That evil Supreme Court that gave Bush the election is... liberal?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Liberal Supreme Court



Ben Shapiro makes a good case that our current Supreme Court, while being portrayed as a being run by a majority that is conservative (and thus gave Bush the election) is in fact liberal.



Shapiro notes that since Bush has taken office the highest court in the land has ruled as follows:



Legalized sodomy

Affirmed affirmative action

Refused to rule on "under God" being Constitutional

Gave terrorists the right to challenge their detention

Overturned attempts to limit internet porn

Supported campaign finance reforms that limit speech



Does this really sound like a court that is ruling however Bush would want them to on these issues? Does it sound like a Supreme Court that is capitulating to conservative causes and running roughshod all over the Constitution to advance the agenda of the president?



Tell me what you think.



Nick
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 45
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    I thought that those who felt that Bush 'stole the election' were supposed to "get over it already!" already?!





    {oops... pressed something strange]
  • Reply 2 of 45
    common mancommon man Posts: 522member
    I discused the issue of the out of control Court in a recent thread.



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=43657
  • Reply 3 of 45
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Common Man

    I discused the issue of the out of control Court in a recent thread.



    Oh, ok, then let us just lock this one . . . ok?
  • Reply 4 of 45
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    If it's not conservative, it has to be "liberal"-- right? The Ben Shapiro column wasn't a serious attempt at examining the ruling trends of the last four years-- it was more written for a specific conservative audience upset that the rulings don't go far enough in upholding conservative principles. The following seven page NY Times article, The Year Rehnquist May Have Lost His Court, does a much better job in analyzing the court's decisions. It argues that it's still essentially a conservative court, yet it's growing increasingly pragmatic with the influence of Sandra Day O'Connor. I think that article is a better starting point for discussion.



    As far as the 2000 election went, the Supreme Court voted according to party lines, 5-4 in favor of then Gov. Bush. Why are we going down this road again?
  • Reply 5 of 45
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by trumptman

    Quote:

    Legalized sodomy



    No, legalized my right to privacy. Moreover, legalized my rights during a search and seizure.



    Quote:

    Affirmed affirmative action



    I agree here.



    Quote:

    Refused to rule on "under God" being Constitutional



    So? If they were "liberal" they would have stricken the phrase.



    Quote:

    Gave terrorists the right to challenge their detention



    Wrong again. They gave individuals the right to challenge indefinate detentions. How many of these people have been convicted of terrorism? NONE. The base of this point is flawed.



    Quote:

    Overturned attempts to limit internet porn



    The attemp was overly burdnesome on people legally acquiring said porn. The point here is YOU watch YOUR kids. YOU take care of them. Why should Joe jackoff have to submit a credit card (which kids can do too) to see the latest anf greatest BBW in hot anal action because YOU can't monitor your kids? You are a parent thus you are responsible for your kids not me (conservative view IMO). Take some personal responsability. Read the decision. It's more complicated than how you portray it here. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20040706.html



    Quote:

    Supported campaign finance reforms that limit speech



    Is your speech limited? Does McCain-Feingold stop you? No. It stops corporations (which are not mentioned in the constitution) from swaying an election. It prevents interest groups with political adgendas from running false nonsense adds. Your contribution is not a form speech. Simply put (I believe this was the view of the court also) you may not agree with every word spoken by the official which you support and as such allows for limited restrictions on donations to said official. As I said speak and be heard all you want--which is not the same a s signing a $2000 check.



    Too me most of these decisions seem balanced. They seem to draw a line between your rights (and mine) and the governments rights. In fact, limiting the right of the government to encrouch into my house in general seem conservative. Limiting the governments ability to detain without giving reason seem conservative. Making parents take responsability for their seems conservative. Not immediatly striking under god from the pledge seems moderatly conservative. Limiting the reach of the first amendment is defenetly not liberal BTW. Liberals believe in the first amendment and the protections it affords. Conservatives OTH believe there are limits to "free speech" which is in line with limiting donations.
  • Reply 6 of 45
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by faust9





    I agree here.







    I don't. They struck down the point system and now diversity is suffering because of it.
  • Reply 7 of 45
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    I don't. They struck down the point system and now diversity is suffering because of it.



    No, there were two rulings in two seperate cases which were associated here. One was the point system was flawed in its approach and application. The other was that using a students race was allowed.



    Here read what my alma matter has to say.

    http://www.umich.edu/news/Releases/2...remecourt.html

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/sc...mative.action/
  • Reply 8 of 45
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by faust9

    No, there were two rulings in two seperate cases which were associated here. One was the point system was flawed in its approach and application. The other was that using a students race was allowed.



