The Roberts Court Returns

[babylonsister]

The Roberts Court Returns

Published: September 30, 2007


The Supreme Court begins its new term tomorrow as bitterly divided as it has ever been. There are three hardened camps: four very conservative justices, four liberals, and a moderate conservative, Justice Anthony Kennedy, hovering in between. The division into rigid blocs is unfortunate, because it makes the court seem more like a political body than a legal one. Justice Kennedy’s tendency to vote with the most conservative justices also means that there is a real danger the court will do serious damage to important freedoms this term.

At his confirmation hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts told the Senate he had “no agenda,” and famously compared his role to that of an umpire calling balls and strikes. He has also said he wants more consensus on the court, and fewer 5-to-4 decisions. Those were fine sound bites, but in reality Chief Justice Roberts quickly settled into a bloc with his fellow conservatives Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The controversial 5-to-4 decisions have kept coming.

It is striking how conservative the court is now. On race, it was for decades a proud force for racial integration. Last term, it ordered Seattle and Louisville, Ky., to stop their voluntary efforts to have children of different races attend school together. The court, once an important force for fairness in American society, now routinely finds dubious legal excuses to deny relief to criminal defendants, consumers and workers who have been mistreated.

The Roberts bloc has not adhered to any principled theory of judging. Its members are not reluctant to strike down laws passed by Congress, as critics of “judicial activism” are supposed to be, or reluctant to overturn the court’s precedents. The best predictor of how they will vote is to ask: What outcome would a conservative Republican favor as a matter of policy?

The court’s 4-to-4 split means that, on virtually any controversial question, Justice Kennedy decides what American law is. Last term, he was in the majority in all 24 cases decided by 5-to-4 votes. His opposition to abortion rights and affirmative action has pushed the court further to the right on those issues.

The court’s hyperpartisan approach to the law is unhealthy. The reason the Bush v. Gore ruling was so damaging to the court’s reputation was that the justices appeared to be acting as partisans, tossing aside long-held views to reach the political result they wanted. Today, the justices seem just as political, wrapping their views on controversial social issues in neutral-sounding legal doctrines.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/opinion/30sun1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

[spanone]

1. since mr roberts lied his way on to the bench we're all screwn

[jackster]

2. only in a neo-con constructed world would the phrase

"four liberals" be close to correct

what we really have is

4 far right religious wackos

5 moderates (one or two which lean left some of the time)

[Pushed To The Left]

3. This is why we NEED a Democratic Presidential victory in 2008!

There could be some retirements coming up on the SC. We can't let a Republican president screw the Court up even further. Even our worst Democrat wouldn't stack the Court with right-wing ideologues.

[babylonsister]

5. Yes, it is THAT important! nt

[aikoaiko]

4. No mention of Parker vs DC -- the case that can clarify the 2nd amendment.

While not as important to some as the other issues, hearing Parker vs DC could have a huge impact on gun ownership in the US. Its important because some people claim that the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is a collective right, not an individual right as most of the other rights are construed. But if the second is a collective right, then so can some of the others. Also, upholding the decision of the lower court will likely have impact on gun laws.

Here's the opening paragraph of the summary:

[Old Codger]

6. The second must stand as written.

Some will realize the importance of the second, some will not, anti gunners will not agree with this but it is true nontheless. Even though the Bill of Rights itemizes only ten "rights" they are in fact the basis of all that follows, the second is the one that keeps us in any position whatsoever to protect the rest of them, the words "the people" means the same in each "right" our founding fathers knew what they were doing and were intelligent enough to have specified a difference if they so intended. There can be no doubt at all that they meant it the way it was written.