alito.

rogneeb · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:07 pm **Posts:** 12618

if you want to lay blame for the gradual erosion of "rights" that were previously held to be untouchable - you are going to have ot go back about one hundred years and smack around Oliver Wendell Holmes and the other legal realists.

or we need to nominate a dem who can win.

PopTodd · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:17 pm

Derek Phillips Wrote:

Not knowing everyone's political persuasion, I have to say I'm a little baffled by the lack of interest in this nomination from all but the hardcore lefties. Is Alito going to march into the Supreme Court and start enslaving blacks and forcing women into submissive roles? No. But in a stable democracy there are rarely grand, sweeping events like that. Instead, we have the slow, but steady erosion of policy, laws, and principles. When it comes from the legislature, there's always the opportuinty to vote out the Greedheads and war mongers (tip o' the hat to the Good Doctor). But Court appointments are for life. You can bet that many of the ideals progressives hold dear will be dismantled by a right-leaning Court.

And none of us should be surprised. We elected a guy who said he'd do just that. We RE-elected him, even.

Ain't democracy fun?

Well-put, Derek.
Even as a left-leaning bleeding heart, I do not want to see the court skewed too far -- in either direction. Something like that has the potential to undermine a lot of our political system.

What did we learn in 5th Grade Civics?
The system of checks and balances.
A court pitched too far in either direction throws the balance off, both metaphorically and in a very real way.

HaqDiesel · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:19 pm

PopTodd Wrote:

What did we learn in 5th Grade Civics?
The system of checks and balances.
A court pitched too far in either direction throws the balance off, both metaphorically and in a very real way.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I don't think that's really the lesson of checks and balances. C&B means that if the court is skewed too far, the other branches can balance them out.

Senator LooGAR · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:19 pm

rparis74 Wrote:

We need to bring the dodo bird back to life

There are so many reasons why I am pessimistic about this, but just read what the 'activists and bloggers' think about Tim Kaine and understand why the dark side starts to look real good.

Cotton · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:12 pm **Posts:** 17155

rparis74 Wrote:

or we need to nominate a dem who can win.

what like Ken Lucas?

PopTodd · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:23 pm

HaqDiesel Wrote:

PopTodd Wrote:

What did we learn in 5th Grade Civics?
The system of checks and balances.
A court pitched too far in either direction throws the balance off, both metaphorically and in a very real way.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I don't think that's really the lesson of checks and balances. C&B means that if the court is skewed too far, the other branches can balance them out.

Yes.
But when all three are skewed to the same side...
And the fact that the Court IS a lifetime appointment makes that tipping of the scales all the more heavy.

The other branches have the potential to shift every couple of years if we don't like the way things are going. Not so with the courts.
It needs to stay balanced.
And this is just horrendous timing.

greezy · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:34 pm

and a court skewed too far to the right is one that doesn't provide an effective check on the other branches. the courts have become the primary institution that protects the rights of unpopular people. there's pretty much zero possibility of, say, a bill favoring prisoners rights or the rights of suspected criminals being generated though the legislative process. archaic sodomy laws were still on the books when the court struck them down because no politician wants to cost a vote in favor of sodomy. a court that is too willing to defer to states or the legislature, one that won't actively step in when the will of the majority tramples the rights of the minority is worse than useless. if instead of the warren court we had a court full of scalias and alitos, jim crow would probably still be in place.

rogneeb · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:07 pm **Posts:** 12618

druucifer Wrote:

and a court skewed too far to the right is one that doesn't provide an effective check on the other branches. the courts have become the primary institution that protects the rights of unpopular people. there's pretty much zero possibility of, say, a bill favoring prisoners rights or the rights of suspected criminals being generated though the legislative process. archaic sodomy laws were still on the books when the court struck them down because no politician wants to cost a vote in favor of sodomy. a court that is too willing to defer to states or the legislature, one that won't actively step in when the will of the majority tramples the rights of the minority is worse than useless. if instead of the warren court we had a court full of scalias and alitos, jim crow would probably still be in place.

not saying I agree with this but some have said that we wouldn't have so many people pushing for change in the judiciary if the warren court hadn't gone as far as they did in pushing the boundaries of the Court's role - i.e. - making policy decisions.

but as you say - the tyranny of the majority is, has been, and will always be a problem.

Dusty Chalk · **Posted:** Wed Feb 01, 2006 12:37 am

Senator Top Cat LooGAR Wrote:

SHOCKING NEWS: ROE v. WADE will never be overturned.

Quoted for posterity. I hope you're right, but...I don't think so.

alito.

Who is online