Re-shaping the future

[IrishEyes]

As most of you know, our Chief Justice of the Supreme Court passed away on Saturday. By Monday, our President had already announced a replacement. With the impending retirement of Justice O'Connor, what impact could the two new appointments have on future generations in this country? And on the world?

This is not meant to be turned into a Bush-bashing thread. Discussion should be aimed at how each President has the opportunity to influence the country for years to come. Please also include your thoughts on opposite parties halting the confirmation process, and what this means to the Court. Try to keep things in perspective, and think about what your own party would do before deciding to bash the opposing party.

Enjoy!

[Buffy]

If you're a liberal, there's nothing to worry about, since liberal appointees stay so (Brennan, Marshall), and middle of the roader's go left (Warren, Blackmun, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter). The conservatives have to go way to the right (Scalia, Thomas) to find someone who will stay conservative. There has alread been an article in the SF Chronicle about Roberts potential to move to the left.

Here's a great link on who's been on the court.

There is always the potential for "Borking" of nominees and both sides try it, so claims that the other side is being unfair ("he deserves a *fair* up or down vote") are ludicrous. In fact however, unless you're an extremist, you'll probably see that the democrat presidents have chosen less controversial middle-of-the-road nominees, but in fact turn downs over the last few decades have been even and rare: Johnson had two turndowns and 2 successes, Nixon had 2 turndowns and 4 successes and Reagan had only Bork to go with his 4 successes. All this vetting seems to have a useful purpose which is to force the court to middle positions, much to the chagrin of extremists at each political pole. I personally think that's a good thing!

It has also seemed to me that personal positions on specific cases and issues are far less important that the strong polarization that has occurred between three distinct views of the constitution:

• Strict constructionism: the belief that unless it is explicitly specified in the constitution it should not be considered by the court.
• Original intent: If its not in the constitution, what's important is what the founders originally meant at the time (not how we think it should be now that the world has changed).
• Loose Constructionism: While it must be adhered to, the constitution is a guide, and its principles along with the concept that the Supreme Court's role in the tripartite structure of the federal government as the protector of minority rights against the tyrrany of the majority allow it to override popular legislation (like Jim Crow legislation, separate-but-equal, etc.)

This is where the real ideological battles lay, and the court has gone back and forth over the years. The push over time is always pendulum like back toward the center, so it may be painful for some periods, but over the very long term, it seems to work out okay.

It will be interesting to see the war that breaks out when the court overturns Roe. You ain't seen nothin' yet....

Cheers,
Buffy

[UncleAl]

Four of nine Justices are on the skids: Rehnquist is dead, O'Connor resigned, Ginsburg is an elderly half-dead cancer survivor; Stevens will be 88 by 2008. Bush the Lesser could appoint four Conservative Christ-besotted replacements. This would return America to those godly days of AD 476-1054.

The Founding Fathers demanded separation of Church and State given universal European abuse. We have returned to government as faith-based initiative alternately burning witches, extorting alms, and on its knees supplicating a god that does not exist. Test of faith.

Benjamin Franklin donated to all Philadelpha churches and synagogues. He attended none of them.

[nemo]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

Benjamin Franklin donated to all Philadelpha churches and synagogues. He attended none of them.

Exactly. He was not forced to attend any church. That would be the separation of church and state that the Constitution speaks of; as opposed to the common view that the Constitution requires the abolition of religion. An interesting explaination from an oft quoted site is here.

Those who do not learn from history... apparently get plenty of air time on any major network.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by nemo

...as opposed to the common view (bolding Buffy's) that the Constitution requires the abolition of religion.

Um, whodat nemo? Lenin (and Mao too) turned Atheism into a state religion, and would not have believed in the First Amendment either!

Great link! Everyone should read that page!

Live-Free-or-Die,
Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

Politics, economics and supreme court justices go through cycles. We get liberal for a while until that goes too far, then we get conservative until that goes too far. Both sides have their good points and negative consequences. One-sided thinking can not express the whole truth, just the opinion and choices of one side.

As far as separation of church and state I would like to add a strange twist for debate. Back in the time of Rome, rational thinkers worshipped the goddest Rationalis, ie., the goddess of reason. I am not 100% sure of the spelling. If our goverment is based on reason it would violate separation of church and state because it would be worshipping Rationalis. That is why polititions are usually very one-sided (not being reasonable). If somebody decided to resurrect Rationalis religion worship, (it was a valid religion during the time of Buddism, Christianity, Judism, etc,) than the government could not fund anything based on reason because it would violate separation of church and state. I bring this odd angle up only because we have gotten too petty about Church and State and need to be less insecure about the superficial trimmings of faith.

[Southtown]

Ditto that nemo. I posted more regarding the seperation.

I'd respond to UncleAl's rant, but I tire quickly of chasing the hit-and-runs. You can't talk to someone who's not listening.

