NEW ADDITION TO THE CHEAT SHEET:
*Note, I’m adding a bit more on Cornyn with him being the new addition to the list, as well as rumors circulating of him being called into meetings with the administration, and a marked scurrying among his staff. It seems very likely that Cornyn will be the nominee, and that it will be announced on Tuesday. I grabbed some information on his voting record and political past from Issues2000 website as a starting point.
Well, the word around the Internet is that Chief Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist will be retiring some time this week. Having a 33 year tenure in the Supreme Court, he began as an Associate Justice in 1971, and became Chief Justice in 1986. Rehnquist is said to be retiring due to his struggle with thyroid cancer that he has been battling for the past year which has left him weakened to the point that he is getting nourishment through a feeding tube after having gone through a tracheotomy procedure earlier this year. A long time adversary of the left, Rehnquist’s position as a radically conservative judge brings up the instantly heated debate over who will take his place.
The talk being bandied about is one of weighing political opportunity in conjunction with conservative ideologies. While it remains to be seen whether the attempt to gather both hispanic and fundamentalist votes will take precedent, the ‘short list’ of speculated nominations has a variety in ethnicity and gender, but seems to lack variety when it comes to religious conservativism. No big surprise there.
There also has been floating rumors about the potential re-nomination of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, this time for Chief Justice. However, it seems unlikely due to age and also past controversies that would immediately come to the foreground.
So with this new development, and the likely controversy we will be seeing in the days to come, I’ve prepared a liberal cheat-sheet for people to peruse, use and abuse at their own discretion. While obviously there is far more information available than what I’ve posted, I’ve tried to focus on issues that I think liberals in particular will find enlightening, interesting and most definitely frightening with regards to the uncertain future of the Supreme Court.
John Cornyn
Current Position:
– Senator, Texas.
The Buzz:
– An ‘originalist’ that would supposedly be likely to reverse previous legislation from the bench (*Roe v. Wade being largely speculated on).
On Abortion:
– Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
– Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
– Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
On Business:
– 100% rating by the US COC which leads one to believe he’s very pro big-business.
On Education:
– Rated 27% by the National Education Association for support of many Bush Administration or similar policies.
On Environment:
– Drill in Alaska; oppose global warming treaties. (Jun 2002)
– Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
– Voted NO on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
– Voted NO on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
On Crime:
– Involved in the controversial death penalty case of Calvin Burdine along with Jones, where the defendent’s attorney slept through portions of the trial.
On Family Law:
– Strengthen families by supporting marriage. (Jun 2002)
– Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
On Health Care:
– Freedom from health care tyranny & more individual choice. (Jun 2002)
– Supports prescription drug coverage for seniors. (Jun 2002)
– Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
– Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
John Roberts
Biography
Current Position:
– U.S. Court of Appeals – D.C.
The Buzz:
– Known conservative but considered a ‘stealth candidate’.
– Former supreme court clerk under Rehnquist
– Under the former Bush Administration, he played an active role in efforts to limit abortion. Roberts argued in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court that “[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.”
– Age 50
From Law.Com:
Yet those who know Roberts say he, unlike Souter, is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action. Indicators of his true stripes cited by friends include: clerking for Rehnquist, membership in the Federalist Society, laboring in the Ronald Reagan White House counsel’s office and at the Justice Department into the Bush years, working with Kenneth Starr among others, and even his lunchtime conversations at Hogan & Hartson. “He is as conservative as you can get,” one friend puts it. In short, Roberts may combine the stealth appeal of Souter with the unwavering ideology of Scalia and Thomas.
J. Michael Luttig
Current Position:
– 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
– Former clerk for Antonin Scalia
The Buzz:
– Texas native that worked in the Justice Department during the presidency of Bush, Sr.
– Caused a stir among legal ethics experts due to running the Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearings after being confirmed himself to the 4th circuit court of appeals.
– Has some extremely conservative written opinions that could cause problems.
– Considered pro-life, and has been active in pushing the partial-birth abortion bans, and openly making it clear that he opposes abortion.
