The liberals’ big victories last term arose from a very particular set of circumstances.... But the conservatives on the Court are poised for a comeback, and the subjects before the Justices appear well suited for liberal defeats....
Affirmative action....
Abortion....
Public-employee unions....
There is not yet a major campaign-finance case before the Justices, but in an election year it would be no surprise to see one surface....
२ सप्टेंबर, २०१५
"The Coming Liberal Disaster at the Supreme Court."
Title of a new Jeffrey Toobin piece in The New Yorker. Excerpt:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४३ टिप्पण्या:
Toobin... that's the plantation guy, right?
The big potential disaster is Ginsburg hanging on to the job until they have to pry her dead cold hands off it and potentially having a republican president appoint her replacement. Some of the conservatives (and Breyer) also are old, but none appear frail yet. Hate to see the Court as pure politics, but it is on most issues and, since liberals have no reservation whatsoever about using the court to advance political policy, the 5 to 4 current conservative majority is pretty tenuous. Ginsburg making it 6 to 3 is the potential liberal disaster.
Wait...weren't the last 45 years a liberal disaster at the Supreme Court?
I guess you have to differentiate between a disaster for liberals, and a disaster by liberals.
I want to see a Republican President demand that a Justice treat Heller and Citizens United the same way liberals demand a Justice treat Roe.
The guy makes it all sound like one of those Star Wars movies.
The age of many of the Justices makes the upcoming election all the more important, not just for the presidency but control of the Senate. I could easily see Harry Reid's replacement (if the Dems take the majority) deciding to suspend the fillibuster so that Prez Clinton can appoint another Sotomayor to replace Ginsburg or even Scalia.
I'm not sure why Toobin is so worried about the liberals losing cases on the court. After Roberts' Obamacare rulings it's pretty clear he could end up anywhere on the map. And the four solid left-Justices never budge, you'll notice. It's only the ones on the right that tend to float.
"It's only the ones on the right that tend to float."
- Another problem with the moderate/conservative divide in the Republican party. We're willing to disagree on policy with each other. The left is likewise willing to superficially disagree, so long as they don't disagree when it counts.
Every appointee that Obama makes is interchangeable with the previous or next; it is one of the reasons I see no reason to try and block his appointments if they haven't done anything criminal, unless your plan is to just disrupt the machine -- which is, I suppose, a valid objective.
The New Yorker headline "The Coming Liberal Disaster..." should we renamed "Our Coming Disaster .."
They're supposed to have a high standard for accuracy, right?
The adjective-noun phrase "Liberal Disaster" does not mean the same thing as "Disaster for Liberals". A liberal disaster may be a disaster of especially generous proportions. Or it may be a disaster created or characterized by liberals.
But of course, even in the phrasing "Disaster for Liberals" the word "liberal" doesn't mean liberal at all, no more than "disaster" means disaster. We all know that already.
A headline like "The Supreme Court may rule in favor of individuals over illiberal bureaucracies" wouldn't fly.
I see Ignorance is Bliss beat me to the grammar. Nicely done.
I just finished reading a piece by Daniel Klein called "A Plea Regarding 'Liberal'", in which he tries to correct the political misuse of the term. Since the court's left wing routinely votes in favor of increasing the role of the federal government while curtailing individual freedom, they should be more correctly called "progressives" or "leftists" rather than liberals. FYI.
They won twice on Obamacare; they should be content.
"they should be more correctly called "progressives" or "leftists" rather than liberals. FYI."
Absolutely. Roberts proved that he could read the NY Times.
What a nimrod. If a campaign finance case would get to the supreme court next year, which one, pray tell, is already working it's way through federal and appeals court now? If he's so smart, he would be able to identify one.
I'd like to see racial preferences go down in flames, but I don't believe the Court will ever come out with anything as definitive as "yes, race can always be used as long as you're doing the right thing!" (the Sotomayor position) or "racial discrimination is always unlawful, full stop". They've had that scenario in front of them twice in the past ten years, and both times they split the baby.
As for abortion, I can't see Roe being overturned--not with Kennedy still on the Court (didn't he rule with the majority in Casey?). And Roberts goes any which way. Maybe the Court will chip away at it a bit--allow more state restrictions on abortion, but not allow the states to outright ban it.
