E.J. Dionne: Thank You, Justice Alito

[marmar]

from Truthdig:



Thank You, Justice Alito

Posted on Jan 31, 2010
By E.J. Dionne


Watch: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/thank_you_justice_alito_20100131/?ln


The nation owes a substantial debt to Justice Samuel Alito for his display of unhappiness over President Barack Obama’s criticisms of the Supreme Court’s recent legislation—excuse me, decision—opening our electoral system to a new torrent of corporate money.

Alito’s inability to restrain himself during the State of the Union address brought to wide attention a truth that too many have tried to ignore: The Supreme Court is now dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government.

Obama called the court on this, and Alito shook his head and apparently mouthed “Not true.” His was the honest reaction of a judicial activist who believes he has the obligation to impose his version of right reason on the rest of us.

The controversy also exposed the impressive capacity of the conservative judicial revolutionaries to live by double standards without apology. ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/thank_you_justice_alito_20100131/?ln

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, marmar.

[robertpaulsen]

3. 70 recs and two posts? What'd I miss?

:hide:

[Canuckistanian]

5. That must have been one hell of a "deleted sub-thread"

:D

[rpannier]

33. It was pretty ugly

The original put forth the question "Why should the Court automatically defer to previous rulings?"
Which, had they left it at that is a reasonable question.
But the poster also hinted that they agreed with the ruling.

[Alcibiades]

4. Nobody thinks that the problem in US politics

is that there isn't enough corporate money going to candidates. Left, right and center: everyone agrees on this point. Except the Supreme Court, unelected, lifetime appointment mandarins who know better than we, and even than the founders.

The framers gave Congress ultimate authority, but the Supreme Court has become the first among the supposedly equal branches of government. Congress needs to get to 60 votes to get anything done, thanks to rules that are not enshrined in the Constitution that don't limit debate in the Senate. The Supreme Court only needs 5 votes. Ultimately, the ability of the people to make law in their branch of government is shackled by the institutional process of the legislature, but the ability to limit the ability of the people to make law in their branch of government is further shackled by a Supreme Court concerned with limiting the freedom of persons while enhancing that of corporations.

Fie!

[Enthusiast]

20. Thank you, Alcibiades.

I agree with you. And I can't imagine a more wrongheaded decision. Exactly at a time in history when we desperately needed to rein in corporate influence the court decided to give them more. I feel this is treason.

[judesedit]

6. Very well put.

Thank you.

[judesedit]

7. You can thank Bush for Alito, too. Another illustrious Supreme Court judge.

There should definitely be term limits. They may actually wind up screwing themselves in the end. There are alot of measures being devised to stop the insanity of the last decision. Gotta love it.

[NC_Nurse]

8. Excellent. Thanks for posting this. K&R

[mwooldri]

9. Now who was complaining about appointing judges that would legislate?

Maybe it's both sides but I hear the screams louder from the right wing I'm afraid. They are screaming whenever an important judge position opens up that the President (or whoever) nominates someone who will uphold the law and not 'legislate from the bench'. If the right are making the nomination they are shouting about how XYZ person is someone who interprets the law straight and will not 'legislate from the bench'. Then what happens? If the right are in control, and they get their nominees through, their nominees 'legislate from the bench'.

Enough said.

[JohnWxy]

10. The supreme court doesn't think they are a branch OF the government they think they ARE the

government.

recommended.

[yurbud]

11. Obama like Democrats in Bush era is in denial about what GOP is all about or agrees with them

[progressoid]

12. But all those emails I get tell me that our courts are full of librul activist judges.

Now I'm so confused.

[onehandle]

13. Thank Ralph Nader too. nt

[Cartoonist]

14. Nader and

those who mistakenly believed that their vote would not be counted as a vote for Bush and his appointees. It's been over eight years, but I will never forgive the Green Party and the Naderites for giving us Bush. History will also never forgive those who could have stopped this.

[kag]

15. The Green Party Naderites and...

...the (ahem) Supreme Court.

[Art_from_Ark]

19. Don't forget all the assholes in Florida who pulled out all the stops

to make sure that the votes would not be counted fairly or accurately.

[Enthusiast]

22. And don't forget the Brown Shirts

and their part in intimidation.

[dotymed]

23. thank You

the "Supremes" gave us bushit

[Enthusiast]

21. Thousands of Gore voters

were purged before they even cast a vote. There was massive malfeasance in the Florida election. They employed several methods and planned it long before voting day. This is clear to anyone with their eyes open.