– Age 51
J Harvey Wilkinson III
Current Position:
– 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge
The Buzz:
– Solid conservative record but also considered to be among those characterized as a ‘compassionate conservative’.
– Wrote the majority opinion upholding the right of the United States government to detain Yaser Esam Hamdi (US citizen detained during the invasion of Afghanistan) indefinitely without access to counsel or court. This was later overturned by the US Supreme Court.
– Wrote the majority opinion on Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
– Age 61
Michael McConnell
Current Position:
– 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
– Formerly professor at the University of Chicago and the University of Utah
The Buzz:
– Long and noteably conservative written record from his time in Academia.
– Religious right would support him due to what has been called “sharp opposition” to abortion rights.
– Very controversial positions and some approval from bi-partisan academics
– Speculated that the White House may consider him too independent and uncontrollable.
– Age 50
Emilio Miller Garza
Current Position:
– 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
The Buzz:
– Was considered by Bush, Sr. as a potential candidate during his presidency.
– Very vocal of opponent Roe v. Wade writing two very opinions in which he explicitly suggested it should be overturned.
– Considered to be a great political choice due to being hispanic and extremely conservative.
– Age 58
Alberto Gonzalez
Current Position:
– Current Attorney General
– Long time Bush adviser
– Formerly on a Supreme Court Justice in Texas.
The Buzz:
– Considered the more moderate of the two hispanic considerations.
– Criticized for his memo’s regarding the Geneva Convention and the Gitmo detainees, advocating the US right to hold without counsel or charge, calling the provisions offered to the detainees “quaint”.
– Wrote a memorandum that argued laws prohibiting torture do “not apply to the president’s detention and interrogation of enemy combatants”.
– His writings are considered possibly contributing to the climate that allowed the Abu Ghraib abuses occur.
– Age 50
Samuel Alito, Jr.
Current Position:
– 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia
The Buzz:
– Somewhat of an unknown, but nicknamed “Scalito” due to supposedly having views very similar to Scalia
– Upheld a Pennsylvania pro-life law that the Supreme Court overturned in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
– Wrote an opinion in that case arguing for a standard that would permit virtually any restriction on abortion.
– Age 55
Larry Thompson
Current Position:
– He is general counsel at PepsiCo.
– Former deputy attorney general until he quit in 2003.
The Buzz:
– Bush administration’s highest-ranking black law enforcement official.
– Voted to uphold interstate abortion / parental notification laws.
– Considered somewhat moderate due to a few environmental issues.
Edith Jones
Current Position:
– 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
– Former general counsel for the Texas Republican Party.
The Buzz:
– Extremely outspoken opponent of Roe v. Wade, having referred to it as an “exercise of raw judicial power,” that needs to be re-examined.
– In cahoots with Norma McCorvey, the original plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, and then in 1995 announced she had become a born again Christian and pro-life activist.
– Criticized and protested for her decisions in the death penalty case of Calvin Burdine, in which it has been established that Burdine’s attorney slept through portions of his 1983 court case. Jones defended her decision with, “We cannot determine whether Cannon [Burdine’s attorney, now deceased] slept during a ‘critical stage’ of Burdine’s trial.”
– Age 56
IMHO: Rehnquist fell on the correct side of the decision here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23wire-scotus.html?incamp=article_popular_4
The “office building, riverfront hotel, and other commercial activities” cited in the article refer to Pfizer (big pharma & corporate greed) wanting to get its hands on the property (of working class people) with just a wee bit of assistance from the city through the abuse of eminent domain.
Growl, snarl, and also, hiss. . . . DAMMIT!!!
Well, at least Rehnquist is a conservative, so it’s not like we’re losing a liberal justice. Problem is, it’s an eighty-something conservative being replaced with a fifty-something conservative, who will presumeably live longer, which means we’re stuck with him longer.
Anybody taking bets on whether the Democrats are going to filibuster, absent themselves for a lack of quorum, or threaten to shut things down? Preferably *before* they pass that parental-consent-for-birth-control thing.
On the other hand, it might be just a rumor . . . we’ll have to see.
