| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Supreme Court Decision Posted by: louky - [1326296] Thu, Jun 28, 2007, 11:36 The Supreme Court on Thusrday rejected school diversity plans that take account of students race. Louisville and Seattle were the two school districts that lost the decision. Here's the wild part, the plantiff in the Louisville case bartends for me a few nights a week. Her only son was bussed as a 1st grader and she started the process then. She mentioned it to us a month or so ago, saying there would probably be a little publicity about it. She's scheduled for a local press conference at 12:00 today. I tried to get her to wear one of our t-shirts but wouldn't do it. | |||||||
| 1 | Perm Dude ID: 5853289 Thu, Jun 28, 2007, 11:40 | Nice try! It would have been cool to get her to wear the shirt! | ||||||
| 2 | SeattleZen on Vashon ID: 224141222 Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 01:17 |
| ||||||
| 3 | walk ID: 596182512 Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 14:56 |
July 26, 2007 Op-Ed Contributor Stacking the Court By JEAN EDWARD SMITH Huntington, W.Va. WHEN a majority of Supreme Court justices adopt a manifestly ideological agenda, it plunges the court into the vortex of American politics. If the Roberts court has entered voluntarily what Justice Felix Frankfurter once called the “political thicket,” it may require a political solution to set it straight. The framers of the Constitution did not envisage the Supreme Court as arbiter of all national issues. As Chief Justice John Marshall made clear in Marbury v. Madison, the court’s authority extends only to legal issues. When the court overreaches, the Constitution provides checks and balances. In 1805, after persistent political activity by Justice Samuel Chase, Congress responded with its power of impeachment. Chase was acquitted, but never again did he step across the line to mingle law and politics. After the Civil War, when a Republican Congress feared the court might tamper with Reconstruction in the South, it removed those questions from the court’s appellate jurisdiction. But the method most frequently employed to bring the court to heel has been increasing or decreasing its membership. The size of the Supreme Court is not fixed by the Constitution. It is determined by Congress. The original Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number of justices at six. When the Federalists were defeated in 1800, the lame-duck Congress reduced the size of the court to five — hoping to deprive President Jefferson of an appointment. The incoming Democratic Congress repealed the Federalist measure (leaving the number at six), and then in 1807 increased the size of the court to seven, giving Jefferson an additional appointment. In 1837, the number was increased to nine, affording the Democrat Andrew Jackson two additional appointments. During the Civil War, to insure an anti-slavery, pro-Union majority on the bench, the court was increased to 10. When a Democrat, Andrew Johnson, became president upon Lincoln’s death, a Republican Congress voted to reduce the size to seven (achieved by attrition) to guarantee Johnson would have no appointments. After Ulysses S. Grant was elected in 1868, Congress restored the court to nine. That gave Grant two new appointments. The court had just declared unconstitutional the government’s authority to issue paper currency (greenbacks). Grant took the opportunity to appoint two justices sympathetic to the administration. When the reconstituted court convened, it reheard the legal tender cases and reversed its decision (5-4). The most recent attempt to alter the size of the court was by Franklin Roosevelt in 1937. But instead of simply requesting that Congress add an additional justice or two, Roosevelt’s convoluted scheme fooled no one and ultimately sank under its own weight. Roosevelt claimed the justices were too old to keep up with the workload, and urged that for every justice who reached the age of 70 and did not retire within six months, the president should be able to appoint a younger justice to help out. Six of the Supreme Court justices in 1937 were older than 70. But the court was not behind in its docket, and Roosevelt’s subterfuge was exposed. In the Senate, the president could muster only 20 supporters. Still, there is nothing sacrosanct about having nine justices on the Supreme Court. Roosevelt’s 1937 chicanery has given court-packing a bad name, but it is a hallowed American political tradition participated in by Republicans and Democrats alike. If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two. Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll call of presidents who have used this option includes not just Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant. Jean Edward Smith is the author, most recently, of “F.D.R.” | ||||||
| 4 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 14:06 |
Outstanding synopsis of the 2006 SCOTUS term rulings Great article. I hadn't realized that Justice Kennedy was in the majority 70 times and in the minority only TWICE. It really is his court. Justice Stevens was in the minority 26 times and he let you know about it when he was! The caseload continued its trend down, 33% of the cases were decided 5-4, a very high percentage, while only 25% were 9-0, very low. Overall, the commentators said it was a great year if you are a conservative, much to be afraid of if you are liberal. Scary clouds on the horizon regarding abortion, very pro-business rulings, criminal cases were not very important, the rulings were certainly pro-prosecution. You've got to read this article! | ||||||
| 5 | Perm Dude ID: 35738179 Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 14:14 |
Maybe it is the writer in me, but this sentence rankled me: In terms of ideology, for the 24 5-4 decisions, the highest percentage by far, 13 of those cases, were decided by a conservative majority. I realize this was an oral presentation and not a written one, but 13 of 24 is not the "highest percentage by far." It is one more than half. I'd like to see these numbers after another year. While the Kennedy trend is very interesting, it is just one term. | ||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||