Back to the Future: The State of the U.S. Supreme Court
Some of us found ourselves glued to the cases of Scott Peterson, Michael Jackson and even the murder trial of Robert Blake. Sensational cases are indeed entertaining, and can be a source of stimulation for those around us. To me, however, the future of the U.S. Supreme Court system and its leadership is much more pressing, as it will affect me, my children and possibly grandchildren and their individual rights. That being said, I am currently glued to the confirmation hearings of John Roberts.
Over the years, under the leadership of William Rehnquist, we saw individual rights being chiseled away at year after year, especially as the composition of the Court changed and the impact this had on the interpretations given to the Constitution in general. The rule of law, as it will exist, and be interpreted, is significant. Most of us are worried about Roe v. Wade and the manner in which it may affect the right to privacy in terms of a women's right to choose in the future. I know, if the need were to present itsekf, I would not want to see women, nor my daughters nor their daughters have to risk their health to secure an abortion in an illegal manner if that were to be the case, thereby putting their lives in danger. What about Brown v. Board of Education, where the Court specifically ruled against segregation of individuals. Who is to say that those rights may not once again be affected, and individuals who have a different religion or race rights will not be told that they can and will be treated differently based upon who they are (black, Jew, Asian) rather than being an individual in America today.
As I watch these hearings, I ponder on what the future of our Court system will be, how individual rights will be defined and protected within the meaning of the law, as they affect me, my children, and their children in the future. Already, the media is spinning the meaning of the who is 'winning' and who has the match point, as if this were some type of game, with a right way to speak and a wrong way, polarizing people as our media frequently does these days. Are we going to have a Justice who is a ideologue or one who choses to interpret the Constitution, on a case by case basis? Do we want to go backwards? Is this in fact a possibility given the nature of the country and the direction where we are headed?
Thank you for your minds.
Over the years, under the leadership of William Rehnquist, we saw individual rights being chiseled away at year after year, especially as the composition of the Court changed and the impact this had on the interpretations given to the Constitution in general. The rule of law, as it will exist, and be interpreted, is significant. Most of us are worried about Roe v. Wade and the manner in which it may affect the right to privacy in terms of a women's right to choose in the future. I know, if the need were to present itsekf, I would not want to see women, nor my daughters nor their daughters have to risk their health to secure an abortion in an illegal manner if that were to be the case, thereby putting their lives in danger. What about Brown v. Board of Education, where the Court specifically ruled against segregation of individuals. Who is to say that those rights may not once again be affected, and individuals who have a different religion or race rights will not be told that they can and will be treated differently based upon who they are (black, Jew, Asian) rather than being an individual in America today.
As I watch these hearings, I ponder on what the future of our Court system will be, how individual rights will be defined and protected within the meaning of the law, as they affect me, my children, and their children in the future. Already, the media is spinning the meaning of the who is 'winning' and who has the match point, as if this were some type of game, with a right way to speak and a wrong way, polarizing people as our media frequently does these days. Are we going to have a Justice who is a ideologue or one who choses to interpret the Constitution, on a case by case basis? Do we want to go backwards? Is this in fact a possibility given the nature of the country and the direction where we are headed?
Thank you for your minds.
25 Comments:
if the court gets very conservative it will be a turn backwards
Court can never be considered a 'game'.
Good post, Barbara.
yeah, things should go forward... we've been back at Sodom and Gommorah long enough ...smile
Just have to wait and see. No telling what's going to happen.
There is no reason, AT ALL to presume a conservative court would overturn Brown Vs a Liberal Court
Barbara, what, in your mind constitutes a Constitutional composition of the Supreme Court? As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing.
What exactly were the rights that you saw "chiseled away year after year" under the leadership of Rehnquist or are you just against anything that you perceive as at least mildly conservative?
I agree with you that the media does, in fact, polarize people but what did/do you expect? It's always been this way!
Finally concerning civil rights as they concern the future of your children, do you really think that the status quo may change or is that just another attack on Bush & Co.?
