Free Markets, Free People

SCOTUS is a political branch, not a legal one

I pretty much agree with Andrew McCarthy:

Already, an ocean of ink has been spilled analyzing, lauding, and bemoaning the Supreme Court’s work this week: a second life line tossed to SCOTUScare in just three years; the location of a heretofore unknown constitutional right to same-sex marriage almost a century-and-a-half after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment; and the refashioning of Congress’s Fair Housing Act to embrace legal academe’s loopy “disparate impact” theory of inducing discrimination.

Yet, for all the non-stop commentary, one detail goes nearly unmentioned — the omission that best explains this week’s Fundamental Transformation trifecta.   Did you notice that there was not an iota of speculation about how the four Progressive justices would vote?There was never a shadow of a doubt. In the plethora of opinions generated by these three cases, there is not a single one authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, or Sonia Sotomayor. There was no need. They are the Left’s voting bloc. There was a better chance that the sun would not rise this morning than that any of them would wander off the reservation.

Indeed, if there is any speculation it centers mostly around Justice Kennedy and now, of all people, Roberts.  There’s not much of a doubt on any case that comes before the court as to how either the liberal bloc or the conservative bloc will vote.  Up for grabs, apparently, are only two votes.  And you can expect absolutely tortured verbiage and logic from those two (and others who believe in a “living Constitution”) in order to justify their vote.

Elizabeth Price Foley wants to lay it off on liberals:

Leftists believe that “law is politics,” so they’re not particularly interested in how they get there: What matters, to the political left, is simply getting there.  The ends justify the means

But we all know why Thomas, Scalia, Alito and, oh yeah, Roberts, ended up on the Supreme Court.  The conservatives believe “law is politics” just as much as the left – they just haven’t been as successful at it recently.  There is a reason there are veritable political wars about who gets appointed to the highest bench in the land.  This isn’t some sort of scoop.

It’s a pity though.  You expect politics in Congress, which is why it’s reputation is so … low.  You want a statesman in the presidency.  And you expect justice and law from the judiciary.

Instead, we have nothing but politics from all three.

And they wonder why the people’s view of government is at a nadir?

We all know what “politics” means … and it has nothing to do with integrity, justice, the law, statesmanship or what is best for the citizenry.

~McQ

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

25 Responses to SCOTUS is a political branch, not a legal one

  • I think I’m ready to replace them with a Magic 8 Ball. At least then, we would know *why* the answer was so random.

  • But we all know why Thomas, Scalia, Alito and, oh yeah, Roberts, ended up on the Supreme Court. The conservatives believe “law is politics” just as much as the left – they just haven’t been as successful at it recently. There is a reason there are veritable political wars about who gets appointed to the highest bench in the land.

    Sorry, that is nonsense, McQ. At least as both McCarthy and Foley are using the term.

    Look at how the Collective bloc votes and writes. There is no comparison to the jurisprudence of the “conservatives” (who are NOT a bloc by any stretch).

    IF you mean “politics” inappropriately in place of “outcomes”, I could agree with that to a degree. On the proper Constitutional holding in many issues, one SHOULD be able to predict an outcome based on law. I would hope you would support a judge you feel would uphold the charter of the nation if you were a Senator.

    What you have with this court is caprice, and that destroys the rule of law.

    • Some of them are afraid their next Presidential ‘shout out’ to the supremes at the State of the Union will be negative as Bozo uses his bully pulpit to bully people.

      • If I were a Justice (HA! Like that could happen…), I would not attend any SOTUS while this puke is in office.

        Would that be “political”? Some would say so. To my mind, it would merely be upholding the standing of the office I held against an unprecedented assault on it by Barracula.

        • If I were on the court I certainly would not attend. After being gratuitously insulted without a chance to respond once, why do it again? That ain’t part of the job description.

    • That doesn’t change the fact that politics weighs heavy on both sides.

      • Except completely.

        Who started the whole ambit of “Borking” a nominee?

        Point to the time when the conservatives conducted a “high-tech lynching” as in the Thomas nomination.

        You can’t, of course. There is no “moral equivalence” here.

        And you simply ignored the point about the predicable quality of the law WRT your invalid point about “politics” v. outcomes in law.

        • It has nothing to do with who “started it”, it has to do with what it has become …

          • Point to the time when the conservatives conducted a “high-tech lynching” as in the Thomas nomination.

            You can’t.

          • So your argument is there has never been nor is there ever now a political motive for Republican Supreme Court nominees.

            Speaking of nonsense …

          • Nope. And you are better than that, McQ.

          • So your argument is there has never been nor is there ever now a political motive for Republican Supreme Court nominees.

            Speaking of nonsense …

            I think Roberts, O’Conner, Kennedy and Sooter prove the their selection isn’t completely for a Conservative Apparatchik. Whose gone rogue on the left, Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor, or Breyer? Combined I would say they wouldn’t amount to even one of the above in going against their ‘party’. When has the letter of the law been re-interpreted to achieve a Conservative/Libertarian end?

            Is this a subjective conclusion. Dissenting Judges only seem conservative by Contrast and something is only brought to the news’ attention when there will be a challenge? How exactly does dissent look different when its for legal reasons than when its done political reasons?

            When you can blame the system’s decline on the system, nothing to do but sit back. But if one group is usurping the system, then that has far reaching implications that are unsettling.

          • Name a party that doesn’t have “litmus tests” when considering nominees.

          • How exactly does dissent look different when its for legal reasons than when its done political reasons?

            Seriously…??? You don’t know the answer to that?

            Here’s a clue; look to the LEGAL reasoning.

            Compare and contrast to Sotomeyor’s “drawing and quartering” bilge WRT the death penalty.

          • “Winning” is winning – legality be damned.
            The best part, when they win, it then is pretty much the ultimate ruling in legality.

            We’re clearly not playing from the same rule book, mainly because our goals are very different.

          • @Rag,

            the question is for Bruce. Since he’s decided that the ‘Conservatives/Republicans do it too’. I’m just asking how he can tell?

          • Oh. Beg pardon.

  • So…

    The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can admit his majority decision doesn’t follow the letter of the law, but rather the political expedience du jour (twice in one week); the IRS can discriminate against ‘wrong thinking’ Americans without consequence; the State Department and IRS defy Congressional oversight by withholding / destroying / altering evidence which might prove criminal (or criminally negligent) activities; the Secretary of State can flat-out lie at the caskets of the fallen, blaming the tragic evidence of her own ineptitude on some unknown internet video; the president – after declaring it ‘his House’ – blatantly politicize the SCOTUS gay marriage decision by illuminating The White House in a rainbow of support; the DOJ can selectively prosecute questionable misdeeds while ordering states NOT to enforce established federal immigration law – and I’ll leave it to our fellow posters to add to the seemingly endless list of malfeasance…

    We are indeed a banana republic.

    • Come Mr Tally man, tally me banana.
      Daylight come, and me wan go home.

    • Disobey, civilly of course, but disobey. Every. Chance. You. Get.
      If November 2016 comes around and it is Clinton vs Bush (or some RINO facsimile) I’m voting whatever Ross Perot facsimile is out there and may Rome Burn.

  • Well, before we get too depressed at this recent blitzkrieg of conservative values remember that the Supreme Court ruled slavery was legal in all states in 1856 and that was overturned in….

    Oh, yeah, we had that whole thing we’re trying to paint over from 1861 thru 1865 didn’t we.

    Never mind, that probably isn’t a good example of overturning US Supreme Court rulings.

  • say what you want about the political motives of the right side of the court, but the anti-American pieces of excrement on the left side just gutted freedom of religion. Absolutely gutted it. Oh the christers and fellow dead-Enders in other religions will still be allowed to pay lip service to their values as per the magnamaous opinion of the majority. But actually practice those values? Not in a million years.

    • The issue won’t be so much being allowed to practice their values, it will be being forced to practice values they are diametrically opposed to.

      “I told you so” isn’t going to cover the first case where a gay couple show up at a Catholic church and demand their right to be married under the law.
      Eventually we’ll get around to the hate crime of telling children that “in our opinion” 1 man and 1 woman is a marriage.

      The progressive breakthrough, if they push as hard as I think they will, is going to force ma and pa America to finally start paying attention to something besides Honey Boo Boo,

  • …the Elections Clause says the “times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” And the legislature didn’t sanction the referendum.

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg nonetheless writes for the liberals and Anthony Kennedy that when the Framers wrote the word “legislature” they didn’t mean “legislature.” They meant it loosely because “the people themselves are the originating source of all the powers of government.”

    The Founders weren’t perfect but they were more precise wordsmiths than the average Supreme Court Justice. For example, when they meant “the people,” they wrote “the people.” So when they wrote “the legislature,” confidence is high that they meant “the legislature.”

    Yeah, see, you won’t find much of that kind of crap coming out of the MUCH more law-based conservative justices. For whom it is NOT about politics in the sense of partisanship.

    For the Collective, words are whatevs…