"Constitution in Exile". John Roberts and his agenda!

[Joanne98]

THE FROG BOILS ONE DEGREE AT A TIME.... BEWARE....
In recent years, the Supreme Court has issued a number of significant decisions limiting the scope of federal authority and invigorating a doctrine of state sovereignty, including several in the last Term of the Court. It has also decided important cases regarding the protection of private property
from excessive government regulation, the antidiscrimination provisions of the 5th and 14th Amendments and the privileges and immunities provision of the latter amendment, as well as the scope of personal privacy rights, religious freedom and freedom of association.

Some observers have seen resemblance between aspects of this Court's jurisprudence and judicial positions in the era prior to 1937, using that year to mark a break within the preceding era, in which the Court interpreted the due process clause, the commerce clause and other Constitutional provisions to place more restrictions on government authority. Pieces of that earlier jurisprudence fit within an idealized Constitution in Exile, a name given to a body of constitutional doctrine which includes a muscular nondelegation doctrine, well defined limits on the scope of federal power, adequate protections of property rights, latitude for the recognition of religious practices in public life, and respect for the autonomy of states and local communities to govern themselves.

Are we witnessing the emergence of the Constitution in Exile? Whether or not the Court is returning to some features of pre-1937 doctrine in recognizable ways, do the recent decisions portend a significant change in the course of Constitutional jurisprudence, or are they marginal adjustments to post-1937 positions? Do these recent developments forma coherent jurisprudential pattern, and are they sound? What social, cultural, intellectual or jurisprudential explanations best account for the fact that these changes, however described, are occurring now? These are among the critical questions to be examined at this conference.

http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/conference/exileconference/

[matt819]

1. Hey, but he's a nice man

I've been listening a bit to the hearings. The RW senators are nutters. No question about that. I think the average teenage would come off sounding smarter than these clowns.

As for Roberts - There's no question that he's pretty darn smart. Well spoken. Thinks on his feet. Etc. He's been described as a real gentleman, a nice guy. Again, that's fine. No problem with that. I suppose even right-wingers can be smart and nice. He seems to know the law, but I'm not a lawyer, so I'll leave that to others.

My problem? I don't believe him when he talks about respecting long-held precedence. I don't believe him when he talks about the right to privacy. The nutters are perfectly happy to grant him considerable leeway when reviewing his early writings, when he clearly demonstrated contempt for the disabled, women, minorities, etc. The proverbial leopard doesn't change his spots. Sure, he's more mature now. He's unlikely to be as bold in these sorts of statements in his rulings today. But changed? I doubt it. Is Cheney different from what he was 30 years ago? *? Rumsfeld? Were the rightwingers somehow leftwingers in their youth, but they've matured. No. These folks have long-held beliefs that run counter to the views, certainly of those here at DU, and, I would argue, counter to what passes for mainstream America. There's no reason to believe that Roberts' views are any different now, only that he's more cautious.

Is he the same sort of pathological liar that * is? Probably not. But he does have a judicial philosophy that will further erode this nation's democracy and freedoms.

All of that said, the vote will be along party lines, with maybe another 15 or so dems (including, of course, DINO Joe Lieberman) voting in his favor because they lack backbone. So, in the end, the hearings are a sham.

[acmejack]

2. Actually, I know quite a few RWers who were liberal in their youth!

There was one guy who helped me produce an underground antiwar paper on base. Drove the hardasses nuts. But he is "proud to have helped put Bush in office", he lives in Florida.

As people gain wealth they often lose sight of their humble beginnings, as he has. He owns a bunch of optical shops now. Taxes are the big thing to all these guys. They don't care about the social agenda, all they care about is their fucking money.

[Joanne98]

4. So sad but I think your right....But why do they have to give our rights

away?

[Joanne98]

3. Thankyou for your great reply.....

I agree with you about Roberts. I don't trust him. He seems to be groomed for this postion. He makes me feel like I'm in an, "Invasion Of The Body Snatcher", movie.... He not just phoney, He's "wierdly" phoney.......

The right has been waiting for this moment for between 70-50 or 30 years depending on who your talking too. I think they are going to do a lot of damage to "our rights" no matter what happens. They've gotten too far.

I think the Dem leaders who led us into this trap should pay big time.