I have to ask has ReGreg23 read any of the Patriot act. This document guts the constitution no matter what glib gloss is put over it. I remember in the Eighties when Reagan was Prez and there was a Supreme Court judgement that said it was OK for Police to use deciet and lies to catch the 'bad' guys. When You alter the 'good' side to resemble the 'bad', you end up with just BAD. The Supreme Court also has stated that it is NOT the DUTY of the POLICE (STATE) to protect individual citizens.... duh?, How about the Eminent Domain fiasco,,, does that mean nothing? I am sure that it can be glossed up real pretty. Barbara is correct and at the same time wrong in that we look at our system with the mind that it is the same thing we grew up with in our youth,,, wrong.
How about last years ruling that basically says: That “the state’s interest in protecting police and investigating crime” takes priority over the constitutional rights of citizens." regarding having to identify yourself to the Police(state) even when there is no evidence of criminal activity???
I used to collect these odd rulings that no one paid attention to,, but the file got way to big. Maybe I will dig it up and review it again,, great post.
Again it is apathy,, the well it doesn't effect me, mentality that does us in,,, Just like it did the Germans in the 1930s. Don't give me, it is for my own good,,, Daddy Government knows what is best for me, I am a SOVEREIGN HUMAN first,, way before I am an American,,, seems that the courts, politicians and even my fellow Americans have forgotten this small part of our Founding Values.
Scott, many people have read the basic media "headlines" of what the PATRIOT Act is doing to "remove" individual rights. If you can bring in some points in fact to prove your claim, I'd like to see them, instead of just relying on the usual rhetoric that is used against the Act.
Secondly, Barb, what scares me most about the Supreme Court is the trend being used by certain liberal Justices on the Supreme Court. That trend being, as I've stated before, is using international laws, customs, and cultures to "help" them decide a case brought before them. This is an incredible scary and horrifying thought. Justice O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Beyer are three example of Justices that have publically and in their opinions admitted that they use this process to help them and are encouraging other Judges to use this practice as well. The Supreme Court Justices have been sworn to uphold, defend, and interpret the law, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights of The United States of the America: "The Law of The Land". Nowhere does it allow and give precedent to legally allow for Justices to use laws or customs or cultures outside of this country in their Judicial Review. To think that a Justice might decide a case of, for example, Capital Punishment or Prositution based on laws in Sweden or Germany and not the "stare decisis" and Constitution of the United States scares the hell out of me. That's what you should really be asking yourself, not whether there's a couple of "conservatives" on the Bench. Let's remember the purpose of the Judges not being elected officials. They represent the law; not the people. They represent the Constitution and the Bill of the Rights of the United States of America. You want to fear Judges; fear those that aren't upholding to this statute.
-OC
As a lawyer, I have read many individual cases regarding privacy, search and seizure and freedom of speech.
It seems to be to be a broad generalization to conclude that Justices are using laws or customs outside of this country in their 'judicial review.' Cases are not reviewed in the USSC: they are decided, based upon principles of legal precedent and the interpretation of them.
There is good news here. First, you can not get much more conservative than Rehnquist, so he may be an improvement. Second, Presidents have on more than one occasion been annoyed that there "safe" nominee votes differently than expected. I know that Rowe is the one foremost in everyones mind but the drive to change it does not have the obvious unfairness attached to it that the "Separate but Equal" ruling did when it was knocked apart by Brown. Additionally, I believe Brown was a unanimous decision. Unanimous decisions do not typically get overturned
woops, hoof in mouth disease here Barbara. I forgot you were a member of the bar. Excuse the lecture on basics
We're screwed since $hrub gets to pick two justices.
MaybeI'll move out of the US and with OC and reg.
It will be interesting to observe. I think we are heading toward something else as well: the Democrats will have little choice but to fillibuster which will lead to the end of the fillibuster (as the Repubs have threatened before). That is, unless the Repubs have a last minute qualm about it...
...oh, and ditto on what my friend Mallory said. But you already know my opinion on that.
No apologies necessary, mallory! I am not a member of the bar to practice in the US Supreme Court!
