Supreme Court

[doG]

The separation of church and state is noted in plain text and is easy to read. To sum it up, law, which our government is a system of and enforcer of such, can make no law in support or against religious institution or institutions if you want. Its global basically then as a variable if I can word such in such a way. No law to be made in support or against religion, means no law that deals with religion. so marriage is I would say in breech of such, but hey, who cares if the dubya gives tax money lawfully to religious groups and even makes statements surrounding war about direction from above, its only governmental law and religion.

 

What has any of that got to do with the opinions of the justices on the court?

[Pangloss]

That would be Pangloss strawmanning his opponents

 

No, it wouldn't:

 

We all know what will happen if McCain get elected president; the most liberal justices will be appointed by a pro-life president.

[doG]

No, it wouldn't:

 

That still doesn't explain how you come up with the court being "Bush-packed"...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Perhaps they recently relandscaped the courtroom.

[bascule]

No, it wouldn't:

 

I love it when you respond to people's complaints about your strawmen with red herrings.

 

How is that remotely relevant to the other quote? Specifically the "Bush-packed" part...

 

Oh look, doG had the exact same response. Perhaps that should indicate something to you.

[john5746]

Those who voted against death penalty for child rape - Stevens wants to abolish death penalty completely

 

John Paul Stevens................ Ford

 

Kennedy Anthony McLeod................ Reagan

 

Souter David Hackett ................ G. H. W. Bush

 

Ginsburg Ruth Bader ................ Clinton

 

Breyer Stephen Gerald ................ Clinton

 

 

Those who dissented

 

John Glover Roberts, Jr. ................ G. W. Bush

 

Alito Samuel Anthony Alito ................ G. W. Bush

 

Antonin Gregory Scalia ................ Reagan

 

Thomas Clarence Thomas ................ G. H. W. Bush

 

 

So, the current Bush justices went pro-death penalty.

 

It does look like a Bush-packed court when you include Daddy.

[Pangloss]

They also looked pretty "Bush-packed" in cutting the damages award over Exxon Valdez today. Still, it's Phil's argument, I'm not going to make it for him. If he wants to run for cover, that's his business, I suppose.

[doG]

So, the current Bush justices went pro-death penalty.

 

Or you could say they voted for mercy since death would be far less torture than what child rapists will face in prison or you could say the court ruled in favor of child rapists instead of their victims...

[foodchain]

They must read that as a specific religion, because tax free status obviously helps support religious organizations.

 

As for the rape case, well I would like to see the guy dead myself. Maybe castration could be a compromise.

 

That’s the point it becomes fuzzy. The constitution for one does not include anything about the person making the law because they enjoy from a religious perspective yet they don’t have to word that into the law in any form even if you know the law is stemming from a religious desire ultimately.

 

Another part, and this is crucial, is the word institution. If you can make law in regards to religious institution what does that mean?

 

I think a good example is marriage and ID support or creation support as a science for public school curriculum. Obviously Americans at large identify with marriage being a religious institution, or part of one. Even if the history of monogamy is not strictly of any one particular faith historically overall into a modern sense of things, why should there be law for or against it, unless people just don’t care man. Then you have the idea of teaching what is surely religion in public schools, how can that be lawful? IS religion regardless of faith a religious institution, how can you make law for or against it, or really law that has anything to do with it?

[PhDP]

If he wants to run for cover, that's his business, I suppose.

 

Is it even possible to have a discussion in the Politics forum;

 

- Without ad hominem (that is; no accusation of being biased or "PC")

 

- With no strawmen ("Bush-packed", I said that ?)

 

- With no anecdotal evidences presented as the Truth (who cares about death penalty to rapist, Kennedy is the swing vote now, he's more conservative than the last swing vote, but he's quite liberal about death penalty).

 

?

 

It depends on if Roe v. Wade comes up again, and it most certainly will. You'd expect a McCain appointed judge would overturn the ruling... people were also afraid of that when Bush appointed judges (2 of them, right?).

 

But here's the thing; Bush replaced a moderate and a conservative with two conservatives. The next president will probably have to replace liberal justices. Just look at what happened in the Roberts court, first of all, it's already more conservative than it was with O'Connor, and look at how many decisions are split 4-5, if you replace any of the liberal justices with conservatives, it would have a tremendous impact on the court.

 

I'm not buying the "Bush' third term" slogan launched by the Obama campaign to discredit McCain, but when it comes to national security and social issues, McCain is indeed very close to Bush.

[Pangloss]

That's a much more reasonable way of putting it; at least less blatantly partisan.

 

I can understand the fear that underlies some of these decisions, and why people may see them as more conservative and less liberal. But the purpose of the Supreme Court is not to represent liberal or conservative viewpoints, it's to interpret the Constitution as it applies to the law, and to do so as accurately and objectively as seven human beings can do.

 

Look at it this way: The nomination process is sufficient to ensure that no blatant ideologues get seats. We know this because it's worked for so long and because there's so much logical rationale behind it. If that is true, then it therefore stands to reason that if you see a particular decision as being partisan in nature -- too conservative or too liberal, or not meeting some personal moral standard, such as humane behavior or what you feel is justice or sane reasoning, then you may need to review your own motivations, rationale, or understanding of the issue.

