I haven’t written anything about this year’s Supreme Court decisions not because I don’t care about them but because I’m not a lawyer and I feel totally unqualified to offer any really insightful analysis. I also know that there isn’t anything we can do about these decisions. I mean, we’re not going to be voting for a Republican for president in 2008, and what else can be done than to elect a Democrat?
I guess more Democratic Senators would be helpful, but we’re going to work on that anyway. So, these decisions are the result of bad things that have already happened and that cannot be reversed.
Still, the decision today that undermines Brown v. Kansas Board of Education is troubling. It was the topic of discussion at tonight’s presidential debate at Howard University. I’ve read a little bit about it and I’m not sure how it will change things. I do feel that it is a sign that the court has fundamentally changed and that we can expect no end of startling rulings that overturn things we have taken for granted in this country. And this court is going to be with us for a long time.
I wish I had a better legal mind so that I could address these issues. I’ll do my best. I just wanted to say that I’m not ignoring the significance of these rulings.
Well, I think these racists should be careful what they wish for. Especially the males because many colleges are turning down female applicants that are more qualified so that the university can keep an even balance between sexes.
Dear BooMan . . .
I have been appalled throughout the week. While not a lawyer, I acknowledge that I am deeply affected by each of these extreme opinions. This morning my heart broke. An issue that hits too close to home struck me hard.
I invite your thoughts on a reflective missive, Supreme Court Rules; Brown Versus Board of Education Reversed.
If you feel this telling would benefit others web-wide please feel free to buzz it.
I also cross-posted the same essay at Booman Tribune. I welcome discussion.
Supreme Court justices can be impeached. Granted, the last time the House voted to impeach a Supreme Court justice was in 1805, and the Senate acquitted him, but in theory, it can be done.
Those of us who prefer parliamentary democracy to presidential democracy would desperately like to see Congress assume its proper role as the preeminent branch of government the way the Founders intended. Members of the executive and judicial branches serve at the pleasure of the Congress.
If the left ever gets a veto-proof majority in Congress, flushing five of the nine justices should be a top priority. If it started at nine in the morning, it could be done by ten.
And yes, I think times are desperate enough to require such desperate measures. The battle against conservatism — essentially, the battle for the liberal, progressive vision of the Founders — should be brought to a decisive close as soon as possible, and the right should be relegated to a permanent minority and given every possible incentive to emigrate to a religio-plutocratic dictatorship more to their liking, like Kazakstan.
Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy for un-Constitutional and partisan action in Bush v. Gore.
Roberts and Alito for having been appointed by an illegitimate president. (You might have to finally prove that 2004 was won through fraud to do this one.)
Technically speaking, Congress can impeach a justice because they dress funny. The Constitution is pretty vague about it, perhaps intentionally so — justices can serve so long as they maintain “good behavior”.
I’d say that ignoring decades of precedent and violating the spirit of the constitution is bad behavior. Congress should also make a point of debating whether conservatives, who are almost to a man opposed to the notion of an independent judiciary, are fit to serve on the Supreme Court. We cannot continue to have conservatives appointed to judgeships (or offices in the executive branch) for the sole purpose of undermining their own offices and doing an end run around the legislative branch.
Considering that the left currently has none of nine, I’m thinking we’ll all be WAY past caring long before this would become possible.
And I have to admit I’m not the least bit surprised by any of this; we’ve known for years that these folks are wanting to repeal the last hundred years of US history, and would do so as soon as they got the chance.
As soon as they get the Louisiana Lynching case, look for the return of Jim Crow laws… unless they get around to repealing the Constitution entire, in which case all bets are off.
There are three sitting justice who could be legitimately impeached for their role in Bush v. Gore. This probably could not happen until after 2009, but it is possible given the way that they are overplaying their hand.
I think that this decision will be welcomed by some residents in the currently lily white suburbs of the North, Midwest, and West.
But you are going to see public schools in parts of the South continue to bus and continue to try to have diverse student bodies.
It will take thousands of lawsuits for this decision to become the law of the land.
And there are a lot of us, black, white, and Latino who are not going back.
It puts discrimination in housing and employment back on the front burner.
I think that this will be as huge as the failure to provide aid after Katrina in moving people away from the Republican party.
I expect to hear the same basic message again and again over the next few years: The Supreme Court will not protect us from whatever evil the other two branches (or state and local government or big business) can cook up.
Get used to it. The Court used to be our guardian angel. It isn’t any more.
The silver lining to this is: Now we absolutely have to get off our duffs and control the executive and legislative branches. We have to be our own guardian angels.
I see something else happening here. The WASP majority that used to run the country has lost its power. In order to maintain some control it has had to form a coalition with Roman Catholics. So they are now depending upon the five members of the court who are Catholics to maintain the status quo.
In a prior age WASP’s actively discriminated against Catholics (see the treatment of Italian and Irish immigrants, for example), so this represents a big compromise.
This is a rearguard action that is destined to fail as the demographic profile of the country shifts. At some point in the next several decades the “minorities” will have enough political power that they can start promoting their own interests. Even today Texas could be have a minority run government if these groups just participated in proportion to their population numbers. The realization of this fact is why DeLay spent so much time and effort gerrymandering the state.
So when a society is about to undergo a fundamental change of this nature it is common for those on the losing end of history to start to take more drastic actions to hold on to power. We have seen this in the actions of the administration and congress and now in the Supreme Court.
What will happen is that the level of civil discontent will increase and sooner or later their will be violent unrest since this will be the only avenue open to those whose rights are being curtailed. Where and how these conflicts will arise is hard to guess, but I would expect that the Southwest would be a good place for discontent to turn into street protests first.
People have already forgotten about Watts, Newark and Detroit, but the conditions that led to those riots are not that different than what we see in parts of society now.
In addition those riots were caused by local problems, now the entire middle and working classes are under pressure, not just blacks.
I hate to see such turmoil in our society coming about based on such narrow 5-4 decisions. Such reality can cause almost schizophrenic back and force actions on such major social issues. Maybe what this indicates is a need for 2/3 majority of justices to change or make new policy in certain critical social areas, if not all areas!
I am in favor of court packing myself. Let the dem presnit and dem congress increase the size of the supreme court. Then appoint judges that reflect the make up of the country – if there are 4 new justices then all of them should be women – at least two of them latino and one black.
Actually it is a mistaken impression that the Court directly overruled Brown. This is apparently all over the Internet plus in some of the media. In fact the reasoning of what Justice Kennedy called “the plurality” is more scary.
You might want to read an in-depth analysis of the decision here:
The Strange Death of Liberal America: The Revenge of Strom Thurmond
Be happy to cross post here if you wish.