Meantime, Obama put two young-ish Justices on the Court, and maybe he'll even get a chance to replace Ginsburg (though it'll be interesting seeing how that goes with the Senate). And I have yet to hear of any leftist complaining about Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer or Kagan--certainly not like rightists complain about Roberts, Kenney, and O'Connor, Souter and Stevens earlier on.
The Right should figure out how the Left picks them.
"What a nimrod. If a campaign finance case would get to the supreme court next year, which one, pray tell, is already working it's way through federal and appeals court now? If he's so smart, he would be able to identify one."
It's also pretty rich to hear the Left complain about Citizens United and things like that--when their front runner is planning to raise $2 billion from highly questionable sources (if you donated to the Clinton Charity Scam, you're by definition a suspicious character) and Obama had broken previous records on fundraising. Tears of a crocodile!
Toobin wrote: "The liberals’ big victories last term arose from a very particular set of circumstances."
So, basically, he's conceding that SCOTUS decisions are a matter of political circumstance, not legal principle. No?
The public sector cases are YUGE.
In most states, cities and school districts, the skyrocketing cost of public sector pensions are the number one reason for tax hikes and program cutbacks.
In most election cycles, public sector unions are the largest or among the largest donors. They deduct union dues from government paychecks, use those dues to elect politicians who will boost their paychecks, collect dues from those paychecks, elect politicians...
They are political campaigns that never, ever end. To borrow from Richard Dreyfuss's "Hooper" character in Jaws: All they do is collect money, lobby and elect politicians.
Could be Yuge.
I'd like to see racial preferences go down in flames, but I don't believe the Court will ever come out with anything as definitive as "yes, race can always be used as long as you're doing the right thing!" (the Sotomayor position) or "racial discrimination is always unlawful, full stop". They've had that scenario in front of them twice in the past ten years, and both times they split the baby.
Didn't O'Connor say preferences might not be necessary in 25 years? How many years ago was that?
As for abortion, I can't see Roe being overturned--not with Kennedy still on the Court
Banning abortion while leaving the abortion culture in place would be horrific.
I love the way Staten Islanders say "disaster."
"The wedding was a disas-tah!"
Oh, you mean after the Court created a new "right" that is found nowhere in the Constitution
(marriage), and held that plain words mean nothing (an exchange created by the state is the same as one created by the Federal government)?
They are a farce. Two dykes, an ultra liberal political hack old biddy, a wishy washy old man, and a compromised by blackmail chief justice (illegally adopted children, and a fag).
History will spit on them for selling out the Republic.
CJinPA said...
Banning abortion while leaving the abortion culture in place would be horrific.
9/2/15, 1:26 PM
Sorry, no. What Planned Parenthood does to the unborn, that is horrific.
Like the tobacco companies, PP should be forced to run info-merchals in all of there facilities showing what these "clumps of cells" look like at 5, 10, 15 and 20 weeks. They should have to show how 20 week old preemies can be born and survive. They should have to show cuts from those undercover videos (they don't get to choose). Monitors should be able to enter any facility at any time and if they see that the videos have been tampered with or are not showing or are obstructed, shut them down and they lose their licenses. Thinks like this might start to change that culture.
"Didn't O'Connor say preferences might not be necessary in 25 years? How many years ago was that?"
I think over 10 years ago. But who knows, another 15 years and I'm sure the Court will decide that another generation of affirmative action will bring us final equality. Never mind that the last 50 did not.
And of course the Sotomayors and Ginsburgs don't even agree with O'Connor's limp logic--as far as they're concerned, "race matters" and so certain races will always need a leg up. In their worldview, the fact that affirmative action has failed to correct this problem is further proof that we need more affirmative action to correct this problem. It's sort of like pouring gasoline on a fire, seeing that it is not dying out, and deciding therefore you just need more gasoline.
Sorry, no. What Planned Parenthood does to the unborn, that is horrific.
My comment has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood or moral posturing. I agree with your points but nothing you said has anything to do with overturning Roe v. Wade. It's about us. Our culture. Again, if the only thing that changes is that the ruling is overturned, and everything else regarding sexual responsibility stays the same, it will be horrific.