 

That's not to say that they're always right and observers who disagree with them are always wrong. But do you really think George W. Bush is qualified to call the recent Guantanamo decision "the worst decision in legal history"? Of course not. But what makes you think you're a more qualified judge? (I don't mean Phil here, I mean all of us.)

 

All I'm saying is, when the Supreme Court makes a decision, that is a very good time for a personal partisanship reality check. Read BOTH decisions, those in support and those in dissent. Read them carefully and with an open mind. Especially note any differences between the dissent and your own opinion. You may be surprised at the reasons why they dissented -- that may not be the same reason you disagree with the majority.

 

---------------

 

That having been said, I agree that it's hard not to see a shift to the right in the court's decisions following the appointments of Alito and Roberts. But I'm not convinced that almost all of those decisions would not have been exactly the same had the composition of the court remained the same. The court's own opinion on numerous issues has seemed to many observers to be shifting for some time prior to those appointments, and some of those issues (particularly pertaining to unpopular Bush administration decisions, such as those related to detainees and surveillance) simply had not come before the Court prior to their appointments, at least not in that specific way.

 

And some of the decisions have been downright unfriendly toward the Bush administration. That follows the Court's very long and illustrious history of running counter to what the nominating administration planned.

 

And finally, be careful what you wish for, because that last axiom above runs both ways, and those liberal judges you so crave may surprise you when it comes down to real cases.

[ParanoiA]

Great post Pangloss. Concerning the SCOTUS ruling on capital punishment for child rapists, there stands a decent example of what you're talking about.

 

Many partisans have complained on the ruling and so forth, but upon closer examination many thoughts came up that were not partisan in nature, and lent some real value to the decision.

 

Someone brought up the idea that some children, victims of rape by a family member, may be less inclined to report the incident if they think that family member could be put to death. That's a perspective I never thought of. It's hard enough to get these kids to come forward, let alone scare the resolve out of them by thinking their dad is going to be executed if they tell.

 

I don't know how partisan that hang up really is. That sounds like objective, careful reasoning actually. So, to me, this is good example of the need to at least check your inner partisan and be sure you're not the one guilty of it.

[doG]

I agree with Paranoia, it is a well balanced post. I do have one small question. How do you get a 5-4 decision out of 7 justices

 

....and to do so as accurately and objectively as seven human beings can do.....

[Sisyphus]

 

Someone brought up the idea that some children, victims of rape by a family member, may be less inclined to report the incident if they think that family member could be put to death. That's a perspective I never thought of. It's hard enough to get these kids to come forward, let alone scare the resolve out of them by thinking their dad is going to be executed if they tell.

 

I don't know how partisan that hang up really is. That sounds like objective, careful reasoning actually. So, to me, this is good example of the need to at least check your inner partisan and be sure you're not the one guilty of it.

 

I agree it's good reasoning (and a common liberal viewpoint, incidentally), but it's not the Supreme Court's job to decide whether a law is good, only to decide whether it's Constitutional and to be the highest authority in interpreting it. Otherwise they're just "legislating from the bench," something which one side or the other inevitably accuses them of after every high-profile decision.

[Pangloss]

Incidentally, the Court today issued its last decision of the term, and I think it is a perfect example of what I'm talking about above. The Court rejected Washington, D.C.'s total ban on firearms, and clarified that the Second Amendment does, in fact, allow for all citizens to bear arms, not just "militias", something that was considered one of the great pending Constitutional questions.

 

Many on the left, and I believe the mainstream media on tonight's news broadcasts, will characterize this as a victory for the right, a conservative decision, and/or at least remark on the fact that it was made after the appointments of Alito and Roberts. And to some extent that's understandable, given the serious rift apparent in the dissent.

 

But the fact is, this decision doesn't mean guns can't still be registered and/or licensed. Nor does it stop the state from placing reasonable and logical restrictions on ownership (crazy people, convicted criminals, etc). All it actually does is confirm a right that most Americans already believe that they have. So why will it be characterized tonight as "conservative"?

 

The debate between the "originalists" (or "strict constructionists") and the "living Constitution" types is a fascinating legal argument, but it should have absolutely nothing to do with modern politics, and should never -- not ever -- be used to propound an ideological viewpoint or to further a specific cause. The sooner people realize that, the better.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Great post Pangloss. Concerning the SCOTUS ruling on capital punishment for child rapists, there stands a decent example of what you're talking about.

 

Many partisans have complained on the ruling and so forth, but upon closer examination many thoughts came up that were not partisan in nature, and lent some real value to the decision.

 

Someone brought up the idea that some children, victims of rape by a family member, may be less inclined to report the incident if they think that family member could be put to death. That's a perspective I never thought of. It's hard enough to get these kids to come forward, let alone scare the resolve out of them by thinking their dad is going to be executed if they tell.

 

I don't know how partisan that hang up really is. That sounds like objective, careful reasoning actually. So, to me, this is good example of the need to at least check your inner partisan and be sure you're not the one guilty of it.

 

The best reasoning I heard for the decision was that a rapist may be more inclined to kill his victim (thus killing the sole witness) if he knows he could face death if arrested.