Don't you judge me!
Yesterday the Supreme Court came very close to overturning the Clean Water Act of 1977 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_water_act), failing to overturn the valuable act by a close 5-4 vote. I previously stated my fears at what might happen with Roberts and Alito being added to the already too-conservative US Supreme Court, but this definitely added to my aprehensions. Our judicial system is set up to be balanced and fair, looking at every issue with an academic and legal mind and without emotion or opinion. However, Alito and Roberts are clearly opinionated as conservatives and they have already shown that they will continually lean towards the right. When George Bush appointed these two men, he knew that they would support his agenda as long as they were in office, and unfortunately the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment and Alito and Roberts have 25+ years ahead of them. How a pair of baby-boomer ivy-leaguers could be so conservative is beyond me.
Alito scares me more than Roberts, as Roberts was basically a young Rehnquist, but Alito is more like Scalia. Anyone who has listened to Scalia's opinions couldn't possibly want another man like him making our judicial decisions, but we're stuck with Scalito (a play on their names...) till his death. So now we have two Scalias, one Clarence Thomas and Roberts to vote on the right. That leaves us with 4 justices who will vote towards the left, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter. Kennedy is basically the only true "swing" voter, though he generally leans more left than right. What I don't understand is why we even bother having 9 justices when we could basically make the same decisions with Kennedy sitting alone on the bench.
The Supreme Court has a lot of power, sometimes more than it was intended to have. Some decisions they make can alter the way our constitution is interpreted and implemented. Some justices can become brokers of power, wielding their influence to change laws to adhere to their judicial ideals. Roger B Taney ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney ) was a great example of this, seeing as his decision in the Dred Scott case was based in racism. I am a believer that dictatorship is the only effecient form of government, but that doesn't mean it's the best. Allowing the president to stack the supreme court with those who share his opinions is basically giving the president judicial power, negating the separation of powers originally intended by the formation of the court.
If we are going to continue letting the president appoint justices, why not just make the president the standing chief justice. After all, he's already the supreme commander of our armed forces (cause W was such a war hero back in Vietnam when he stayed home and didn't fight...), so why not make him chief justice and, while we're at it, surgeon general? While we're gradually eliminating civil rights (like the protection from police searches, privacy rights, right to an abortion, the right to pollute one's own body, etc.) we can obviously blame our judicial review system for allowing this to occur. While the European Union is gradually becoming more socially liberal, allowing legalizations of euthanasia, gay marriage, abortion and marijuana in many EU territories, we're going backwards in time. JP Stevens and Kennedy are both old men, likely to either die or retire relatively soon, and unfortunately, they are the only justices whom you cannot predict their decision 100% of the time (like with Scalia, Alito, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and possibly Roberts). If we have another Bush in office (or if it happens while he's still there), we will see those moderates replaces with right-wingers, men willing to sacrifice the rights of the people in exchange for promoting their judicial ideals.
Like democracy, I believe that our system of judicial review is becoming stale and overgrown. While there are so many cases which should be brought to the Supreme Court, we're seeing Anna Nicole Smith argue over her trophy-wife inheritance. Every case is decided on party lines, and the judges are far too out of touch with society to make truly informed decisions. We have a jury of our "peers" (another flawed system of justice, seeing as how my "peers" are not decided by myself, but by the lawyers in the case) until we reach the supreme court, only to have those peers be replaced with 8 old men and 1 old woman who've never made a mistake in their lives. How can Alito have an opinion on the legalization of marijuana when he was the biggest nerd at Princeton during the height of the counterculture? Douglas Ginsburg( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Ginsburg ) was almost elected to the Supreme Court, but when it was discovered that he'd tried smoking weed as a professor with students at Harvard (while Chief Justice Roberts was a student there...) he was withdrawn from the running. Ginsburg is a highly intellectual man with liberal ideals who is clearly more in touch with the people than Alito or Roberts. We'll never see a man like Ginsburg on the court at this pace, we'll just continue to see the "suits" dominate the bench. So think of where we're headed with our civil rights, imagine what your life will be like without the rights to privacy, abortion, homosexual marriage, and the personal use of light (non-narcotic) drugs. Now would you rather live in a place where you can make your own choices, or a place where 9 people aged 51 and older sit behind closed doors choosing the fate of our nation and the constitution?
