home

John Roberts Update

By Jeralyn, Section John Roberts
Posted on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 09:41:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

My latest "Scoring Scotus" update is on Eric Alterman's Altercation today.

One more note: Legal Times reports that Judge Robert's nomination has been two decades in the making and is the flower of the Reagan revolution.

The results have been telling: a reined in commerce clause diminishing Congress' ability to regulate, sweeping state immunity from most private lawsuits, an increasing emphasis on state and individual rights, and, ironically, a smaller Supreme Court docket as appellate courts fall in line with current Court sympathies.

While conservatives label these developments as classic examples of restraining the power of the federal government and the judiciary, liberals see something very different -- an activist, right-wing judiciary shaping the courts to conservative standards.

"The conservative seizing of political power is part of a very broad vision to change the culture of the United States," notes New Democratic Network President Simon Rosenberg. "The federal judiciary fits into the context of the broader march."

< And Another ... | Third Prosecutor Abandons Gitmo Trials >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    John Roberts Update | 5 comments (5 topical)
    Re: John Roberts Update (none / 0) (#1)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:52 PM EST
    The Kelo decision pretty well defines where the court is, now. And, with no change, these types of decisions will continue. Perhaps having a judicary that approves government taking private property and giving it to another private person suits you. To me, I am just reminded of corrupt leaders in Africa siezing land and "re-distributing" it. So change is necessary. Check the credentials of those voting "for" Kelo.

    Re: John Roberts Update (none / 0) (#2)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:53 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but I fail to see the
    ...reined in commerce clause diminishing Congress' ability to regulate ... increasing emphasis on state and individual rights.
    Did I miss something? Quite frankly, I'm a bit confused on what conservative means in selecting a judiciary these days. Does it mean
    1. Protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (and thereby the people) from the over-reach of the Legislative and Executive branches? (If so, I'm for it.)
    2. Deferring to the Legislature? (If so, I'm against it.)
    3. Re-crafting the constitution to fit a particular set of right wing religious viewpoints? (against, of course)
    Re: John Roberts Update (none / 0) (#3)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:53 PM EST
    Pete G - Tell me what you think Kelo was. Thanks

    Re: John Roberts Update (none / 0) (#4)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:53 PM EST
    PPJ, the Supreme Court held that governments may take private property and hand it over to another private owner as long ago as 1954. That power wasn't created by the Kelo decision. In Kelo the moderates on the court decided not to interfere in a legislature's decision about the use of the power of eminent domain. If I recall, you folks who don't like "activist" judges want them to keep their noses out of legislative decisions, don't you? Or does the definition of "activisim" change to suit your stand on any given issue?

    Re: John Roberts Update (none / 0) (#5)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:53 PM EST
    PPJ, Seems to me that Kelo was partly about deferring to the legislature at the expense of the constitution and the people. I don't care if a judge is liberal or conservative in his/her views. What I want to know is.. are they working for the people or for the government? Are they willing to serve as a check on the over-reach of government? Will they protect my rights as an individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Will they recognize that there are rights that aren't enumerated in the constitution? Do they know what the 9th and 10th amendments are? Are they aware that privacy is a basic right that acts as a foundation for every part of the constitution even if the word isn't specifically mentioned? These are the questions I have for Roberts.

    John Roberts Update | 5 comments (5 topical)