Regarding the judges, blocking confirmation is childish and counter-productive, no matter which side is guilty of it. The checks-and-balances designed into the system are 1) the Senate vote, 2) the filibuster's non-stop debate (when used properly) to make any issues known, and 3) the fact that the court contains members of both parties.

The obstacles to the design are 1) underhanded stall tactics (the system is slow and impotent enough already) such as filibuster abuse, and 2) the fact that the court doesn't follow the law anymore but makes it, circa 1803, usurping the purpose of the elected legislators, and the whole political process where the people are involved. We now have a dictatorship of nine, hence all the fuss over these glorified-lawyers.

[nemo]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Lenin (and Mao too) turned Atheism into a state religion, and would not have believed in the First Amendment either!

That's what I was trying to get at - any _forced_ religion (or the forced absence thereof) is barred by the Constitution. The contemporary view that Christmas decorations on a school bus are illegal has no base in the Constitution.

My personal views on the subject of the Constitution are that the 10th Amendment is not a hoax, and that the Constitution is a living document - if the issue is worth changing the Constitution, then do so; otherwise measure it with the Constitution as it stands now. If the Constitution does not address your implied right to worship your God, stand on your head or eat a bologna sandwich on Thursday, then it is not unconstitutional . Local laws are another story, but this thread is about the Supreme Court, so that's where this particular rant will stay.

Thanks, by the way, I like that site too.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by nemo

The contemporary view that Christmas decorations on a school bus are illegal has no base in the Constitution.

Well, here's the catch: it does depend on who's putting them up there: if it is sanctioned or authorized by the school administration or faculty, there is a need to provide equal access, or it *is* showing favoritism. Most public schools now have gone completely non-denominational around the holidays, but my daughter used to go to a private school that was 1/3 Jewish and about 1/10th black, and during the holidays there was proportional representation of the songs in the "winter concert" for Haunukah and Kwanzaa. When we left there had been a big influx of Indian and Chinese families and increasing pressure for Hindu and Buddist representation. Although this was a pretty liberal school there were still a few fundamentalist families who were horrified that in this great "Christian Nation" that they were being "discriminated against" by taking away time for Christmas.

In a private school, you really only have to listen to the parents, in a public school, all of a sudden any crackpot religion off the street can demand equal time. Now in "middle America" this isn't much of a problem *because* of the fact that the interpretation of the establishment clause has leaned toward prohibition, but this is one of those "beware of the law of unintended consequences" situations. Its a fact that Scientology is salivating over this possible future, and they already have an education division that until recently had the outsourcing contract in the San Francisco school district for drug and alcohol education until the link was discovered and they were terminated.

Even the pro-religion-in-school crowd has caught this trend, and recently you've been able to see more and more of the "we're a (Judeo-) Christian nation, so we'll tolerate the Jews and if you really twist our arms, limited Muslim beliefs, but the rest are all cults and can reasonably be limited" which is about as far from what the First amendment says as you can get. But it certainly is a can of worms. Moreover, most of the things that these folks want to push does go straight to establishment: prayers at sponsored or official events (e.g. football games), and even "non-denominational" prayer can get you in trouble unless you go through contortions that even the pro-religion folks have problems with like "we thank God or the Gods" (hey some folks have polytheistic religions, you gonna discriminate against them? By the way, pointing out that yes, the pledge is on dangerous ground...it assumes monotheism).

I personally don't have a problem with kids praying (hey, they all do before finals!) on their own, or moments of silence or whatever, but I will point out that school is a horrible place for those who are not in the "in" crowd, and if you're the only Jewish kid in a high school where the coach invokes Christ whenever possible, you'd better be ten times better than anyone else if you want to make the team, or not be hazed mercilessly. I've seen that sort of cruelty ruin people for life because the administration couldn't see what was wrong with it. If you've been reading the news, this sort of thing just blew up at the Air Force Academy, and its really ugly.

The question you really have to ask is, at what point does letting the majority religion have "proportional representation" create an atmosphere where being a minority is an excuse for exclusion and even abuse even when the "actual" abuse is not "sanctioned," only an environment which brings it out.

Cheers,
Buffy

[nemo]

Originally Posted by Buffy

The question you really have to ask is, at what point does letting the majority religion have "proportional representation" create an atmosphere where being a minority is an excuse for exclusion and even abuse even when the "actual" abuse is not "sanctioned," only an environment which brings it out.

Good question. I find myself wondering at what point does being the minority allow you to control the majority by virtue of potential discrimination claims from the minority? We've both seen that happen. When one <insert ethnic / religious / sexual affiliation> person joins a group of <insert different ethnic / religious / sexual affiliation> people, everyone is supposed to act and think differently - else they are being oppressive, abusive or discriminatory. Nobody is pushing for separate-but-equal idiocy, but the ability of a single person to effectively govern the majority through the threat of discrimination claims has outpaced any proportional representation formerly required; it is now far more effective to be in a minority of some kind than the majority.

Abuse is bad. Tolerance is good. The road goes both ways.