And of course the Sotomayors and Ginsburgs don't even agree with O'Connor's limp logic--as far as they're concerned, "race matters" and so certain races will always need a leg up.
This is one of the most prominent divides in the U.S. During the rise of the modern Civil Rights movement and shortly after, a generation was raised to believe that "our differences are only skin deep. Race doesn't matter." That shifted, without discussion or debate, to "actually, our differences are to the bone. Race matters."
I'm convinced most Americans believe the former, and believe that it is still what is being taught. It's time to have that debate we never had about this.
Using Sotomayor's logic, my boys have a better shot at success than Obama's daughters.
"Using Sotomayor's logic, my boys have a better shot at success than Obama's daughters."
There's a lot of ugly in Sotomayor's beliefs on this issue. First, it says no matter what you ever do, you're still a product of your race/gender/ethnicity, and always presume it is a handicap regardless of whether you have evidence that it is. The mere fact of an obstacle is enough to assume your race caused it.
Second, it tells anyone outside of a victim group that they are benefitting from that group's continuing oppression (again, regardless of lack of evidence). A poor white kid from a lousy family thus is "privileged" over every black person, full stop.
Third, it skids completely over factors that certainly today have FAR greater impact on your life, such as culture (not "ethnic culture" but rather your own values, etc.), location (e.g., Greenwich CT or lower Appalachia), family structure, level of education, and mostly class.
Fourth, the "solution" for this perceived widespread, ingrained racism is to pass out goodies based on race. Never mind that this has negative effects on both "beneficiaries" and nonbeneficiaries, as well as society at large. The racialists have not come up with anything better (and moronic ideas like "reparations" are treated as "bold new ideas") and they are likely to beat this drum for another generation or two, at least.
"I'm convinced most Americans believe the former, and believe that it is still what is being taught. It's time to have that debate we never had about this."
I think the racialist POV that institutional racism (defined as racism that no longer manifests in an overt form, but is rather ingrained in apparently benign institutions, and does not require racist intent to perpetuate it) is rather widespread on the Left. However, at the same time the idea of redressing such racism with racial preferences (hiring quotas, admissions quotas, set asides) is less popular than ever before, largely because it hasn't worked and it does run against the ideal of treating people equally.
the idea of redressing such racism with racial preferences (hiring quotas, admissions quotas, set asides) is less popular than ever before, largely because it hasn't worked and it does run against the ideal of treating people equally.
I'm ready for politicians to stand up and make this an issue. This is one of the few issues where the status quo is opposed by the majority of citizens but no one acknowledges that.
"It's time to have that debate"
Debate? What debate? If it serves to soften up a target for Progressive change, sure, otherwise, not.
Progs just want power. If they have it, they use it. If not, they get it. Debate is for chumps.
"I'm ready for politicians to stand up and make this an issue. This is one of the few issues where the status quo is opposed by the majority of citizens but no one acknowledges that."
Everyone gives lip service to ending it--remember Clinton's "mend it, don't end it" (and I don't recall him even mending it)? And Bush I think even briefed on the side of the colleges in the Supreme Court case. And Obama made comments as to how ridiculous it would be for his daughters to get preferences over poor kids.
It could be fixed at the federal level by ending the contracting "set aside" programs, and withholding funding for any public or private colleges that use racial preferences (the same way they would if a college decided to be "whites only"). But that would take some guts, and it would get ugly.
Progs just want power. If they have it, they use it. If not, they get it. Debate is for chumps.
The only reason they get to choose what debates to have is because we let them. Remember the last time a candidate called out a Democrat for belonging to the part of Al Sharpton? Me neither.
It could be fixed at the federal level by ending the contracting "set aside" programs
I don't really mean any particular preference programs. I mean the whole notion that the goal of a color blind society is a joke - which is what the Left believes. That goes way beyond any policy or court case, it's a fundamental divide on probably the most pressing issue in the nation. And the folks on the popular side are playing defense. Amazing.
Not happening. First time Roberts gets out of line, the Left will trot out the pictures or video they have of him doing something pervy twisted.
