Arkansas AG: "Judicially Activist " SCOTUS "Makes New Law" In Ricci

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 01:07:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel states unequivocally in a conference call organized by People For the American Way that the SCOTUS "made new law" today in Ricci. McDaniel argued that the Ricci decision made it difficult if not impossible for states and localities to attempt to address discrimination in the workplace, their own and private workplaces.

Marge Baker of PFAW states flatly that the Court engaged in "judicial activism" today.

More . . .

Mary Frances Berry stated that the decision is "text without context" that ignored the history of discrimination in the Nation, especially in fire departments and police departments, not incidentally, including New Haven's own history.

Bottom line - rather than work to change the law in the Congress, extreme right wing conservatives cheer. Congress needs to act to clean up the mess the Gang of 5 have created in Ricci. I asked Ag McDaniel if he plans to ask Congress to act. He answered that the State AG organization is not really a lobbying organization.

Speaking for me only

< Schumer Presser On SCOTUS' Ricci Decision | Monday Afternoon Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Arkansas AG: "Judicially Activist " SCOTUS "Makes New Law" In Ricci | 13 comments (13 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

unfortunately (none / 0) (#1)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 01:15:39 PM EST

I dont think the "activism" charge will get any traction because the only people who care are right wingers.
and they only care if it is liberal "activism" and the fact that they are hypocrites is not news.

If the worst thing a politician (none / 0) (#2)
by me only on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 01:36:02 PM EST

is ever labeled is a hypocrite we would all be much better off.

[ Parent ]

: what a sad (none / 0) (#4)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 01:44:53 PM EST

and unfortunately true statement.

[ Parent ]

So what do you suggest we do? (none / 0) (#5)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 01:59:46 PM EST

Nothing?

These people get away with things precisely because liberals and progressives dutifully play the role of deer in the headlights. We sit around and wring our hands in indecision and / or frustration in the face of challenge.

It's long past time we started getting in the face of "white wingers", in the exact same manner they've gotten in both ours and anyone else's who dare stand in their way.

This is conservative judicial activism at its absolute, vile worst -- and if professionally outraged Republicans are offended by such talk, well, they're the ones who like to reference the Bible, so let them realize the true meaning of Hosea 8:7:

"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it has no stalk; the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up."

The Ricci decision was a political decision based less in law than upon the wingers' race-based wet dreams, nothing more. And Scalia, et al., need to be called repeatedly to the carpet for it until their knees and elbows are rugburned.

Aloha.

[ Parent ]

: I'm demanding Congressional action (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 02:01:41 PM EST

overturning Ricci.

[ Parent ]
: certainly not (none / 0) (#7)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 02:05:34 PM EST

I was just making an observation. although I am not sure bashing "judicial activism" is a road we want to go down.

[ Parent ]

They're not hypocrites.... (none / 0) (#3)
by NYShooter on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 01:38:11 PM EST

They're liars....and criminals. And for abdicating their solemn duty and violating their sacred oath they should be impeached, tried, and jailed.

"I, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Supreme Court Judge under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''

What vile, immoral scum!

A couple of things about this decision... (none / 0) (#8)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 02:13:18 PM EST

One, like Ledbetter, it forces Congress to write a better, clearer law; and that it is clearly necessary for Congress to be mindful of judicial activists when they write laws.

Two, I think that it is safe to say that this decision making it difficult to impossible for states and municipalities to address discrimination was a feature not a bug in the minds of the Justices in the majority. That's what they were chosen for and that's how they are going to proceed while they have a majority.

Sadly, I agree on your second point (none / 0) (#10)
by Democratic Cat on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 02:53:55 PM EST

The majority sees no need to address discrimination against minorites because they think it doesn't exist or isn't a problem. So they are purposefully making it difficult to remedy or prevent. It's not an accidental by-product, it's the essence of their goal.

[ Parent ]

: I think you are being kind when (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 04:20:11 PM EST

you say that they don't think that discrimination exists. I think they know it exists and think it is "okay".

[ Parent ]

It seems JUSTICE SCALIA (none / 0) (#11)
by ding7777 on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 03:33:39 PM EST

wants the opportunity to rule on a clearer law

[...]the war between disparate impact and equal protection will be waged sooner or later, and it behooves us to begin thinking about how--and on what terms--to make peace between them

If Congress makes the law clearer, will the Gang of 5 rule it unconstitutional?

[ Parent ]

: I'd say they probably would. (none / 0) (#12)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 03:55:49 PM EST

I don't get the impression that they have high regard for the law.
The war that will be waged sooner or later will more likely be between the Gang of 5 and some Congress or President in the next five, ten or 15 years because I don't see the SCOTUS activism stopping any time soon.

[ Parent ]

AGs draft legislation and lobby (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 02:21:42 PM EST

For its passage.