[Raster]

24. It's called history. Learn it! Ralph Nader was no more responsible for the cheney*/bush*

administration than was Porky Fucking Pig. And you overlook one big fact right out of the starting gate: Al Gore WON! According to the consortium, no matter which way you counted the votes, Gore won. That's right, the independent consortium that provided the most unbiased, in-depth and accurate examination of the ballots found that if all the ballots were fairly counted, GORE WON!

But as to the question of Nader throwing the election to bush*:

"In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat. Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all." When asked about claims of being a spoiler, Nader typically points to the controversial Supreme Court ruling that halted a Florida recount, Gore's loss in his home state of Tennessee, and the "quarter million Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida." A study in 2002 by the Progressive Review found no correlation between votes for Nader and votes for Gore (i.e., more votes for Nader did not correlate to fewer votes for Gore and vice versa). An analysis conducted by Harvard Professor B.C. Burden in 2005 showed Nader did affect Gore's chances, but that

"Contrary to Democrats’ complaints, Nader was not intentionally trying to throw the election. A spoiler strategy would have caused him to focus disproportionately on the most competitive states and markets with the hopes of being a key player in the outcome. There is no evidence that his appearances responded to closeness. He did, apparently, pursue voter support, however, in a quest to receive 5% of the popular vote."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

If you're going to revisit Selection 2000 and assign real, truthful blame for the cheney*/bush*, look no further than Governor Jeb Bush* and Secretary of State Katherine Harris, the real villains--along with the SCOTUS, of course--in Florida's Selection 2000.

If you want the facts:

Katherine Harris as Secretary of State also function as Republican Committee Chairwoman to election George W. Bush*. She ran the statewide Florida campaign from her office in the State Capital, using State of Florida personnel and resources to run the campaign, with the full approval of Governor Jeb Bush.

Katherine Harris, with full approval of Governor Bush*, used a republican company to purge the voter rolls of tens of thousands of legal voters, concentrating in areas thought to favor Gore. Tens of thousands. Some estimates say that over 50,000 legal voters were illegally removed from the voter rolls.

Governor Jeb Bush* sanctioned and encouraged voter intimidation on a massive scale, utilizing Florida Department of Public Safety officers to harass voters in primarily Democratic precincts, using standard voter intimidation tactics such as demanding multiple forms of identification and challenging legal voters of color.

[onehandle]

28. Jeb Bush and Harris failed. The count was too close, so SCOTUS stepped in and selected Bush.

If not for Nader campaigning tirelessly in Florida, then the count would not have been close enough for the SCOTUS fix.

Again...

THANKS RALPH!

[Raster]

30. What do you mean bush* and harris* failed? They managed to shave away TENS OF THOUSANDS of

lawful, legal Democratic voters from the Florida voting roles. I'd say they accomplished their goal. They were able to disenfranchise enough Democratic voters as to give the illusion that Nader was the electoral spoiler, which he was not.

Every time someone repeats the LIE that Nader somehow handed a victory to bush*/cheney*, they enable the LIE that the election was close enough to steal. IT WAS NOT! The handjob by the SCOTUS was their last-ditch effort. Everytime someone tries to give creedence to the LIE, they in turn help perpetuate the LIE, and in effect, become an accomplice to the crime after-the-fact.

And again, according to the independent consortium, GORE WON. Repeat, Gore won. Was he inaugurated? No, and we all know why.

[onehandle]

29. Exactly right. nt

[Toasterlad]

25. I Just Stubbed My Toe. God Damn You, Ralph Nader!

[Raster]

26. Thank you for the perspective TL!

Top o' the morning to you, Lad!:hi:

[Toasterlad]

27. And To You, Sir.

:hi:

[BrklynLiberal]

16. YESSSSSSSSSS!!!!

[Reterr]

17. K&R.eom

[emsimon33]

18. Thank you for posting. K&R

[X_Digger]

31. "ignoring the wishes of the elected branches of government"??

Since when do courts judge constitutionality based on public opinion? Precedent yes, but 'wishes of the elected branches'?? They're a separate branch of the government by design. E.J., I love ya man, but you need to go back to civics 101 and read the section on 'separation of powers'.

Yes, it was a horrible decision, but that just means congress has to work harder to come up with a constitutional means to achieve the same goal- such as stripping corporate personhood.

[Cartoonist]

32. end note

just adding this at the end. not responding to any one post.

Naderites continue to disgust me with their excuses. They point to the Supremes, Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, and others, but they never look in the mirror. There's little or nothing we or they could have done about republican crookery, but there is everything Naderites could have done to defeat Bush. Instead, they chose the only course of action that enabled all those they try to blame for their failure. Scalia and crew would have been powerless if it had not been for the Naderites.