N
NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
Guest
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
God - and Progressives - Save This Honorable Court!
Via NY Transfer News Collective All the News that Doesn't Fit
In These Times - Jul 5, 2007
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3253/god_and_progressives_save_this_honorable_court/
God"And Progressives"Save This Honorable Court!
The Supreme Courts recent decisions further underscore the dire need
to beat back the rights threats to basic fairness.
By Hans Johnson
On their tours of monumental Washington, summertime visitors often
stand in awe of the Supreme Court. The gleaming white building, with
its oath of equal justice under law proclaimed above its grand west
entrance, suggests solidity itself.
Yet far from living up to that promise, the current Roberts Court has
begun to tilt the scales against ordinary Americans while undermining
the basic notion of fair play. In steadily reversing hard-won progress
on privacy, freedom of speech, church-state separation and civil
rights, a radical four-man bloc is reminding people of the
precariousness of standards we had long taken for granted and the
primacy of court appointments in the 2008 election.
Time and again in its term just concluded, the Roberts Court has
thumbed its nose at the principle of an even playing field in American
life and the value of individual liberty.
In Carhart v. Gonzales, Chief Justice John Roberts and new bench
colleague Samuel Alito overthrew a 2000 ruling by their predecessor
Sandra Day OConnor and blessed a federal bill to ban abortion with no
exception for a womans health.
In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire, the pair, joined by the trio of Antonin
Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy, threw out a womans
job-bias claim on the grounds she didnt cry foul fast enough. Even if
the disparity in pay or treatment in the workplace isnt immediately
apparent"even if it remains in effect during the trial"the five men
held that a worker must detect even devious forms of discrimination
almost immediately and complain within a 180-day deadline in order to
have any hope of redress. Cold comfort.
On goes the woeful saga of the Roberts Court:
In Morse v. Frederick, the five men undercut a free-speech precedent
and upheld the power of school officials to suppress even further what
students say.
In Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, the five gutted another
prior standard, going out of their way to shield the Bush White House
from a lawsuit aimed at curbing its payola operation with right-wing
churches. The ruling is a reminder that, were he to drive the
money-changers from a modern American church, Jesus himself would get
no sympathy from Roberts and his right-wing cohort.
In the school diversity cases from Louisville and Seattle, Roberts,
Alito, Scalia, and Thomas again seemed to taunt the nations legacy of
overcoming hate and division through effective state action. They all
but insisted that public servants confronting segregation become
complicit by ignoring racism altogether or pretending it doesnt exist.
Adding insult to the injury of these rulings are the arrogance and
duplicity of Roberts and Alito, whose confirmation testimony directly
contradicted their actions on the bench. As the Alliance for Justice
notes, Roberts promised to be a modest judge who would show
humility through his respect for precedent. Alito likewise pledged
that he would respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied
in prior judicial decisions. That judges, over the course of a long
career, might qualify their pre-confirmation beliefs is understandable.
That two justices on the nations highest court would so quickly
forsake their own promises before lawmakers and the nation is obscene.
Given the gulf between common sense and the rulings of the court, it is
fitting that the presidential candidate who has rooted his campaign in
a pledge to reconcile the two Americas had the most forceful
response. John Edwards deplored the Roberts court for slamming the
courthouse doors in the faces of ordinary people, favoring big
businesses over civil rights, and undermining protections for women and
the environment.
For Edwards, the great divide confronting the nations future is
between haves and have-nots. But in a welcome turn from earlier
progressives, like Jimmy Carter and even Al Gore, who opted for
legalism over populism, Edwards has wedded economic and social justice
appeals in wooing supporters. Both are interwoven in his critique of
the Bush court and his vow to restore balance to the bench.
Given recent attention to the radical bent of the high court, it was
also fitting that far-right former judge and high court nominee Robert
Bork stumbled back onto the scene last month. Literally. Bork, whom the
Senate rejected for a Supreme Court seat late in the Reagan era, has
noticeably shuffled for years while attacking frivolous injury-related
lawsuits. Yet Bork filed suit in June against the Yale Club in New York
alleging that the club did not furnish a handrail to its dais prior to
his speech there in 2006, causing him to fall and wound his leg. Bork,
his complaint states, continues to have a limp as a result of this
injury. Thus fudging the pre-existing hitch in his get-along, the
patron saint of limited liability and toast of the Federalist Society
seeks a million dollars in damages.
