July 1, 2007
THE OFFICIAL END OF THE '70S:
High court has entered a new era: The chief justice, with help from fellow Bush appointee Alito, carries big rulings to the right -- a generational shift. (David G. Savage, July 1, 2007, LA Times)
In just his second term, the 52-year-old chief justice wrested control from the 87-year-old John Paul Stevens, the remaining justice who served on the court during its liberal era. Roberts was able to prevail because of the key votes cast by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., 57, who last year succeeded centrist Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.Roberts and Alito were appointed by President Bush.
And though Bush may fall short of creating a permanent GOP political majority in Washington, his selection of the two justices appears to have cemented his legacy of a long-term conservative majority on the high court.
Conservatives saw the rulings as historic and overdue.
"These are the most important decisions on the use of race since Brown vs. Board of Education," said Sharon Browne, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento. "The high court has decided correctly that children must not be stereotyped by the color of their skin, but treated as individuals."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) saw the campaign funding decision as "a victory for the 1st Amendment and political debate."
Liberals, including some on the high court, sounded an alarm.
"It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much," Justice Stephen G. Breyer, 68, said in the courtroom on the final day of the term.
Said Steven R. Shapiro, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union: "The Roberts court has moved with lightning speed to roll back fundamental rights. Having begun with a promise to respect precedent and seek consensus, the Roberts court has so far done neither."
It's just a return to the precedent and consensus of the Founding from the anti-constitutional phase of the Warren/Burger Courts. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 1, 2007 7:31 AM
I read Parents Involved v. The School District last night. A real page-turner
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-908.ZS.html
Now what is so thrilling about about the Roberts opinion is the way he uses precedent. Surprise! The man thinks like a Catholic and not like a Marxist.
A law is a rule of reason promulgated by lawful authority, of general application and aimed at the common good. To a Marxist, it is an act of the holder of state power aimed at advancing the interests of a particular class.
The opinion of the court follows the Thomistic conception of law. The precedents are all followed, strictly, as rules of general application. The law is what it is, without regard to the politics of the parties.
The dissenting rants are following the Marxist paradigm. What mattered to them was whose ox was being gored.
Posted by: Lou Gots at July 1, 2007 8:55 AM
Well said Lou.
Posted by: genecis at July 1, 2007 9:27 AM"roll back fundamental rights" Which are?
How about the right of a child to have a decent education instead of the right of an incompetent teacher to gain life time employment?
A commentator said school districts throughout the country use the children as the "means" to accomplish the adults' "ends".
How about the right of life of a baby who could survive outside a woman's body instead of the right of the woman who wants to get rid of the inconvenience? Women have plenty of choices: before the babies were made, and 6 months after they were pregnant. Yet, some women want to get rid of the babies in the third trimester.
How about the right of a citizen's freedom of speech instead of the right of a politician to remain in power? If a politician is incorruptible, nothing, not even money, can corrupt him. Yet a politician who demands bribes (campaign contributions) in return for earmarks (tax payers' money) to his money man is innocent of wrong doing, while the citizens who band together to point this out is to be muzzled.
Now, what other "fundamental rights" are the ACLU talking about?
Posted by: ic at July 1, 2007 12:24 PM