“The “office building, riverfront hotel, and other commercial activities”? cited in the article refer to Pfizer (big pharma & corporate greed) wanting to get its hands on the property (of working class people) with just a wee bit of assistance from the city through the abuse of eminent domain. ”
This decision made me sick, though it was strange being on the same side of justices I normally oppose. Eminent Domain will be very much abused now, in my city. And it doesn’t benefit those but the wealthy, b/c most of the private development projects are catered to the more wealthy residents.
In our city, the people who will lose their homes are working class and lower middle-class, not wealthy people(those folks’ homes are NEVER needed for the greater good of the city) and they will lose their homes to line the pockets of wealthy private developers who are in bed with most of our elected politicians, both city and county. Corruption will increase.
It’s strange to see some of these more liberal justices all of a sudden concerned about local and states rights though, LOL. It’s the very conservative city government here that will applaud their decision the most.
I’m not sure the Dems should filibuster unless his choice is insanely awful. A distinct choice, since that’s probably a requirement for Bush since provoking the left strikes the White House as good politics. They may be concerned about recent losses and just want to get this over with quickly rather than risking a big loss. They’ll probably avoid a genuinely bipartisan selection, but pick a stealth candidate who they think won’t go all Souter on them.
If so, I think the Dems should argue but ultimately allow a vote. We need the political capital should anyone else step down in Bush’s last term. If that happens, the political balance in this country shifts in a hurry and we cannot allow that. The best the next Dem president can hope for, right now, is to shore up Kennedy and O’Connor’s slots. Scalia is regretably not going anywhere and Thomas was set up to be on the court for decades.
There had been some discussion that Bush might pick a polorizing nominee and distract with a moderate selection as the new chief, say Justice Kennedy. I’m guessing he’ll go for it all, though. The only question is Scalia or Thomas. Oddly enough, in that pairing I’d easily choose Scalia. I think he’s a fool, but at least he’s a competant fool. Thomas can’t even manage that right.
I’ve agreed with Thomas now on two decisions, this one and the marijuana case… its starting to scare me.
Help me out here, I’m Canadian.
Does the public vote in a supreme court position? How are they nominated, and how are they selected after nomination?
Supreme Court justices are nominated by the President. The Senate reviews the nomination, holding hearings in which the record of the nominee is discussed and he or she is questioned by Senators, and then the Senate votes on the nominee. If a majority of Senators approve, he or she is named to the Court.
The people, bless their black flabby little hearts, have no say in the matter.
I don’t understand the “Thomas is incompetent” belief. He’s been perfectly capable in the positions he’s held, including Supreme Court Justice.
True, he’s also been (IMO) an asshole, a sexual harasser, and a right-winger whose decisions and votes I usually don’t like. But he seems competent enough at his job (although not a stand out).
I agree Amp. You can question his a lot of things about him, but Thomas’ judicial rulings and reasonings are competent enough and no less rigorous than anyone else on the court.
I think that there are 2 reasons that people call Thomas incompetent. One is that you can pretty much bank on Thomas voting whichever way Scalia votes. That leads people to believe that he is just a flunky, rather than having pretty much the same positions as Scalia. The second reason is how few decisions Thomas has written (or did write in his early years). Or maybe that’s just what us non-SCOTUS followers heard and it isn’t really true.
While Thomas hasn’t written as many blockbusters, the decision writing is fairly will distributed amongst justices and I don’t think Thomas has written significantly fewer than others. It is true he rarely asks questions during oral arguments, but that could be considered a plus.
I also think it is unfair to say that just because he and Scalia agree means he isn’t rigorous. Ginsburg and Breyer probably agree with Stevens at a higher rate than Thomas agrees with Scalia, yet no one accuses those two of being intellectual lightweights.
Thomas votes with Scalia at exactly the same rate that Scalia votes with Thomas. Yet no one accuses Scalia of being a Thomas flunky, or of incompetence.
Contrary to your impression, my impression is that Thomas is one of the most independent justices, and is politically to the right of Scalia (as hard as that is to imagine!).
