetoric is their celebration of federalism, or "states rights." When the federal government is more liberal than state governments, federalism wss the rallying cry, and groups like the Federalist Society produced huge numbers of jurists placed by the right in high positions supposedly to enforce "states rights."
But watch these "federalists" under the Bush admin. All of a sudden states and state courts had too much power and now need to be reined in by the federal government.
Like "judicial activism," federalism turned out to apply to anything that served the Right Wing -- states rights only matter if the state is on the Right side of an issue.
-
I am curious
About whether these public airways rules apply to cable stations, or networks. The underlying reason for the public airways rule applying to broadcast is that spectrum is both scarce and a commons. With essentially unlimited capacity to provide additional transmissions, the need on a cable network would not seem as compelling. Kucinich could, in principle, obtain time, or an entire channel, on Nevada cable networks. He cannot do so on some unused bit of spectrum.
-
the irony is
The four most egregious "activist" judges in the whole country sit on the US Supreme Court and go by the names Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.
Ronald Dworkin exposes their hollow legal equivocations and indefensible rulings that always favour conservative outcomes:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20570
A sample:
It seems guided by no judicial or political principle at all, but only by partisan, cultural, and perhaps religious allegiance. It urges judicial restraint and deference to legislatures when these bodies pass measures that political conservatives favor, like bans on particular medical techniques in abortion. But the right-wing coalition abandons restraint when it strikes down legislation that conservatives oppose, like regulations on political advertising and modest school district programs to further racial integration in public education. It claims to celebrate free speech when it declares that Congress cannot prevent rich corporations and unions from evading restrictions on political contributions. But it subordinates free speech to other policies when it holds that schools can punish students for displaying ambiguous but not disruptive slogans at school events. Lawyers have long been fond of saying, quoting Mr. Dooley, that the Supreme Court follows the election returns.[1] These four justices seem to follow Fox News instead.
Yet another thing us shrill carping bloggers got right and nearly everyone in the pseudo-centrist establishment got wrong: Alito and Roberts are wingnuts and that was evident before they were confirmed. Alito's confirmation is even more tragic since he was obviously a flawed nominee where Roberts had perfected the stealth tactic of never ruling on any hot-button issues.
We celebrated when Harriett Miers went down, but I suspect that was a mistake on the left. She could not have been worse than Alito.
-
In the spirit on non-lawyers commenting on legal issues...
Can I add that Morrissey's criticism of the court (which has "no respect for private property") is perhaps topped only by his criticism of Kucinich, who:
"cynically filed the claim in the wrong court and pushed for government control over the speech, property, and assembly rights of NBC"
And yep, it has to be said that an issue involving this NEVADA debate, ahead of the NEVADA primary, might perhaps be resolved by a NEVADA court. Shocking, really, almost as shocking as the idea that Kucinich should file a claim in court for an alleged breach of contract.