    Here read what my alma matter has to say.

    http://www.umich.edu/news/Releases/2...remecourt.html

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/sc...mative.action/




    No, he's absolutely right-- they struck down the legality of the point system everywhere. They also upheld affirmative action (through other means) for another 25 years. So, it was more of a compromise decision.
  • Reply 9 of 45
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Liberal Supreme Court



    Ben Shapiro makes a good case that our current Supreme Court, while being portrayed as a being run by a majority that is conservative (and thus gave Bush the election) is in fact liberal.



    Shapiro notes that since Bush has taken office the highest court in the land has ruled as follows:



    Legalized sodomy

    Affirmed affirmative action

    Refused to rule on "under God" being Constitutional

    Gave terrorists the right to challenge their detention

    Overturned attempts to limit internet porn

    Supported campaign finance reforms that limit speech



    Does this really sound like a court that is ruling however Bush would want them to on these issues? Does it sound like a Supreme Court that is capitulating to conservative causes and running roughshod all over the Constitution to advance the agenda of the president?



    Tell me what you think.



    Nick






    Scrape, scrape, scrape at the bottom of the barrel.



    The good news is that you're running out of material.





    OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
  • Reply 10 of 45
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    No, he's absolutely right-- they struck down the legality of the point system everywhere. They also upheld affirmative action (through other means) for another 25 years. So, it was more of a compromise decision.



    I agree with that but the premiss was without the point system our university would be flushed of diversity. I disagree. He said diversity is suffering without proof. Its been 6 months yet existence is crying about the bleach while colleges. Many schools across the country got by without a racial point system and were diverse how did they do it? Existence is crying fowl before the ruling has had any time to take effect. Affirmative action was, upheld I agree, but that wasn't the point (as I see it) of Existence's post. His point was we need a point system--which is flawed-- to maintain diversity. Wrong.



    [edit] P.S. I agree it was a compromise decision which was the blunt of my response. I personally believe though our resources would be better spent focusing on elementry school children then on college level kids.
  • Reply 11 of 45
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman Overturned attempts to limit internet porn



    Well then you should be happy because otherwise, some of the perverted shit you post in here sometimes would not be allowed on American based servers.

    quote:

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

    Originally posted by Common Man

    I discused the issue of the out of control Court in a recent thread.

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

    Oh, ok, then let us just lock this one . . . ok?



    Good one pfflam. That one cracked me up.
  • Reply 12 of 45
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    If it's not conservative, it has to be "liberal"-- right? The Ben Shapiro column wasn't a serious attempt at examining the ruling trends of the last four years-- it was more written for a specific conservative audience upset that the rulings don't go far enough in upholding conservative principles. The following seven page NY Times article, The Year Rehnquist May Have Lost His Court, does a much better job in analyzing the court's decisions. It argues that it's still essentially a conservative court, yet it's growing increasingly pragmatic with the influence of Sandra Day O'Connor. I think that article is a better starting point for discussion.



    As far as the 2000 election went, the Supreme Court voted according to party lines, 5-4 in favor of then Gov. Bush. Why are we going down this road again?




    That is a good article for looking at the dynamics behind the decisions that occur, but the point is, if the court were truly so biased and conservative would those decisions mentioned have occurred. Do we honestly believe that a seriously conservative court wants to find the privacy right, let alone legalize sodomy? We've discussed that case so you know they could have ruled on it using due process, but instead went further into privacy matters. Not only that but the court even went as far as to reverse itself from previous decisions. That's not just a change in Rehnquist's effectiveness as Chief Justice, that is a change in the attitudes and direction of the entire court.



    Even your own article shows Rehnquist often in the minority on decision that before he was in the majority on. How does that not indicate a change in the direction of the court? Also you say the principles are conservative, but just not far enough or extreme. How are the decisions I mentioned ruled on in any manner or way that Bush would have wanted. Everyone of those decisions went against what the administration wanted.



    As for the Florida thing, the court ruled 7-2 against the Florida Supreme Court on the matter of allowing manuel recounts with county to county differing standards. They 5-4 decision was on whether there was time for a recount. Also whether a equal procedure could be applied to that statewide recount. It was over from the first decision because every machine vote had confirmed Bush the winner. It was only people manually attempting to look for dented chads and things of that nature that could have given Gore any more votes. Since there was not to be a manual recount according to the 7-2 vote, those votes would not have been interpreted by any person manually.



    Nick
  • Reply 13 of 45
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman



    Legalized sodomy

    Refused to rule on "under God" being Constitutional

    Gave terrorists the right to challenge their detention




    If those are indications that the supreme court is liberal, then your definition of conservative has to be something like the law book of Iran or China.



    The Gitmo ruling was merely upholding the very principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stating that everyone (!) has a right to a fair trial and to have access to legal means to challenge executive decisions in court.