The blog Legal Fiction has a good post about Thomas, which touched on Thomas’ willingness to take stands far more radical than what Scalia is willing to sign on for.
I’ve read that Rehnquist makes a point of assigning every justice an equal number of decisions to write. If that’s true, then since joining the Court, Thomas has written just about exactly the same number of opinions as every other justice.
Well, my take on the Thomas as incompetant doesn’t have anything to do with his legal reasoning. Or, at least not the basic quality of it. It is first a judgement that his legal reasoning is desperately inconsistant. This wouldn’t necessarily be a problem for a Justice who acknowledged that their beliefs changed depending on the situation. Thomas, however, picks and chooses legal philosophies depending on the eventual outcome. He claims to be an originalist (a dangerous, if not functionally incompetant legal philosophy) but he is quick to dismiss these beliefs when political expediancy rears its head. As such, he seems to me more of a political hack than simply a legal mind who I do not agree with. He may earn occassional praise for occassionally sticking to his originalist guns against Republican interests. (Gonzales v. Raich for instance) These instances, however, and are exception to his pattern of rulings. Perhaps he is drifting more towards being a true originalist. This would profoundly frightening, but would at least display some interest on his part in practicing a legal philosophy he often preaches but also often ignores.
Further proof of his priorities being political rather than legal is his dishonest testimony during his confirmation concerning Roe v. Wade. At the least, he was openly misleading in a way that would surely make Bill Clinton blush. More accurately, he lied under oath to Congress so as to facilitate his confirmation. That manner of open disregard for the law, especially by lying under oath, shows a profound incompetancy for serving on our nation’s highest court. He’s there and there is nothing we can do about it, but that doesn’t mean he merits a promotion.
I am also deeply concerned by his reputation for being silent during questioning. This is a vitally important fuction of the court and Thomas largely abstains from it. The possibile reasons why simply again point to incompetant. Either he is functionally incompetant, which I see no reason to think is true, or he has already made up his mind and his interested in probing the issue further. Even for the purpose of demonstrating his beliefs and trying to sway fellow justices. Such a disinterest in the process would be entirely unbecoming a Chief Justice.
Oh, and concerning Justices agreeing with each other, while Thomas and Scalia do rate quite highly and have long been far and away ahead of everyone else, the latest numbers I’ve seen shows Ginsberg and Souter actually pulling ahead of them, with Thomas and Scalia more in line with the pairs O’Connor/Reinquist, Stevens/Souter, Stevens/Ginsberg, Ginsberg Breyer, and Reinquist/Kennedy. Their agreement is not a cause for concern in and of itself.
The possibile reasons why simply again point to incompetant.
If you think that competence is measured in terms of how often one feels the need to open one’s mouth, then I am the most competent person here.
Thomas is an active listener. Other people do a fine job of asking the questions that need to be asked; on the rare occasions when the 8 fine legal minds around him stumble over a lacunae in what he needs to know, he asks, but otherwise he spends his cognitive energy on understanding what’s being said, rather than on showboating how profound his questions are. This is wisdom, not incompetence.
trey, LOL….I know, creepy.
Yeah, if Scalia votes with Thomas, does that make him dishonest? I have issues with both in terms of ethics on some cases like Bush v Gore where both had personal/business connections with the parties and the lawyers.
Yeah, I think the Chief Justice will probably be either Kennedy or Thomas.
As long as we’re on the “Thomas as incompetent” tangent…
I am not saying that those who believe he is incompetent are correct. I don’t know whether or not he is. I’m just discussing the reasons that many say that he is. Much like anything else, it’s appearance & lack of detailed knowledge.
Thomas votes with Scalia at exactly the same rate that Scalia votes with Thomas. Yet no one accuses Scalia of being a Thomas flunky, or of incompetence.
Image. Scalia is widely viewed as very, very smart. Thomas is not viewed that way. Scalia was there first. What the truth is has nothing to do with it.
Honestly, at this point I have no real impression of Thomas as a person. I know that I tend to disagree with his decisions as a Supreme Court Justice, but I have no idea if he is competent or incompetent, if he is independent or a follower. My point is that the public image of him (at least in liberal circles) tends to be that of an incompetent follower.