Alito scares me more than Roberts, as Roberts was basically a young Rehnquist, but Alito is more like Scalia. Anyone who has listened to Scalia's opinions couldn't possibly want another man like him making our judicial decisions, but we're stuck with Scalito (a play on their names...) till his death. So now we have two Scalias, one Clarence Thomas and Roberts to vote on the right. That leaves us with 4 justices who will vote towards the left, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter. Kennedy is basically the only true "swing" voter, though he generally leans more left than right. What I don't understand is why we even bother having 9 justices when we could basically make the same decisions with Kennedy sitting alone on the bench.
The Supreme Court has a lot of power, sometimes more than it was intended to have. Some decisions they make can alter the way our constitution is interpreted and implemented. Some justices can become brokers of power, wielding their influence to change laws to adhere to their judicial ideals. Roger B Taney ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney ) was a great example of this, seeing as his decision in the Dred Scott case was based in racism. I am a believer that dictatorship is the only effecient form of government, but that doesn't mean it's the best. Allowing the president to stack the supreme court with those who share his opinions is basically giving the president judicial power, negating the separation of powers originally intended by the formation of the court.
If we are going to continue letting the president appoint justices, why not just make the president the standing chief justice. After all, he's already the supreme commander of our armed forces (cause W was such a war hero back in Vietnam when he stayed home and didn't fight...), so why not make him chief justice and, while we're at it, surgeon general? While we're gradually eliminating civil rights (like the protection from police searches, privacy rights, right to an abortion, the right to pollute one's own body, etc.) we can obviously blame our judicial review system for allowing this to occur. While the European Union is gradually becoming more socially liberal, allowing legalizations of euthanasia, gay marriage, abortion and marijuana in many EU territories, we're going backwards in time. JP Stevens and Kennedy are both old men, likely to either die or retire relatively soon, and unfortunately, they are the only justices whom you cannot predict their decision 100% of the time (like with Scalia, Alito, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and possibly Roberts). If we have another Bush in office (or if it happens while he's still there), we will see those moderates replaces with right-wingers, men willing to sacrifice the rights of the people in exchange for promoting their judicial ideals.
Like democracy, I believe that our system of judicial review is becoming stale and overgrown. While there are so many cases which should be brought to the Supreme Court, we're seeing Anna Nicole Smith argue over her trophy-wife inheritance. Every case is decided on party lines, and the judges are far too out of touch with society to make truly informed decisions. We have a jury of our "peers" (another flawed system of justice, seeing as how my "peers" are not decided by myself, but by the lawyers in the case) until we reach the supreme court, only to have those peers be replaced with 8 old men and 1 old woman who've never made a mistake in their lives. How can Alito have an opinion on the legalization of marijuana when he was the biggest nerd at Princeton during the height of the counterculture? Douglas Ginsburg( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Ginsburg ) was almost elected to the Supreme Court, but when it was discovered that he'd tried smoking weed as a professor with students at Harvard (while Chief Justice Roberts was a student there...) he was withdrawn from the running. Ginsburg is a highly intellectual man with liberal ideals who is clearly more in touch with the people than Alito or Roberts. We'll never see a man like Ginsburg on the court at this pace, we'll just continue to see the "suits" dominate the bench. So think of where we're headed with our civil rights, imagine what your life will be like without the rights to privacy, abortion, homosexual marriage, and the personal use of light (non-narcotic) drugs. Now would you rather live in a place where you can make your own choices, or a place where 9 people aged 51 and older sit behind closed doors choosing the fate of our nation and the constitution?
posted by Dan Pasternack at 4:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home