    Over here, not even ultraconservatives are trying to regulate what consenting adults are doing in their bedrooms or trying to establish a state religion.



    So, please. The court just stopped or reversed some of the most perverted assaults on personal liberty. Nothing too liberal about it.
  • Reply 14 of 45
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by trumptman



    Quote:

    Legalized sodomy



    removed a law restricting peoples' private lives...hmmm....laws that govern what goes on in peoples' bedrooms are neither conservative nor liberal, but medieval. And....sodomy is practised by heterosexuals as well as gays.



    Quote:

    Affirmed affirmative action



    affirmative action = arbitrary privilege. Privilege and right wing philosophy go hand in hand, yes? The most rampant "affirmative action" today is taxpayer funded corporate welfare.



    Quote:

    Refused to rule on "under God" being Constitutional



    Why is that ruling "liberal"? "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 (and to US paper currency). It is not a constitutional issue, and that is why the court passed on it.



    Quote:

    Gave terrorists the right to challenge their detention



    Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, the abortion clinic bombers, etc etc etc have all been given their legal rights under the constitution. But they killed people. We are holding many people in Gitmo who havent done anything wrong...and they have no way of proving their innocence. Most of the people there havent even been charged with an offense, probably because they havent committed one. Trumpt...if one of your relatives ended up in a jail without charge, access to legal counsel or communication, I don't think you would approve. If the people there have committed terrorist acts, or just ordinary crimes. then give them access to a fair and speedy trial..as it states in the Constitution. If not, then let them go. If that concept is "liberal" then I'm all for it. I prefer the Constitution of the USA to holding people indefinitely without charge, as under Saddam Hussein for example.



    Quote:

    Overturned attempts to limit internet porn



    Porn makes people lots and lots of money....further explanations are redundant.



    Quote:

    Supported campaign finance reforms that limit speech



    You can argue that both ways. The current campaign finance laws support the 2party system, which in turn limits the accessibility of the free speech of 3rd parties and independents to the electorate.



    Quote:

    Does this really sound like a court that is ruling however Bush would want them to on these issues? Does it sound like a Supreme Court that is capitulating to conservative causes and running roughshod all over the Constitution to advance the agenda of the president?



    Many of the (constitutional or other) issues you raise are so clear cut that the court had little choice in their decision.
  • Reply 15 of 45
    maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    If it's not conservative, it has to be "liberal"-- right? The Ben Shapiro column wasn't a serious attempt at examining the ruling trends of the last four years-- it was more written for a specific conservative audience upset that the rulings don't go far enough in upholding conservative principles. The following seven page NY Times article, The Year Rehnquist May Have Lost His Court, does a much better job in analyzing the court's decisions. It argues that it's still essentially a conservative court, yet it's growing increasingly pragmatic with the influence of Sandra Day O'Connor. I think that article is a better starting point for discussion.



    As far as the 2000 election went, the Supreme Court voted according to party lines, 5-4 in favor of then Gov. Bush. Why are we going down this road again?




    Your assessment that the article "was more written for a specific conservative audience upset that the rulings don't go far enough in upholding conservative principles." is not exactly accurate. Your article from the NYTimes indicates that its not a matter of 'going to the right far enough' but a powerful trend away from Rehnquist and his conservativism "Rather, it appears that while he has stood still, the court's center of gravity has moved away from him."



    Now, one can claim that the court is 'still conservative' and rename 'liberalism' as 'pragmatism' but it won't sell in the realm of politics. O'Conner has become increasingly 'liberal' over the last decade, now siding with Ginzburg on many cases. The only legal conservatives on the Court are Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. Kennedy and O'Conner are unpredictable swing voters (e.g. Kennedies flip flopping on Roe v. Wade under preesure) and the others to the left of center.



    This 'conservative' court has only set new precendent to the left e.g. gitmo rights, and maintained liberal edifices when given the opportunity to overturn them.



    This is 'still conservative'?
  • Reply 16 of 45
    formerlurkerformerlurker Posts: 2,686member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish



    This 'conservative' court has only set new precendent to the left e.g. gitmo rights




    All you reactionaries arguing that this is a "liberal" decision have apparently decided to ignore 200 years of law in this country (and legal traditions dating back 800 years to the Magna Carta - http://www.britannia.com/history/magna2.html, numbers 38, 39, and 40 specifically)



    Not to beat a dead horse, but affirming the basic rights of prisoners not to be held indefinitely, without being charged or given access to legal counsel, is not in any way a "new precedent to the left".



    What the Bush Admin. tried to do, that the court overruled, could however be called a "new precedent to the far right", as in totalitarianism, police state, regime of brutality, dictatorship......
  • Reply 17 of 45
    maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    removed a law restricting peoples' private lives...hmmm....laws that govern what goes on in peoples' bedrooms are neither conservative nor liberal, but medieval. And....sodomy is practised by heterosexuals as well as gays.



    affirmative action = arbitrary privilege. Privilege and right wing philosophy go hand in hand, yes? The most rampant "affirmative action" today is taxpayer funded corporate welfare.