“My point is that the public image of him (at least in liberal circles) tends to be that of an incompetent follower.”
And in Conservative circles, he is considered brilliant and the only “true conservative” on the court. So it is a wash.
I hardly think taking the questioning phase of Supreme Court arguements seriously qualifies as showboating. By being passive and allowing those 8 other legal minds to handle all of the questioning, Thomas is hardly showing himself to be wise. He’s displaying a disinterest in the process and you, Robert, are displaying a desire to spin his passivity into a positive. Its not. It shows that he doesn’t have questions that need to be addressed. Even of those he disagress with. Such passive behavior doesn’t belong on the highest court in the land. The stakes are too high to accept someone content to sit back and let others do the heavy lifting. Passivity is not befitting a leader. Scalia, for all his many faults, has shown an active interest in his work on the court. I will criticize him for many things, but passionate questioning of petitioners before the court sure won’t be it. Its what he’s there for and displays an interest in engaging in the debate rather than being content to sit on his hands knowing the power of judgement rests in his hands whether he engages the opposition or not. Its one thing to have made up your mind. Its quite another to disengage from the process entirely. That is what Thomas does and that is why I find the prospect of him being rewarded for it so odious. And yet, so very much in fashion for the Bush Administration.
Except that cases aren’t decided in oral argument, they are decided based on the briefs and in the discussions behind closed-doors. I have seen probably 20 Supreme Court oral arguments and I’ve never seen one that likely changed the outcome of the case.
Most of the questions are not really about curiosity, but an attempt to make a point to another justice. The oral argument is merely the mode by which the justices talk to each other in public.
I may not be a fan of Thomas’ legal decisions, but his lack of questioning durnig oral arguments is hardly a sign of passivity or “I’ve made up my mind.” Heck, I would guess most of the justices have already made up their minds by the time oral arguments take place.
Oh, I know the oral arguements are largely for show. Its that fact that he doesn’t even seem moved to participate that bothers me. As you say, its largely about attempting to a make a point. I think that’s a good thing. I think a vigorous legal debate is an important element of the Supreme Court and the oral arguements are part of portraying that to the public. But Thomas chooses to abstain, to remain a passive observer while sitting in one of the most important offices in this country. That bothers me.
But, there was also a reason I listed this third. His habit of tailoring a legal reasoning to the conclusion he wants to reach and the fact that he committed perjury in his confirmation hearings are far greater proof of his general unfittness for the court.
“It’s the very conservative city government here that will applaud their decision the most.”
Radfem,
I would like to respectfully disagree with you. A true and honest conservative is phobic about protecting property rights and the accompanying right to be secure (and private) in one’s own home . And, to be consistent to their constitutional beliefs, would have to disagree with yesterday’s SCOTUS majority ruling.
I only hope that we ALL remember which Justices gutted the Constitution on this one when the working poor (who IMHO constitute the truly downtrodden in this country), or the elderly on meager pensions , or even YOU (if you happen to be sitting a prime piece of real estate) are being forcibly evicted so that Wal-Mart or (name your monolith) can have it.
“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms,” ….Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (SHE knows who will have opened the door and rolled out the red carpet for them)
It does not surprise me that Justice Thomas dissented yesterday or in the medical MJ case. I am not going to be popular for bringing her up, but I’d wager a tidy sum that Janice Rogers Brown would have dissented in yesterday’s ruling , too. But I have feeling I know where they are coming from….keeping in mind that smallest of minorities: The Minority of ONE.
It hits me sometimes that honest conservatives and honest liberals have more in common than they realize and that if that common ground is not found fast, we may ALL end up in a place where we don’t want to be.
I can hardly watch congressional proceedings on C-SPAN anymore because the partisan grandstanding and self-serving rhetoric on both sides of the aisle makes me nauseous. If Senator Byrd (that ancient, unctious former KKK Kleagle) comes on, bloviating and waving his miniature copy of the Constitution , I literally have to leave the room. I am sick of professional politicians with their skates in one hand and the grease can in the other and who give not the first hoot about our lives. I want to see some statesmen!
OOPS! I am ranting. Time to go…now…where is my face paint, and where are those cases of tea?
A true and honest conservative is phobic about protecting property rights and the accompanying right to be secure (and private) in one’s own home . And, to be consistent to their constitutional beliefs, would have to disagree with yesterday’s SCOTUS majority ruling.
Yup. We’re pretty pissed, tell you the truth.
(A few of us do think the decision itself is OK on the merits – it’s the whole regime of strong eminent domain that we really hate.)
Two main reasons – as noted, we think its an impermissible extension of state power. Also, we all know damn well that in practice it is poor property owners who will take it in the shorts. The property rights of poor property owners ought to be the most zealously protected ones.
In many ways, the eminent domain decision is a classically liberal position on the role of the government and it’s proper role. If you believe we should trust government to make good decisions about the well-being of the citizens — which is a traditionally liberal view of government–then you applaud the idea the that government puts the interests of the many over the selfish views of the few. Better to create 1000 jobs, for instance, then let 10 families stay in housing that is subpar to begin with.
Damn those selfish 10, buying homes and trying to improve their lives without waiting for the government to create jobs for them!
(I know you were just describing, not endorsing, resipsa. Snarkiness not directed at you.)
I usually disagree with individual eminent domain decisions while the principal of it is one I can see some value to. Also, I do agree with Kevin Drum’s assessment that a ruling against the government wouldn’t have changed things. It Thomas’ ruling on this and Medical Pot are an indication that he’s taking his political philosophy more seriously, that I would see it as a move towards more competance (though the perjury thing still hovers over him). It’d also be a move towards being a more fundamentally dangerous force on the court. Originalism is a profoundly dangerous legal concept if taken seriously. Even Scalia tempers his legal philosophy with a belief in stare decisis. Thomas has let it be known he doesn’t believe in stare decisis. While anyone would agree that stare decisis shouldn’t handcuff the Supreme Court, some deference to it would be a useful temper to an originalist mindset. If one ignores its consequence alltogether, how many landmark rulings would get tossed because they defy the originalist’s confining philosophy? If Thomas really takes it seriously, he can do profound damage to our most fundamental legal rights in this country. If he doesn’t take it seriously, then he’s a hack.
“Originalism is a profoundly dangerous legal concept if taken seriously.”
Stare decisis is also a profoundly dangerous legal concept if blindly adhered to in the face of precedent that is grounded in years of faulty interpretation. Any Justice who blindly adheres would theoretically have had to uphold Dred Scott, and Brown vs. Board of Education would have been unsuccessful.
I can see where Thomas would not be where he is today had precedent been adhered to in the case of faulty interpretation. I am sure that fact is not lost on him.
We can refuse to acknowledge it all we like, but all jurists bring deep seated biases to the bench, many of which may not be conscious biases. Those biases can and do affect the interpretation of law. That is why there are 9 individuals sitting on that court as opposed to one or a few.
Yes, and I already acknowledged that stare isn’t something that can be adhered to in every instances. If a Justice had that attitude towards the concept, they would also be dangerous. If they claimed to have that attitude, and yet disregarded it whenever it suited the needs of the conclusion they wished to regard, that would be incompetance. That’s Thomas’ approach to origanalism. He’s either extremely dangerous or a hack. My judgement is that he’s a hack who may or not be moving into being extremely dangerous.
Of course, justices will have biases. That’s understood. But they are also arbiters of the law and its important for them to justify their bias with a sound legal philosophy. Indeed, to be an effective justice, I think it will require several perspectives to draw from. Any single one applied in all instances is dangerous. Likewise, pretending to follow a single legal philosophy when you don’t is hackery. The other justices, conservative and liberal, don’t make such claims. Thomas does. So either he adheres to a profoundly dangerous legal philosophy, or he’s just incompetant and mimicing a philosophy when he rules how he feels like. These positions demand acedemic rigor and I expect it even from justices I don’t agree with. I don’t expect them to be perfect, either, but Thomas has been singular in the level of his pandering while on the bench. He has, in essence, been campaigning for Chief Justice. I don’t doubt he’s not the first to so, and I suspect others have been rewarded with the post in the past. Doesn’t make it right.