Even after the 5-to-4 ruling by the high court in 2000 that installed
George Bush in the White House, Bork remained a martyr for far-right
activists intent on exerting greater authority over national policy
from the bench. Progressive activists in 1987 mounted a wide-ranging
grassroots lobbying campaign that set the stage for critical Senate
questioning and Borks defeat. The campaign against Bork featured
humor, street theater, teach-ins, and even some moments of majesty.
Educators, labor leaders, feminists, gays, ministers, veterans,
musicians, and artists joined together to spotlight troubling aspects
of the nominees legal writings.
Twenty years later, as Democrats eye the presidency, the campaign to
stop Bork holds lessons for progressives. It demystified Constitutional
principles to make clear the stakes of ordinary Americans in Supreme
Court decisions. And it rallied a wide-ranging coalition in defense of
precedents on privacy, individual liberty, and civil rights.
Today, the need to rein in a radical court majority assailing
precedents and basic fairness is more urgent than at any time in the
last century. The opportunity for progressives, especially so early in
the presidential campaign, is to make the courts, like the war, a
rallying cry against Republicans that secures victory along with a
mandate for progressive appointments. The challenge is to clearly
articulate the dangers stemming from the courts rulings and translate
displeasure and distrust into allegiance and activism. The candidate
who does this best will be the next president, poised to restore
integrity to the Supreme Court and redeem the lofty promise inscribed
above its door.
[Hans Johnson, a contributing editor of In These Times, is president of
Progressive Victory, based in Washington, D.C., and writes on labor,
religion and the mechanics of political campaigns.]
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
Search Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/htdig/search.html
Support this work, visit our sponsor http://www.blythe-systems.com
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFGjlWoiz2i76ou9wQRAuGiAJ4iA9Z9JsK9yHLdF6otnHb/i5fAmQCdH6kH
w+aDIOS49kqWDXXsR7bmuS8=
=6ilr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
God - and Progressives - Save This Honorable Court!
Via NY Transfer News Collective All the News that Doesn't Fit
In These Times - Jul 5, 2007
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3253/god_and_progressives_save_this_honorable_court/
God"And Progressives"Save This Honorable Court!
The Supreme Courts recent decisions further underscore the dire need
to beat back the rights threats to basic fairness.
By Hans Johnson
On their tours of monumental Washington, summertime visitors often
stand in awe of the Supreme Court. The gleaming white building, with
its oath of equal justice under law proclaimed above its grand west
entrance, suggests solidity itself.
Yet far from living up to that promise, the current Roberts Court has
begun to tilt the scales against ordinary Americans while undermining
the basic notion of fair play. In steadily reversing hard-won progress
on privacy, freedom of speech, church-state separation and civil
rights, a radical four-man bloc is reminding people of the
precariousness of standards we had long taken for granted and the
primacy of court appointments in the 2008 election.
Time and again in its term just concluded, the Roberts Court has
thumbed its nose at the principle of an even playing field in American
life and the value of individual liberty.
In Carhart v. Gonzales, Chief Justice John Roberts and new bench
colleague Samuel Alito overthrew a 2000 ruling by their predecessor
Sandra Day OConnor and blessed a federal bill to ban abortion with no
exception for a womans health.
In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire, the pair, joined by the trio of Antonin
Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy, threw out a womans
job-bias claim on the grounds she didnt cry foul fast enough. Even if
the disparity in pay or treatment in the workplace isnt immediately
apparent"even if it remains in effect during the trial"the five men
held that a worker must detect even devious forms of discrimination
almost immediately and complain within a 180-day deadline in order to
have any hope of redress. Cold comfort.
On goes the woeful saga of the Roberts Court:
In Morse v. Frederick, the five men undercut a free-speech precedent
and upheld the power of school officials to suppress even further what
students say.
In Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, the five gutted another
prior standard, going out of their way to shield the Bush White House
from a lawsuit aimed at curbing its payola operation with right-wing
churches. The ruling is a reminder that, were he to drive the
money-changers from a modern American church, Jesus himself would get
no sympathy from Roberts and his right-wing cohort.
In the school diversity cases from Louisville and Seattle, Roberts,
Alito, Scalia, and Thomas again seemed to taunt the nations legacy of
overcoming hate and division through effective state action. They all
but insisted that public servants confronting segregation become
complicit by ignoring racism altogether or pretending it doesnt exist.
Adding insult to the injury of these rulings are the arrogance and
duplicity of Roberts and Alito, whose confirmation testimony directly
contradicted their actions on the bench. As the Alliance for Justice
notes, Roberts promised to be a modest judge who would show
humility through his respect for precedent. Alito likewise pledged
that he would respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied
in prior judicial decisions. That judges, over the course of a long
career, might qualify their pre-confirmation beliefs is understandable.
That two justices on the nations highest court would so quickly
forsake their own promises before lawmakers and the nation is obscene.
Given the gulf between common sense and the rulings of the court, it is
fitting that the presidential candidate who has rooted his campaign in
a pledge to reconcile the two Americas had the most forceful
response. John Edwards deplored the Roberts court for slamming the
courthouse doors in the faces of ordinary people, favoring big
businesses over civil rights, and undermining protections for women and
the environment.
For Edwards, the great divide confronting the nations future is
between haves and have-nots. But in a welcome turn from earlier
progressives, like Jimmy Carter and even Al Gore, who opted for
legalism over populism, Edwards has wedded economic and social justice
appeals in wooing supporters. Both are interwoven in his critique of
the Bush court and his vow to restore balance to the bench.
Given recent attention to the radical bent of the high court, it was
also fitting that far-right former judge and high court nominee Robert
Bork stumbled back onto the scene last month. Literally. Bork, whom the
Senate rejected for a Supreme Court seat late in the Reagan era, has
noticeably shuffled for years while attacking frivolous injury-related
lawsuits. Yet Bork filed suit in June against the Yale Club in New York
alleging that the club did not furnish a handrail to its dais prior to
his speech there in 2006, causing him to fall and wound his leg. Bork,
his complaint states, continues to have a limp as a result of this
injury. Thus fudging the pre-existing hitch in his get-along, the
patron saint of limited liability and toast of the Federalist Society
seeks a million dollars in damages.
Even after the 5-to-4 ruling by the high court in 2000 that installed
George Bush in the White House, Bork remained a martyr for far-right
activists intent on exerting greater authority over national policy
from the bench. Progressive activists in 1987 mounted a wide-ranging
grassroots lobbying campaign that set the stage for critical Senate
questioning and Borks defeat. The campaign against Bork featured
humor, street theater, teach-ins, and even some moments of majesty.
Educators, labor leaders, feminists, gays, ministers, veterans,
musicians, and artists joined together to spotlight troubling aspects
of the nominees legal writings.
Twenty years later, as Democrats eye the presidency, the campaign to
stop Bork holds lessons for progressives. It demystified Constitutional
principles to make clear the stakes of ordinary Americans in Supreme
Court decisions. And it rallied a wide-ranging coalition in defense of
precedents on privacy, individual liberty, and civil rights.
Today, the need to rein in a radical court majority assailing
precedents and basic fairness is more urgent than at any time in the
last century. The opportunity for progressives, especially so early in
the presidential campaign, is to make the courts, like the war, a
rallying cry against Republicans that secures victory along with a
mandate for progressive appointments. The challenge is to clearly
articulate the dangers stemming from the courts rulings and translate
displeasure and distrust into allegiance and activism. The candidate
who does this best will be the next president, poised to restore
integrity to the Supreme Court and redeem the lofty promise inscribed
above its door.
[Hans Johnson, a contributing editor of In These Times, is president of
Progressive Victory, based in Washington, D.C., and writes on labor,
religion and the mechanics of political campaigns.]
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
Search Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/htdig/search.html
Support this work, visit our sponsor http://www.blythe-systems.com
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFGjlWoiz2i76ou9wQRAuGiAJ4iA9Z9JsK9yHLdF6otnHb/i5fAmQCdH6kH
w+aDIOS49kqWDXXsR7bmuS8=
=6ilr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----