As I recall, when O'Connor was on the Court, she was the swing vote, and Kennedy was expected to be on the conservative side, one of 4 conservatives v. 4 liberals. Then, when she left, Kennedy became the swing vote, not a reliable member of a 5-4 conservative majority. Roberts has been a wild card in a couple of big Obamacare-related cases, but generally the Court rules as Kennedy rules. I wonder if that would change even if we had a 2-term conservative President with a Senate majority in (say) six of the eight years.
That's an experiment I'd like to try, but electing Trump is not likely to create the conditions for it.
I think the racialist POV that institutional racism (defined as racism that no longer manifests in an overt form, but is rather ingrained in apparently benign institutions, and does not require racist intent to perpetuate it) is rather widespread on the Left.
Oh yes but it will require the Revolution to accomplish any serious change. I think that revolution is coming. It might be bloodless or it might be bloody. The shock troops on the left are the black radicals. We'll see how it plays out. Most of the left is "Pajama Boy" types and so they might never get going. I don't think "lawfare"is going to win it.
I've ordered Charles Murray's new book, "By the People," and will read it on our trip. I might shock our hosts who are retired British military.
By the People is Charles Murray’s answer to what to do about a regulatory state metastasized and gone mad (if you disagree about that it’s probably best to start elsewhere). And what he recommends is not to act through the traditional democratic channels, but to instead engage in what he calls “systematic civil disobedience.”
Toobin is pushing the old B.S. again re: Citizen's United: "The conservative majority, led in this case by Kennedy, has shown no sign of backing away from its Citizens United decision, from 2010, which said that campaign contributions are a form of free speech." No, it said that SPEECH by corporations is free speech. And it's unconstitutional to limit the timing and type of speech by corporations just based on the fact that they are corporations; or on how much money the communication costs. "Campaign contributions" are still subject to regulation.
The Supreme Court is just a disaster.
I am certain that if the writers of the Constitution knew what it was going to become they would have seriously reconsidered the judicial branch in its entirety. At the time no one really understood what the Supreme Court was supposed to do anyway. Its currently nearly fully politicized form is of dubious value even under the best of conditions. Given that the impeachment and power of the purse powers have been neutered, they might have rewritten quite a lot.
Then again, the Constitution was always meant for a moral people. There is no perfect form of government that cannot be corrupted. Unfortunately, we seem insistent on proving that rule now.
There are not enough bad words in the world to describe how I think about the dread traitor Roberts.
After the massively odd first Obamacare ruling, the most obvious inference is that the Administration has something they're holding over his head. When a Republican holds the White House I expect Roberts will resign. For that matter, it wouldn't surprise me if he resigns in time for Obama to pick a successor. (Marker placed, must reference.)
No state banned abortion altogether, but several came close.
What a hack Toobin is. There is no state that "came close" to banning abortion. It's a sloppy, ridiculous thing to say. It's like something out of a Planned Parenthood fundraising letter--scare tactics as opposed to actual facts.
Some have banned abortion after the twentieth week of pregnancy
These states are attempting to outlaw abortion 20 weeks after conception, or 22 weeks after the last menstrual period. This point coincides with viability. In other words, these states are outlawing the abortion of viable babies, a criminal law that Roe v. Wade explicitly allows.
The issue in the Texas case is in regard to the lack of a "health" exception, the exception that allows doctors to kill babies all the way until birth.
The other issue in the Texas case is whether requiring an abortion doctor to have hospital privileges is an "undue burden" on a woman's right to abort her pregnancy.
Even if you have no regard for an unborn baby's right to life, this law should be upheld as a simple safety regulation. Aborting a pregnancy at 20+ weeks is highly dangerous to the mother. (This is why doctors invented the partial-birth abortion procedure, to avoid abortion inside the uterus this late in the pregnancy). It's particularly dangerous to undergo this surgery in a "clinic" that does not meet the standards of a surgical center, while the "procedure" is done by a doctor who has no hospital privileges.
The Steeler Disaster at the Super Bowl
The Steelers' big victories last season arose from a very particular set of circumstances...But the Jets are poised for a comeback, and the next few games appear well suited for Steeler defeats.
Cowboys...
Packers...
49ers...
If the readers of The New Yorker actually watched football once in a while, maybe they wouldn't be so susceptible to Jeffrey Toobin and his Satanic pom-poms.
"Push 'em back! Push 'em back! Wayyyyyyy back!"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा