The Bush Court and What it Means

By: Gustavus
Published On: 6/21/2007 12:24:21 PM

As George W. Bush staggers toward the conclusion of his second term, he can point to at least one major and enduring project that has gone according to plan: the transformation of the Supreme Court.

This quote is from the beginning of a short note by Jeffrey Toobin in a recent New Yorker. It is a sobering look at how Bush appointees Roberts and Alito have already begun to move the court rightward.  He points to recent restrictions on filing discrimination lawsuits, and to cases making it more difficult to fight criminal charges.  In addition, "Most notoriously, the Court, for the first time in its history, upheld a categorical ban on an abortion procedure."

Toobin concludes by saying:

At this moment, the liberals face not only jurisprudential but actuarial peril. Stevens is eighty-seven and Ginsburg seventy-four; Roberts, Thomas, and Alito are in their fifties. The Court, no less than the Presidency, will be on the ballot next November, and a wise electorate will vote accordingly.

I would argue that this is important not just for liberals and progressives, but even for middle-of-the-roaders.  It is vitally important that the appointment and confirmation of radical right-wing judges be reversed.  I have argued before on RK that when we vote it is more important to support a party than to vote for or against a particular person.  For example, I am not a big Jim Webb fan, but I not only voted for him I donated money to his campaign?and I would have done this even if his opponent had been someone other than Mr. Macaca.  It was extremely important that the Democrats take over the Senate?this was much more important than who Virginia sent to the Senate. The next election will be even more important for liberals and progressives, and not just because of Iraq.  We must reverse the Bush push to the far right, and replace retiring justices with to right-minded individuals.


Comments



Supreme Court (RPF - 6/21/2007 2:41:19 PM)
Gustavus is, once again, correct.  Nothing has more progeny down through the decades than Supreme Court appointments and so voting based on party is most important.  However, as we have seen already in this term of Congress, not only is obtaining a majority important for purposes of agenda-setting and holding hearings but of almost equal concern is obtaining a Senate majority of 60 votes.  Otherwise, vetos are, systematically, subject to filibuster and hence override-proof.  That is why Congress under Democratic rule is taking MORE of a beating (23% approval) in the public opinion polls than is Bush (29% approval).  Failure to have the ability to override a veto is calamitous and in the none-too-clear public perception it makes the Democrats look feeble and unable to carry out the promises made in the '06 electon, the reason Democrats were elected.  I might add that the point made by Gustavus is what is at stake in the noise about a possible Bloomberg candidacy -- a somewhat competent moderate could well serve as a 'spoiler' and siphon off Democratic and Independent votes in '08 without much affecting Republican votes.


The Supreme Court ... (Nick Stump - 6/21/2007 7:09:31 PM)
.. is the most important deal we have in Washington. One more Republican President and the court will be completely fouled and that will affect this country in a negative manner for three decades or longer.  I would advise all Progressives to bite the bullet and vote Democratic.  The future of our grandkids is at stake.  So much more important than any one election. 


Another article highly recommended . . . (JPTERP - 6/22/2007 12:15:25 AM)
http://writ.news.fin...

In terms of travesties, the recent Bowles v. Russell ruling is up there. 

Last week, in Bowles v. Russell, the Supreme Court held that a federal appeals court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the denial of a habeas corpus petition because the notice of appeal was filed two days late--even though it was filed one day before the date that the federal district judge had (mistakenly) told the petitioner that it was due. As a consequence of the ruling, Keith Bowles loses his one chance to have a federal appeals court correct what he alleges were errors resulting in his murder conviction and sentence of fifteen-years-to-life in prison.

The majority ruling defies common sense.  This isn't just a run of the mill case involving a 30 month sentence--this is a case where the convicted person faces a life penalty.  Even if Bowles appeal was to be rejected on its merits, it is in keeping with the American system of Justice that this person should at least have the opportunity to appeal the ruling in his case.  Instead he isn't even granted that opportunity because of a bureacratic screw-up. 

I have no doubt that the SCOTUS majority would have ruled differently had Bowles been named Lewis Scooter Libby--this is completely overlooking the fact that Libby has at his disposal a bottomless legal fund and access to some of the best counsel that money can buy. 

I suspect when all is said and done that the Roberts Court majority will be held in the same regard as the Lochner era Court.  Some pretty frightening parallels--especially as it relates to Alito who has shown signs of being a stooge for industry.  Ordinary Americans are going to get screwed; while large corporate interests and the politically connected get a free pass.  Once again, some idiots trade their economic security and civil liberties in order to restrict the abortion boogeyman.