Well, our conservative government loves socialist principles, as long as it makes it rich. That’s what a local TRUE conservative told me. Though I think he’s more of a libetarian bent, imo.
“In many ways, the eminent domain decision is a classically liberal position on the role of the government and it’s proper role. If you believe we should trust government to make good decisions about the well-being of the citizens … which is a traditionally liberal view of government”“then you applaud the idea the that government puts the interests of the many over the selfish views of the few. Better to create 1000 jobs, for instance, then let 10 families stay in housing that is subpar to begin with. ”
A good liberal doesn’t trust their government, even politicians in their own camp. Of course, there are fewer of those around these days.
I haven’t met a single “selfish” home owner in my city who’s faced losing their house through ED or other means yet. Most if not all of them are at most, lower middle-class. Most of them have less income than that. Most of the houses actually are not sub-standard at all. It’s amazing what passes for “blight” these days. An orange grove, was referred to as “blight” in one neighborhood.
If they want to fight local government to save their property, they hold yard sales, car washes and bake sales to raise money to pay a lawyer.
Small businesses owned by people of color or less affluent Whites have been the most impacted by eminient domain in my city. Of course, these folks can go from running their own businesses, hiring from within the communities to grabbing a non-union minimum labor job at a Walmart that springs up during the ED process.
In many cases, it won’t be jobs, if that so-called “substandard” housing is replaced by more luxurious housing “communities” geared towards families who can afford houses oh, in the $850,000 range. High-priced home communities will be a large beneficiary of the local governments’ “restraint” with Eminent Domain.
“Two main reasons – as noted, we think its an impermissible extension of state power. Also, we all know damn well that in practice it is poor property owners who will take it in the shorts. The property rights of poor property owners ought to be the most zealously protected ones. ”
***bolt of lightning hits Radfem***
I agree with what you said, Robert, about it being the poor property owners, whether business or home, who will be impacted most. Or poorer churches, which have also been targetted in my county. I’ve seen it enough.
Why would local governments want to use ED on wealthier property owners? Wealthier owners can afford attorneys to either fight the ED, or to negotiate a better purchase price if they wish to sell. Also, most of the wealthier neighborhoods in my city are zoned for low-density residential. That’s a privilage that comes with having money in most urban areas.
ED is used to force people to give up their property for what actually turns out usually to be less than its market value. I’d like to see a city or county government even try that on a wealthy homeowner. Aint going to happen. And I don’t think that wealthy homeowners who are liberal, would give up their homes any faster than conservative wealthy home owners. It’s a deadlock on which side is better at NIMBYism.
case in point, the completion of a major throughfare which would join two other main throughfares together, ease traffic congestion and provide an alternate route for public safety vehicles, so they don’t get stuck in an impassible bottleneck in traffic that exists about six hours a day. What’s stopping them, is that in the path of planned thoroughfare is the wealthiest neighborhood in the city. But would they give up their houses even for public eminient domain purposes? No. That’s why this necessary thoroughfare is about three blocks long in that direction, before coming to a dead end.
(and rising real estate values has caused many people to sell willingly, especially of late, thoroughbred breeding farms)
Some local viewpoints from http://pe.com
Robbing from the poor
Our Supreme Court justices have just moved us back several centuries into Sherwood Forest. They ruled it legal for the rich to take property (the only hard assets poor or middle class folk usually have), as long as there is a big enough profit to pay higher taxes to the government.
Taking of property by eminent domain constitutionally requires that the property be utilized “for the public good.” Now we learn that shopping malls, business parks, private golf courses and gated communities for millionaires qualify as “public good” because they pay more taxes than the urban or suburban communities soon to be bulldozed.
Though such refurbished properties have now been officially designated as “public,” I expect that Robin Hood would promptly be arrested if he tried to open a homeless shelter or soup kitchen in the yards, fairways or parking lots that Nottingham builds with his ill-gotten gains.
