Politics on the bench - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 10-04-2010, 03:49 PM

I'm going to link two separate articles because I feel they each are important takes on the issue of politics in the SCOTUS from slightly different directions.

The first article is on it's face about Citizens United, but more deeply is about the question of the roles of corporations in the United States and how the SCOTUS answers that question.

Quote:

First Monday

The Supreme Court enjoys all but free rein in selecting which cases to review. From the end of one term in the summer until the start of the next, on the first Monday in October, the work of the court is to sift through thousands of petitions from parties that lost in one of the federal appeals courts or highest state courts and are eager for the justices to reverse their fate.

The kinds of petitioners favored say a lot about the court’s interests and biases. The Warren court, eager to champion individual rights, chose a large number of petitions from downtrodden people. The Rehnquist court, looking for opportunities to vindicate states’ rights, favored petitions from the states.

The Roberts court has championed corporations. The cases it has chosen for review this term suggest it will continue that trend. Of the 51 it has so far decided to hear, over 40 percent have a corporation on one side. The most far-reaching example of the Roberts court’s pro-business bias was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, the conservative justices overturned a century of precedent to give corporations, along with labor unions, an unlimited right to spend money in politics.

Equally striking is that the court reached far beyond what the parties had argued, to make a sweeping change in constitutional law. It could have upheld the right of the conservative nonprofit group to show an anti-Hillary Clinton movie on a video-on-demand service during the primary season — without opening the door to a new era of political corruption.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/op...1.html?_r=1&hp

The second article is about the question of the appearance of conservative theory/ideology in the behavior of the SCOTUS.

Quote:

It's dark and silent. Reporters trickle into the grand ceremonial room from a door on the left; like everyone, they've been instructed that no recording devices of any sort are allowed. A clutch of spectators, some of whom have been waiting for hours, enters at the rear. At 10 a.m. on the dot, never earlier and never later, the marshal utters her incantation: "The honorable, the chief justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States." Then they file, from behind the velvet curtain, wearing long black robes; they sit behind a tall dais, sipping water from silver cups. Silent footmen glide back and forth bearing thick books. For the justices, it's a typical oral argument day, but if you didn't know better, you'd think you were watching the initiation into Harry Potter's school for wizards, Hogwarts; or, better yet, the Penn and Teller show at the MGM Grand in Vegas. Magic, mystery, and hush everywhere you look.

The metaphor is more than apt. There's another, newer, layer of illusion at work at the highest court of the land. Under the stewardship of its boyish chief justice, John Roberts, the court has taken the law for a sharp turn to the ideological right, while at the same time masterfully concealing it. Virtually every empirical study confirms this rightward turn. Yet recent public opinion polls indicate Americans continue to see a bench that is, if anything, a wee bit too liberal.

How to explain the justices shoving the law rightward, while everyone thinks it is dead center or too far left? The answer is that Roberts is a brilliant magician. He and his four fellow conservative justices have worked some classic illusionist tricks to distract us from seeing the truth. Roberts is likely the first chief justice to understand that the message matters as much as the outcome. He has played his role with consummate skill, allowing the law to shape-shift before our very eyes, even as he and his fellow conservatives claim that nothing is happening.

How the Roberts Court disguises its conservatism. - By Barry Friedman and Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

I've only posted parts of each article, I hope you'll read them both in their entirety because I feel they touch on some important information and, obviously, present interesting opinions based on the information.

My understanding of the Supreme Court is that, in theory, it's intended to be apolitical. While justices are nominated and confirmed by politicians, but they do not themselves run for office or represent a political party. They really can't if they're going to do their jobs. While obvious they can have personal political affiliations, in their role as the highest judicial body in the land requires a certain objectivity and a certain disconnection from politics. Their job is the objective interpretation of the law.

I think you can tell from the choice of articles I've linked that I have concerns about the presence of politics on the bench, but I want to get your take on this. Have you concluded that the current bench is political? Have you concluded they're apolitical? Or are you undecided? I'd like to get feedback on this because if I'm right (it's been known to happen) this could mean trouble.

ASU2003 · 10-04-2010, 09:49 PM

Penn & Teller play at the Rio hotel...

They have been political as far back as I can remember. And I don't think that you will see any 9-0 or 8-1 cases when moral issues that there are no laws come up.

I really think they need to come up with a policy for what happens if one of them dies because of a terrorist from the other party that is in power takes a few of them out that don't agree with them.

dksuddeth · 10-05-2010, 11:43 AM

pure crap, all of it, and not just from these leftist authors either.

both left and right are pure ideology, especially on the courts. it will soon turn the constitution into a handy wipe.

dc_dux · 10-07-2010, 02:40 PM

I do find it a tad disingenuous when the right talks about an "activist" court when the Rehnquist court was one of the most activists courts ever in ignoring or overturning precedent and/or ignoring the intent of Congress...followed by the current Roberts court's activism in overturning several precedents to give rights to corporations in the Citizens United decision.

dksuddeth · 10-08-2010, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I do find it a tad disingenuous when the right talks about an "activist" court when the Rehnquist court was one of the most activists courts ever in ignoring or overturning precedent and/or ignoring the intent of Congress...followed by the current Roberts court's activism in overturning several precedents to give rights to corporations in the Citizens United decision.

with all due respect, corporations were given rights long before the roberts court.

dc_dux · 10-08-2010, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

with all due respect, corporations were given rights long before the roberts court.

The Citizens United decision overturned two precedents on corporate spending on political campaigns.

dksuddeth · 10-09-2010, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The Citizens United decision overturned two precedents on corporate spending on political campaigns.

agreed, but that's not what my statement was about.

10-04-2010, 09:49 PM	#2 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	Penn & Teller play at the Rio hotel... They have been political as far back as I can remember. And I don't think that you will see any 9-0 or 8-1 cases when moral issues that there are no laws come up. I really think they need to come up with a policy for what happens if one of them dies because of a terrorist from the other party that is in power takes a few of them out that don't agree with them. Last edited by ASU2003; 10-04-2010 at 09:53 PM..

10-05-2010, 11:43 AM	#3 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	pure crap, all of it, and not just from these leftist authors either. both left and right are pure ideology, especially on the courts. it will soon turn the constitution into a handy wipe. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

10-07-2010, 02:40 PM	#4 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I do find it a tad disingenuous when the right talks about an "activist" court when the Rehnquist court was one of the most activists courts ever in ignoring or overturning precedent and/or ignoring the intent of Congress...followed by the current Roberts court's activism in overturning several precedents to give rights to corporations in the Citizens United decision. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire