-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Supreme Disappointment
Author: BobR
Date: 06/27/2008 12:25:35
The Supreme Court has been busy the last few days. It's that time of year when these 9 don their robes, listen to arguments, then write opinions based on their own personal... opinions. When the stars align correctly (such as Rowe -vs- Wade), these decisions grant individuals more rights, more freedoms, and more protection. Lately though, the decisions have been swinging the other way.
A few days ago, they decided that the $2.5 billion in damages awarded by a lower court to be split among some 32,000 plaintiffs needed to be reduced to about $507.5 million. Their rationale?:
I wonder if there's any precedent in law for a "1-1 ratio"? That seems VERY arbitrary...
The SCOTUS also struck down the so-called "Millionaire's Amendment" portion of the McCain-Fiengold campaign finance reform law, saying it's unconstitutional because it violates the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. The idea was to level the playing field for poor candidates campaigning against wealthy candidates that use his/her own money by raising the caps on contributions. The upshot of this is that our government will be of the rich, for the rich, and by the rich. One can only hope they have some cake with which to feed us...
Another controversial ruling involves the death penalty and child rape. The court struck down the death penalty for any crime other than one that results in a death. Certain crimes are so outrageous and disgusting that the emotional response is to string the scumbag up by his balls and leave him there to die (be honest - what were you thinking about that Austrian guy that kept his daughter locked up in the basesment for his own personal rape toy?). Naturally, this ruling has plenty of people voicing their opinions, including Barack Obama:
That should produce some very mixed feelings in the typical pro-Obama/anti-death penalty people...
The most notorious of the rulings though, was the willful misinterpretation of the 2nd Ammendment. In shooting down the DC gun ban, the court has opened a whole new can of worms:
Scalia in particular, decided to parse the 2nd Ammendment at every comma:
... and then immediately contradicted himself:
Let's take a look at that exact wording, shall we?
Seems to me that being a member of a well-regulated militia IS specified, while limiting certain types of weaponry is not. What the hell was he reading??
Of all the SCOTUS justices that need to retire (IMO), Scalia is at the top of the list. He doesn't try to hide his bias and how they affect his decisions. He recently blamed Al Gore for the 2000 election mess:
The 2000 election case and the recent DC gun ownership case seem to be appropriate bookends to his time in the SCOTUS during the Bush Administration that saw Scalia and Cheney going on a hunting trip together. Justice is supposed to be blind. Justices, on the other hand, should not be blind to their own predjudices and political leanings. They should overcome them in defference to the law, not the other way around.
More than the environment, more than the Iraq War, more than the economy, the replacement of judges on the SCOTUS is the most important issue of the upcoming election. Let these recent decisions be an important reminder of that.
A few days ago, they decided that the $2.5 billion in damages awarded by a lower court to be split among some 32,000 plaintiffs needed to be reduced to about $507.5 million. Their rationale?:
The court's majority found that Exxon had acted without "intentional or malicious conduct," and a 1-to-1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages "is a fair upper limit in such maritime cases," according to the decision penned by Justice David Souter.
Plaintiffs said the court failed to take into account the damages that never were compensated in the first place, due to the quirks of maritime law and the long years it took for environmental impacts to manifest themselves.
I wonder if there's any precedent in law for a "1-1 ratio"? That seems VERY arbitrary...
The SCOTUS also struck down the so-called "Millionaire's Amendment" portion of the McCain-Fiengold campaign finance reform law, saying it's unconstitutional because it violates the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. The idea was to level the playing field for poor candidates campaigning against wealthy candidates that use his/her own money by raising the caps on contributions. The upshot of this is that our government will be of the rich, for the rich, and by the rich. One can only hope they have some cake with which to feed us...
Another controversial ruling involves the death penalty and child rape. The court struck down the death penalty for any crime other than one that results in a death. Certain crimes are so outrageous and disgusting that the emotional response is to string the scumbag up by his balls and leave him there to die (be honest - what were you thinking about that Austrian guy that kept his daughter locked up in the basesment for his own personal rape toy?). Naturally, this ruling has plenty of people voicing their opinions, including Barack Obama:
When asked about Supreme Court ruling against the use of the death penalty in instances of child rape today at a news conference in Chicago, Obama answered, “I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, six or eight years old is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable. That does not violate our constitution.”
He continued, “Had the Supreme Court said, ‘We want to constrain ability of states to do this to make sure that it's done in a careful and appropriate way,’ that would've been one thing, but it basically had a blanket prohibition and I disagree with that decision.”
That should produce some very mixed feelings in the typical pro-Obama/anti-death penalty people...
The most notorious of the rulings though, was the willful misinterpretation of the 2nd Ammendment. In shooting down the DC gun ban, the court has opened a whole new can of worms:
By 5-4, the court struck down the District of Columbia’s strict gun ban as an infringement on fundamental rights. The court’s historic ruling reinterprets the Second Amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years, foreshadowing new challenges to local, state and federal gun laws.
Scalia in particular, decided to parse the 2nd Ammendment at every comma:
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to protect a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful proposes, such as self-defense within the home,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.
... and then immediately contradicted himself:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” Scalia wrote. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Let's take a look at that exact wording, shall we?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Seems to me that being a member of a well-regulated militia IS specified, while limiting certain types of weaponry is not. What the hell was he reading??
Of all the SCOTUS justices that need to retire (IMO), Scalia is at the top of the list. He doesn't try to hide his bias and how they affect his decisions. He recently blamed Al Gore for the 2000 election mess:
"Richard Nixon, when he lost to [John F.] Kennedy thought that the election had been stolen in Chicago, which was very likely true with the system at the time," Justice Antonin Scalia told The Telegraph.
"But he did not even think about bringing a court challenge. That was his prerogative. So you know if you don't like it, don't blame it on me.
"I didn't bring it into the courts. Mr Gore brought it into the courts.
The 2000 election case and the recent DC gun ownership case seem to be appropriate bookends to his time in the SCOTUS during the Bush Administration that saw Scalia and Cheney going on a hunting trip together. Justice is supposed to be blind. Justices, on the other hand, should not be blind to their own predjudices and political leanings. They should overcome them in defference to the law, not the other way around.
More than the environment, more than the Iraq War, more than the economy, the replacement of judges on the SCOTUS is the most important issue of the upcoming election. Let these recent decisions be an important reminder of that.