    Why is that ruling "liberal"? "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 (and to US paper currency). It is not a constitutional issue, and that is why the court passed on it.



    Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, the abortion clinic bombers, etc etc etc have all been given their legal rights under the constitution. But they killed people. We are holding many people in Gitmo who havent done anything wrong...and they have no way of proving their innocence. Most of the people there havent even been charged with an offense, probably because they havent committed one. Trumpt...if one of your relatives ended up in a jail without charge, access to legal counsel or communication, I don't think you would approve. If the people there have committed terrorist acts, or just ordinary crimes. then give them access to a fair and speedy trial..as it states in the Constitution. If not, then let them go. If that concept is "liberal" then I'm all for it. I prefer the Constitution of the USA to holding people indefinitely without charge, as under Saddam Hussein for example.



    Porn makes people lots and lots of money....further explanations are redundant.



    You can argue that both ways. The current campaign finance laws support the 2party system, which in turn limits the accessibility of the free speech of 3rd parties and independents to the electorate.



    Many of the (constitutional or other) issues you raise are so clear cut that the court had little choice in their decision.




    I chose to reply to your post because it is typical of the woeful ignorance of the Supreme Court's purpose. Like most Americans you assess the court's 'rightness' by its political results, rather than by its methods. It's really startling how easily the great herd forgets the lady of Justice's blindfold and scales, and measures the courts performence according to its willingness to lift the blindfold and put a finger on the scale.



    The recent Supreme Court farce in Hamdi and Rasul regarding detention is a case in point. Scalia, a 'conservative' blasted the court plurality in both cases.



    In the case of Hamdi, the court affirmed that the President could modify habeas corpus and hold a citizen in detention without trial, albiet with some rights to challenge it(the Bush team thought Hamdi had no rights). Scalia rightly rejected both Bush and the court. He pointed out this was court usurpation of democracy and a rewritting of the consitution, i.e.; that as the suspension clause of the constitution was not invoked, Hamdi must be charged and tried, or he must be released... the court cannot write new law (even if Hamdi were considered a danger).



    In the case of Rasul, the court simply ignored the law and invented an extension of court jurisdication over Gitmo captives - here to fore granting unprecedented 'rights' to aliens beyond the soverign territory. Scalia also blasted this finding, noting that the Court usurped democracy by imposing its own habeas corpus law. The proper finding would have been that the GITMO aliens are out of luck.



    By your standard Scalia was 'right' on Hamdi and 'wrong' on Rasul. By my standard both were correct 'conservative' findings: the Court's job is to enforce the law, not make it. The court should show 'judicial restraint' and not try to 'fix' society or congress by fiat.



    That is the conservatism that has faded.
  • Reply 18 of 45
    maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FormerLurker

    All you reactionaries arguing that this is a "liberal" decision have apparently decided to ignore 200 years of law in this country (and legal traditions dating back 800 years to the Magna Carta - http://www.britannia.com/history/magna2.html, numbers 38, 39, and 40 specifically)



    Not to beat a dead horse, but affirming the basic rights of prisoners not to be held indefinitely, without being charged or given access to legal counsel, is not in any way a "new precedent to the left".



    What the Bush Admin. tried to do, that the court overruled, could however be called a "new precedent to the far right", as in totalitarianism, police state, regime of brutality, dictatorship......




    You're not beating a dead horse, your just riding one. Is it not painfully self-evident that:



    1. The U.S. is ruled by its Consitution and statutory law, not the Magna Carta (written for a small class of British and does not address international law nor alien rights).



    2. Far more current case law confirms that the Court finding was absurd regarding Rasul.



    3. In short: Alien enemy combantents do not have any rights under the U.S. constitution (or the Magna Carta..smirk) or federal statutes. Their rights, if any, are embodied in international law (e.g. Geneva accords).
  • Reply 19 of 45
    formerlurkerformerlurker Posts: 2,686member
    And I repeat my main point yet again, which is that the entire "enemy combatant" thing is an unprecedented extreme right wing tactic that was just "invented" by the ruthless and arrogant totalitarians running (amok with) our government currently.
  • Reply 20 of 45
    formerlurkerformerlurker Posts: 2,686member
    and regarding your smirking at the Magna Carta - gimme a break, please!



    I NEVER said it applies to the people in question - I referenced it to say that the history of certain basic human rights go all the way back to the Magna Carta, which was in fact a document that influenced our Founding Fathers, especially when it came to putting together the Bill Of Rights.
Sign In or Register to comment.