Some of the comments I make are for the purpose of producing discussion and meant to be thought provoking. Personally, I do not think that we will go back to the days of segregation before Brown v. Board of Segregation, and Roe v. Wade will most likely remain the law of the land. But these are questions that one must think about, that I think about all the time as a lawyer, a mother, and hopefully a grandmother one day. I want my children to have rights that allow them to make choices with minimual governmental intrustion.
chuckle... maybe I'll leave the country... yeah, like Alec Baldwin...
...I'll take my ball and go home...ha ha ha
I am very afraid of John Roberts. I'd be afraid of anyone that Bush picks, though. I hope people who voted for Bush are feeling stupid about it now. I really think most Americans would've preferred for Gore or Kerry to pick a Justice. Somehow folks don't weigh that enough in their voting.
What scares me is that the Constitutional protections and guarentees that have developed over the years will be rolled back once again to the time of the 30s, 40s or 50s.
We have come a long way in defining individual rights in the area of equal protection, first amendment, privacy and the labor force. I, for one, would be troubled by unnecessary governmental intrustion into our lives any more then we have at the present time.
Babara, your concerns are extremely over-exaggerated and out of proportion. Also, I don't know if you've read the Supreme Court's reviews and opinions on certain cases, but here are some of Justice Ginsburg's own comments on the matter, and this is not a generalitzation!:
"Our island or lone ranger mentality is beginning to change,” said Justice Ginsburg. Judges “are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives. The implication of this is that judges, should they not like the body of American law and opinion, should feel free to see what other countries do and think."
She and other Justices have used this mentality in cases such as Lawrence v. Texas (in her agreement w/ Justice Kennedy), Grutter v Bollinger, and Atkins v Virginia.
Justice Breyer has publically urged all US lawyers to utilyze foreign law in order to decide certain cases. He has said, "Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they're going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations..."
Justice O'Connor has been quoted as saying, "American courts need to pay more attention to international legal decisions to help create a more favorable impression abroad... The impressions we create in this world are important, and they can leave their mark... over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues... I think it may create that all important good impression." How can this be generalization when it's right there in black and white?!?
With the fact that there are currently more liberal Judges on the court who think this way, I will be hopeful that the two new Judges will bring back some constitutional balance.
Scott, no matter what you bring in to "prove" that the PATRIOT Act is "chipping" away at individual rights, it's a moot argument in this post. The PATRIOT Act was written and voted in by Congress; not by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court doesn't write Acts. They also do not bring forth and choose something to review. They can only review cases brought before them. To date, the PATRIOT Act's constitutionality has NOT been brought before the Supreme Court. So, to use the PATRIOT Act as "proof" against regreg's supposition is just plain moot and invalid.
Niobium, now you're just getting vicious. I have tasted my own medicine, and it is bitter (Insert evil laugh here). First of all, you have already stated that you're not an American; you're a statisan. Looking at that, a place like Canada would be better for you. Also, I hate to say it, but you're a complete hypocrite. You say you're ashamed every time you use your computer b/c you're wasting electricity and other resources of Earth. And, now you just wasted some more in order to turn on your computer and try and insult me and regreg. That's just sooo sad. You must be so ashamed for yourself right now... Oh, and by the way, the President gets to NOMINATE the Justices; he doesn't get to pick whether or not they're confirmed. That's the Senate's job. It's this little system that we have in this country called Balance of Powers and Checks and Balances. If I were you, which I'm thankful I'm not, I would pick up an 8th grade Social Studies book and learn the basics of the country you so despise.
-OC
OC I find it interesting how you come here with a very over simplistic vison of our legal system and how it operates, like some kind of game in which people who you agree with are taken down by your words, and others are supported by them. It is interesting how no mention was made of what you wrote below, in Hebrew, no acknowledgement, nor responsibility. I guess you are learning a lesson from those in the Bush administration: that by ingnoring someone or something, it will somehow go away! That being said, I am not going to argue issues with you for the sake of arguing like some form of 'verbal masterbation' so you can have the last word. You have it.
