Justice Breyer: "Rarely in the history of the court have so few undone so much so quickly."

[ProSense]

[ShortnFiery]

1. While the Senate "kept their powder dry." n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. What does Byrd have to say about this!

He's cowering in a corner mumbling "coup, coup, coup."

[Supersedeas]

18. powder for the faces and rouge for the lips

[BlackHawk706867]

2. I am so concerned about Justice Breyer and what he may do with respect to

this bullshit rulling.... I am concerned that he may call it quits over this, thus giving one more voice to the right wing of this Fascist Gov't.

ww

[eppur_se_muova]

14. He doesn't strike me as a shrinking violet -- soft-spoken, maybe, but ...

also smart enough not to give them exactly what they want.

[Fovea]

3. Judicial activism?

Impossible, the five zealots wouldn't know judicial temperament if it hit them with a gavel.
They are injucicial activists.

[BlackHawk706867]

4. Huhhhhh .. Please translate that post into English! ww... eom.

[Captain Angry]

9. Not sure if you were being sarcastic, so here goes...

This is my understanding.

Judicial Activism is the theory that a justice would use their ability to interpret the law in a manner that benefits society and not necessarily in the manner the law was written.

Judicial Restraint is the theory that a justice would use the Constitution as the guide and would not allow expansion or reinterpretation of the law.

Basically, what is the philosophy of the justice? Do they think they can use a law to guide the country in a new direction, or do they believe that the law is fixed and only through the legislative process should new policy be created.

Add to this the cries of Judicial Activist when a justice rules in a way that GroupX disagrees and then they're showing Judicial Restraint when GroupX agrees. It's loaded terminology that can be shifted depending on which side of a law you find yourself.

[Fovea]

19. The parennial accusation of decisions like Roe v. Wade

is that the judges are being 'activist' and making social policy in the guise of interpreting law.

This has been the club the right has beaten the court with since, well Brown v. Topeka Board Pub Ed.
Now, they turn Brown inside out and make offensively absurd defenses of their racist policies masquerading as
legal decision making.

This is what activist courts look like. They make rude gestures in lieu of reasoned argument. They can do this because they know beyond a dbout that they are 'right'. But a justice does not 'know'. A justice 'finds'... it is the process of being a judge.

The court requires a quality called judicial teperament from its body, and at least two of the five
showed a shocking absence of it, IMO. This court, I suspect will not end up having a very long term effect on the law because they will be seen as unreliably partisan and ideologue.

They are not of judicial temperament, hence injudicial.

Does that make sense?

[aquart]

5. There's real hatred on that Court.

[Up2Late]

6. Which ruling was he referring to? Their were several bad ones this week.

:shrug:

This week they probably un-did:

Brown v Board of Education

and

<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11523370>

June 28, 2007 · In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned a decades-old antitrust standard to give manufacturers additional rights when it comes to setting prices. The decision gives manufacturers more leeway to set minimum prices for their products.

June 25, 2007 · The Supreme Court ruled Monday on three cases related to the First Amendment. It struck down limits on some campaign ads, restricted when taxpayers may sue over government aid to faith groups, and ruled against a teen and his "Bong Hits for Jesus" banner.

June 25, 2007 · The Supreme Court sided with the Bush Administration and developers Monday, ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency may transfer authority for issuing water-pollution permits to states when states show that they can adequately enforce the Clean Water Act.

<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11355574>

High Court Rules on Campaign Ads, Free Speech

<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11355574>

The court issued a 5-to-4 decision blocking a lawsuit by a group of atheists and agnostics against eight Bush administration officials, including the head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The group had objected to government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal grants.

The majority ruled that the taxpayers had tried to "set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur," unless the initiative was stopped — adding that none of those things had, in fact, occurred.

On campaign finance, the court relaxed some restrictions it had upheld in 2003, allowing corporations and unions to get back into election campaigning in a way they have not been able to since the McCain-Feingold law took effect five years ago.

The 5-to-4 ruling weakens a provision of the law that prohibits corporations and unions from financing television and radio advertisements near the time of federal elections, if those ads identify any of the candidates.

Oh, believe me, I could keep going.

[azurnoir]

7. Well now that they've laid waste

to Brown v Board of Education how long until they taken on the real prize? Not Roe v Wade high on the list but #2, but the Civil Rights Act, it's been being whittled down since Reagan it will be gone if the right wing has it's way.

[ShortnFiery]

8. Wow, if we had a "real life" functioning Legislative Branch, we could undo/check some of this damage

over time. :shrug:

[ProSense]

10. On the SCOTUS' repeal of 100-year-old antitrust law

On the SCOTUS' repeal of 100-year-old antitrust law

[ananda]

12. Hell in a handbasket...

That's where we are right now.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. Scalia started it

on December 12, 2000. So it took just one guy really.

[Morgana LaFey]

16. actually, what it took was

that plus a lot of people (all of them in Congress) to facilitate the whole thing AND stand idly by while the predicted meltdown gathers speed. And it took a complicit media who know longer see their job as satisfying American citizens' "need to know" what's going on in their politics government so they can exercise their decision-making appropriately.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. If Kerry had won we never would have had this court

to deal with so I suppose we had a chance to head it off, but I still blame Scalia.

[Major Hogwash]

15. The lawless rule for now, but the day is coming when they won't rule us anymore.

Those laws can be rewritten, they can be written in such a way as to pass the scrutiny of this Supreme Court.

We can not lose hope. - MLK