While spending my usual fist minutes after waking up browsing news.google.com, I came across this disturbing piece by Mr. Oliphant of the Boston Globe.
In it he says the following :
"The question -- now that President Bush has an opportunity that no president has had since Richard Nixon broke true-blue conservative hearts some 34 years ago -- is whether there is a conservative doctrine that can guide the Supreme Court and bring the country along politically in its wake. If there is, the stakes for Rehnquist's successor, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's as well -- not to mention the country -- are huge."
Now, my understanding from reading over the founding documents is that the Supreme Court shall be responsible for hearing cases, not dictating political doctrine, adhering to, adding to, producing or taking any part in political activity whether conservative or liberal.
So where does Mr. Oliphant get his twisted view of our Supreme Count from?
Again and again uneducated, unprepared and ignorant people are somehow given full
access to our nations press, perpetrating lies and half truths.
However such activity is protected, as is my right to correct them.
Full Story @ The Boston Globe
For your reading pleasure I give you article III from the U.S. Constitution.
Article. III.
Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Posted by Muddy at September 6, 2005 11:45 AMThe left wing is responsible for smearing the roles of the supreme court. This started when the left wing took control of the Supreme Court and began creating laws instead of enforcing/interpreting them.
Since the media is a tool of the left wing, they propagate this misconception.
Posted by: cwilli at September 6, 2005 06:10 PMwhen exactly did the left wing took control of the supreme court ?
(BTW I did not know there were left wing parties in the USA)
Posted by: DF at September 7, 2005 04:27 AMDF, thre are dozens of parties in the US, most of them are left wing. But then...it all depends on your definition of left wing since yours is far different from mine.
Posted by: skywaler at September 7, 2005 11:55 PMyeah that was a kind of joke. I think your democratic party is as much pro big companies as the republican one.
But you've not answered the question ? When exactly did the left wing took control of the supreme court ?
And what king of laws you think the (dangerous) left wing created thtough the supreme court ?
FYI the supreme court ruled against abolition of slavery, because ownership is guaranteed by the constitution, it then ruled for the abolition of slavery, because you can't deprive a black of the ownership of its own body, and ownership is guaranteed by the constitution. Which one of the two decision was a creation of a law ? You tell me.
Posted by: DF at September 8, 2005 01:00 PM"And what king of laws you think the (dangerous) left wing created thtough the supreme court"
Well, two that come to my mind right off are the rulings on abortion and prayer in school. It should be decisions made on a state by state basis. However, in 1973 the United States supreme court took it upon themselves to take away the right to live from an unborn baby (who is obviously alive - growing and developing in the womb).
In 1962, it was decided that schools could no longer recite a given prayer in scool. Though, I see their point, at the same time, the schools couuld have easily (and maybe they did...I wasn't alive back then so I don't know) given their students a choice on whether or not they (the students) wanted to participate. In either case, it should have been decided on a state by state basis and not on the federal level.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at September 8, 2005 11:15 PMIf you need left-wing supreme court created laws, you need look no further than Kelo v. New London.
Posted by: skywalker at September 9, 2005 01:24 AMMy question was can't you easily identify some right wing decisions that created laws ?
For instance about slavery, discrimination ...
The 1962 decisions applies only to public school.
If you want to know about differences :
in Germany, they fund with public funds the teaching of all religions. So you can get catholic, protestant, jewish, muslim etc. courses and pray in the religion you wish. (Of course I suppose not all options are available in all schools).
I dislike this option. I think religion is a private matter and the state should keep out of it. I don't think the government should have a say about what religion is official and what is not, and I'm not sure any one can be without bias on religious affairs, so better let it out of school. But I have to admit the solution : let's allow all form of prayers and all religion is OK.
In France public schools are "laic", do not support any religion, and wearing an ostentative sign showing ones religion is forbiden.
BUT
Private schools can teach religion and organise prayers etc. Some public funds that can go to these private schools provided they respect some requirements ensuring the quality of the education. It finances the non religious teachings.
Most of the time though, the religious education is outside the school.
I think that's OK, if you really want your religious education go ahead and do it, but not on public money and not under the authority of the state.
So whatever the decision of the supreme court I believe intelligent legislators could have found ways to ignore the ruling without changing the constitution.
Posted by: DF at September 9, 2005 12:26 PM