AP 3 Id be surprised if people didnt weigh the USSC in their votes considering Bush ran on it!
What interests me most about the selection process, which is fasinating, and as nuboy21 concludes, at times, confrontational, is to what extent the Senate committee questioning Roberts is concerned with a Court which will rely on governmental intrustion and/or intervention v. individual rights.
As someone who does child abuse law, I have seen many men and women, who, in my humble opinion, are not fit to be parents. Nevertheless, some people continue to have children, taxing our system even more, and subjecting a child to emotional and physical harm. To me, having a choice in the matter of whether to bring another human being into the world is clearly significant, as the USSC itself saw fit and defined what safguards were to be in place regarding a woman's right to privacy in Roe v. Wade. I would hope, for the sake of my children, their children and other children that a woman would continue to have a right to make this choice rather than bring an unwanted child into this world, and end up in the foster care system, the welfare system and other governmental systems. Of course, this may not happen in all cases, but it does happen, as I have seen on countless occasions in my line of work. Religious isssues for individuals, of course are separate, but how much do we really want the government, state and federal into our private lives? Therein lies a question.
Yeah, I don't really understand what you're trying to insinuate with your comments. I would have thought that a concept of benefit of the doubt would be enstilled here. I did not see the comments on the hebrew until now. I will whole-heartedly apologize for what occurred on the other post, now that I understand what happened. I thought it was cool that regreg spoke hebrew and wanted to speak with someone else who spoke it. I don't believe hebrew is a secret language and was not trying to use it as such. Obviously, you understood it. Can't be that secret. So, I really don't understand your "Bush" insinuations. That is a nice subtle yet clear way of insulting the Administration and myself.
Also, I don't believe that I have a simplistic view of the legal system, and I don't have to justify my knowledge and background in the legal profession to anyone. Yet, at the same time, I also don't believe that there's anything wrong with a simple way of looking at things. I think much is messed up in this world b/c people have to complicate things.
I'm afraid to see how much anti other people's ideas you are when it comes to American matters and politics. Like, I said before, it appears that I am the enemy here, as if I must be dense, "simple", or brain washed b/c I proudly proclaim myself as a conservative and support the Bush administration. I won't be ashamed to say it, and I won't let others try to make me ashamed for saying it. You seem to fail to see that you're doing the same things you're accusing me of doing. But, don't worry. I got the hint. When it comes to American politics, I will not post. It seems you only have room for like minded view points.
-OC
OC,
I am sorry you feel excluded, and want you to know that I find your comments intelligent and focused, whether you agree with me or not. It is not the issue. When other people are attacked personally, as I did to you, so you could see how it felt, it feels patronizing and comes across as rude, whether it is about politics or not. I welcome your comments, and if you choose, you are free to post whenever you like. I just ask that remarks not be directed at people saying that they are horrific or belong inside the air, or something negative. As you can see, it does not feel good at all.
Barbara, thank you for your comment. No offense, though, but I don't need you to "give me a taste of my own medicine". I apologized not because of what you did here but b/c of what you wrote on the other post. It was the right thing to do. Simple as that. Yes... simple. Also, I still do not believe that I insulted anybody with my first comment. I have had many people thanking and supporting me for my comments to niobium. I do not see the word, "horrific", as an insult. Also, I did not say she was "horrific". I said that her comments were. I have no problem calling a spade a spade when there is clear proof to back it up. Given the moral relativism that exists, I know that may sound difficult to hear. Sometimes, opinions are opinions, and sometimes they are just dead wrong. Like, people denying the holocaust. That's not just an opinion or "other side". That's just wrong. To sum up, I apologize for the hebrew comment, as that was a clear and plain insult that had no purpose. But, I will not apologize for my first assertion. I stand by it, and will continue to stand by it until there's proof to show otherwise.
-OC
As to the political comments, I will continue to defer unless there's a clear reason to post. Otherwise, I see no reason to put myself out there in that way, just to get a bunch of rhetoric in return. That's not the kind of political discussion that I'm looking for. I am in no way saying that that is something you do. Those are just my feelings.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home