Kudos to Sean for his response to my previous post. He wrote:
"I have to say Denis, although I support affirmative action as a way to try to make up for generation upon generations of slavery, oppression and officially sanctioned discrimination, I'm not able to wrap my mind around that perticular (sic) reasoning either".
Upon further reflection, I realize that Sean and I are both wrong about something. Both of us described the decision as having involved reasoning. It did not. It involved the use of raw political power, nothing more. Anyone with the ability to read, and that should include federally appointed judges, knows full well that there isn't anything remotely resembling a clause in the US Constitution which nullifies amendments or any other law because of the burden imposed on those who would wish to overturn said amendment or law. The judges just made it up, plain and simple. Sean, with respect, I know that you can wrap your mind around this obvious corruption.
I have a stock answer/question to those who say they want nothing to do with politics. I ask them what alternative do they prefer. If reason and votes don't prevail, the alternative is violence, ultimately. If we can't depend on fair play in politics and in our courts, it really is only a matter of time before our disagreements are expressed physically.
Of course this is not what I want to happen. To avoid this fate, it will take vocal advocates such as Sean and myself to recognize the dangers of partisan hackery. A win at all cost mentality will make losers of us all.
I am not all that optimistic. These are judges appointed by US presidents. They are supposed to be among our greatest legal minds. But a majority have proven themselves to be partisan hacks. And yet I have heard of no denunciations from prominent conservatives or liberals. This is very dangerous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Not sure why my blog changes font size randomly. Sorry.
I support affirmative action secure in the knowledge that, like tax increases, it will only affect others.
nor anywhere does it say in the constitution that marriage is between a man and woman....hmm, strange.
True enough anon 6:25, but what is your point? Not much in there about unicorns, spaceships, or computers either.
let me break it down to u since your having a hard time with comprehension..my point being that the constitution isn't much of a reference point to guide legislation as illustrates by your own post as well as my illustration regarding gay marriage. Nowadays the constitution is selectively used as a legislative tool instead of the doctine that was the basis for all federal, state and local laws as it was designed to be.
"Let me break it down to u" - I assume you meant "for you" since "to you" is grammatically incorrect. There were others, and your point about the Constitution (not "constitution") being "doctrine" is laughable.
It helps for one to be intelligent when one is trying to be condescending - assclown!
I was supposed to comprehend all that based on your oblique reference to marriage and the constitution? So sorry to disappoint you anon. Anyway, to your point, I disagree "that the constitution isn't much of a reference point to guide legislation as illustrates by your own post as well as my illustration regarding gay marriage." The constitution is a terrific and, definitionally, the only guide to determining whether a law is constitutional. But you can't just make stuff up that you wish the framers would have added, because if you do, you make a mockery of the document, and it loses all meaning and authority. Of course, there is also a mechanism built in to the document to address issues unforeseen. If you want the constitution to state that all laws that place "burdens" on said laws opponents to be unconstitutional, you have to amend the constitution to that effect. Similarly, if you want the constitution to define, or redefine marriage, you have to amend the constitution. And lastly, I agree with your last sentence.
I looked into this last week to see if there was more information out there on this decision that might provide more clarity or insight. Unfortunately, all I really found was the same article republished by other news outlets.
So assuming this is indeed the full account it's just a ludicrous basis for a decision.
Unfortunately, this is becoming more common. The absolutely ridiculous judicial hacktivism displayed in the Bush v Gore and Citizens United cases come to mind as examples from the right.
And don't think for a minute that the increasing nasty, unethical, partisan and outraqgeously expensive state supreme court races isn't part of this new and disgusting reality.
If you want to see documentation of a coordinated and cynical attack on the independence of the judiciary and the Constitutional right of citizens to seek redress for greivances in a court of law infront of a jury of ones peers, I suggest that you watch the movie Hot Coffee. I can even get you a copy if they don't have one at the library.
Sean, the decision I cited and the CU case should not be compared. In the case of the former, the judge just made stuff up. In CU, the judges held that corporations and unions can participate in political speech. This does not make them "people" but they are made up of people and as such should enjoy rights that people enjoy. Very different insofar as the former makes stuff up while the latter uses the guarantee of free speech to guarantee free speech. I get that you don't like it but at least they used a constitutionally based argument.
I'm sorry Denis, but that is not a complete and accurate discription of what was done by the Roberts Court. The Supreme court could have simply ruled on the merits of case as brought before them. But Roberts ordered the re-argument of the case and applied it to address issues that were not in question by the original suit as brought by the group Citizen United.
He purposefully orchestrated the case in such a way as to use it overturn 100 years of democratically enacted law and legal precedent that were not directly involved in the CU suit.
That is not only THE definition of judicial activism, it makes a mockery of his most sincere promises during his confirmation to avoid legislating from the bench.
As bad as that was, the Bush v Gore decision was SO BAD that the court directed that it should never be used as judicial precedent with regardf to decisions in future cases. George Bush's Constitutional right to equal protection uder the law would be violated by COUNTING THE VOTES, ABSURD!
Sean, I always thought that the left was up in arms about the CU decision because it equated corporations with people and allowed them the same rights as people, namely to spend money on political speech. But you say no. It is because:
"Roberts ordered the re-argument of the case and applied it to address issues that were not in question by the original suit as brought by the group Citizen United."
And because he:
"purposefully orchestrated the case in such a way as to use it overturn 100 years of democratically enacted law and legal precedent that were not directly involved in the CU suit."
Which:
"makes a mockery of his most sincere promises during his confirmation to avoid legislating from the bench."
All righty then. Next time I hear someone complain about the CU decision, I will know that what they aren't upset about corporate money spent on political campaigns but rather upset that the Supreme Court reargued a case and in doing so affected issues not directly involved with the original arguments, which in turn led them to overturn 100 years of previous laws, which violated a promise made during conformation hearings.
Ok, I got it. Thanks.
It's both.
On the other hand, you don't want to start discussing details about your personal life on your business blog. There is a way to show personality while keeping things professional. If you're having second thoughts about writing something in your blog that might be crossing the line, it's best to err on the side of caution and leave it out.
[url=http://cheapjordans2013.loveslife.biz/]cheap jordans[/url]
As you get more comfortable with the process, you'll develop your own unique blogging style!
[url=http://jordansoutletgc.inube.com/]jordans for cheap[/url]
Post a Comment