ALAN WILLIAMS, Riverside
—————————————-
Route to corruption
The Supreme Court has just made its second worst decision of all time (“Justices dilute land rights,” June 24). The first was the Dred Scott decision. Now government can take someone’s private land and give it to another private person for development and profit.
Just wait for local government corruption to begin with this decision. The reason we have a Constitution is to limit the power of government. However, in the opinion of this Supreme Court majority, “local governments need broad power…” This is the antithesis of our constitutional government.
Congress should immediately introduce a constitutional amendment to correct the court’s grievous mistake.
JIM PRESTON
Gavilan Hills
BStu wrote:
I’m not sure the Dems should filibuster unless his choice is insanely awful…
I know I’ll be sorry I asked, but what’s the definition of “insanely awful” ? This list isn’t awful enough ?
A distinct choice, since that’s probably a requirement for Bush since provoking the left strikes the White House as good politics. They may be concerned about recent losses and just want to get this over with quickly rather than risking a big loss…
What recent losses ? The Democrats folded on their last cache of Neanderthal nominees for Circuit Court. Why would anyone assume that the Democrats won’t fold again ?
If so, I think the Dems should argue but ultimately allow a vote. We need the political capital should anyone else step down in Bush’s last term.
What political capital ? How does selling out your constituents again and again to an army of Right-wing fuckwits that push harder and harder with each successive victory for more and more concessions creat political capital ? And who does this political capital benefit ? The citizenry ? Or the careers of politicians in both parties ?
Are you operating under the assumption that the Democrats will pick up a spate of seats in 2006, which would give them more leverage with Bush in the event of another resignation ? I don’t know why you’d assume this, as they seem hell-bent on continuing with the same odious clot of “me-tooisms” that got them their asses handed to them the last time that mid-terms rolled around.
Yeesh.
Far be it from me to take exception, but as for the ED case it was not about ED as much as States Rights. The Court did little or nothing as far as changing the existing laws that each state makes regarding the acquisition of property for ED. The point was; is the Federal Government going to interfere with States Rights regarding the application of ED that is clearly spelled out in the law.
As a Republic, the Constitution regards the acquisition and redistribution of property for the good of the Commonwealth as acceptable and makes provision for it. It leaves it up to the States to regulate and establish the laws relative to ED to reflect local administration. The decision simply allowed the laws affecting ED in the case of the homes to stand, or in this case the States Right to establish and enforce ED. It is about Federalism vs. States Rights, not the taking away of the homes for costlier ones, though that is an outcome of this decision.
Having said that, it is incumbent on those wishing to defend the poor as they frequently are unable to mount the legal battles for lack of funds, education, or status to provide laws to protect them and their property before ED becomes an issue. There may be compelling rational that would justify ED to provide a better environment or economy to benefit the people affected by ED redistribution. Therefore blanket laws’ drastically limiting ED is probably not the best idea, rather litigated review and public funding of the process to guarantee equal representation would be more effective.
Michael McConnell is the most fascinating person on the short list, I would like to see what he would do if given the chance. My gut tells me that he would be more independent and very thoughtful. (But then again, I didn’t think GW was elect able either… so much for my gut.)
Blessings.
As I understand it, Gonzalez was asked to prepare briefs on certain legal questions. As I understand it, he did so. As I understand it, he concluded that there was little law that applied to combatants that do not fall within the category of “prisoners of war.”? As I understand it, until the recent Supreme Court case, his analysis was sound. Where’s the beef?
We may wish that our statutes or case law were different than they are. We may be appalled by how the Bush administration exercised the discretion left by the gaps in our statutes and precedent. But that’s no reason to take out our frustrations on Gonzalez. For all we know, Gonzalez may have argued vociferously with Bush not to exercise his discretion in this manner. But ultimately, Gonzalez performed his duty to acknowledge the gaps in the law. This tells me nothing about what kind of judge he would be.
As White House counsel, Gonzalez delivered a message about the state of the law. We may not like that message. But that’s no reason to shoot the messenger.