If you try brainstorming some of the reasons why a John Kerry presidency would have been good for our country, one item around the top of the list should be the judiciary. Had Kerry won Ohio, the Supreme Court would be two seats more progressive. A number of within the last year, including the one on abortion, would have gone the other way.
In an effort to prevent the court from going even more to the right, Senator (D-NY) is putting his food down:
New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democraticleadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S.Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinarycircumstances.â€
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,†Schumer told theAmerican Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The SupremeCourt is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see JusticeStevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by anotherAlito.â€
Because after all, why should Schumer or any other Democratic Senator be afraid of a President with 25% approval?
History was made today as our Supreme Court upheld the first ever ban on abortion, specifically partial-birth abortion. The ruling was upheld by a bitterly divided 5-4 decision. As you might have expected, Bush's two appointees were with the majority on this one.
The says:
Today's ruling may signal the court's willingness to uphold additionalrestrictions, such as state laws requiring a woman to be told that herfetus is a human being, and proposed federal legislation finding thatabortion causes pain to fetuses.
Just about everyone has weighed in on this as you might expect.
:
It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warnedagainst when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts andJustice Alito.
:
...this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of theconservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting awoman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between adoctor and patient.
:
The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweepingprohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to thehealth of individual women.
And of course the Republican Presidential candidates are overjoyed by the move. Rather than quote them (they all say the same thing), you can read all about it at (sorry, I know it's a conservative page, but that's where the info is.)
The Iraq war, corruption and restoring faith in the political system will likely be the three main themes addressed in the 2008 general election race. All of this has to do with American voters wanting a fresh beginning. As Craig Crawford of writes, thanks to the recent that rebuked the President on greenhouse emissions, the discussion about a new beginning could center around the concern over climate change, and how we leave our planet for future generations:
The decision, in one of the most important environmental cases ever toreach the Supreme Court, puts enormous pressure on politicians in bothparties — and especially on the presidential aspirants — to take globalwarming seriously. And with foot-dragging for its remaining 20 monthsthe administration’s likely response to the ruling, it will be up tothe next president to either heed the justices’ call to action orcontinue to do little and risk further court involvement. Also, the 5-4vote in the case shows how the next president’s judicial nominees couldpotentially shift the court’s view to either a stronger majority or areversal.
This still leaves the door open for people like Al Gore. If the former Vice President enters the race, he could promise to appoint judicial nominees that tend to come down hard on oil companies and other big polluters. Consider that versus if someone like Duncan Hunter were elected, who , and gets from that sector as well.
The court ruled 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency violated theClean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new-vehicle emissionsstandards to control the pollutants that scientists say contribute to globalwarming.
The Washington Post Reported: (This is a short article and worthreading)
"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decidewhether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," JusticeJohn Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. The agency "identifies nothingsuggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA's power to treat greenhouse gasesas air pollutants," the opinion continued.
The Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement that the ruling"repudiates the Bush administration's do-nothing policy on globalwarming," undermining the government's refusal to view carbon dioxide as anair pollutant subject to EPA regulation.
Now let's not forget what Bush said in his some of which we have heard in prior State of The Union Address's
It's in our vital interest to diversifyAmerica's energy supply -- the way forward is through technology. We mustcontinue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater useof clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power.(Applause.) We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybridvehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel.(Applause.) We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol --(applause) -- using everything from wood chips to grasses, to agriculturalwastes.
America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.
Mostof the extreme opposition of Global Warming, simply believe it is totally boulderdash,they do not even slightly entertain the idea. They throw out the handful ofnames of scientists that disagree (which most of them do not disagree with theentire issue, just with some of the theories)
Live Science has their take inan article and in another article theybreak down the reasons of skepticism on Global Warming . There are otherlinks associated with these articles, and I would encourage anyone to grab a cupof coffee, tea etc and take some time to read these.
Today, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court delivered a blow to the Bush Administration's policy on greenhouse gas emissions. The court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency "" for its unwillingness to regulate carbon emissions from cars, and that the regulate them:
The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take afresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuketo Bush administration policy on global warming.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives theEnvironmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissionsof carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.
This is a historic ruling by the Supreme Court. This court battle began under Clinton. The Clinton Administration filed a in an effort to force utilities to enact pollution control, especially pertaining to coal power plants. Today, the justices overturned a ruling by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia -- saying that the lower court over-stepped its authority by not recognizing Environmental Protection Agency regulations of 1980.
In a nutshell, since the very beginning of the Bush years back in 2001, the Administration's excuse for not reducing greenhouse emissions was that they lacked the power to do so -- which is hypocritical when you take into account how Executive power has expanded in other areas. Justice John Paul Stevens, who , said the Administration's reasoning was "arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance withlaw."
I bet you can guess which which justices dissented from the majority:
Chief Justice John Roberts
Samuel Alito
Clarence Thomas
Antonin Scalia
I am going to write much more about this today and tomorrow, and give you a glimpse at what this really means for the future of environmental law.
The Democrats' victory in November, coupled with the courage of some Republicans to break ranks with the President, may mark the beginning of the end of the Iraq war. Pretty soon, the House and Senate will begin debating a non-binding resolution that condemns the Administration's Iraq policy. If it survives a Senate filibuster, it will mark the first successful effort to slowly chip away at Bush's wartime power. Little by little, lawmakers will start submitting other bills that go even further to restrict the Administration's ability to continue enacting an open-ended war policy.
Eventually, likely before the end of the year, this will turn into a constitutional show-down over whether the Legislative Branch has the right to block funds for this war. Assuming Bush and Cheney continue to fight it, the matter would end up in the Supreme Court. Although the high court would not be voting precisely on whether to end the war, their decision could end up doing just that. If the Supreme Court rules that the Legislative Branch does indeed control the power of the purse, even during wartime, then Bush would lose control over how long the war could continue.
Therefore, while 2007 may become a battle between the Legislative and Executive branches over wartime authority, the Judicial Branch will have the ultimate say. Even more fascinating, all of this would unfold as each presidential contender campaigns for their party's nomination.
Why cameras should not be allowed in the Supreme Court.
During my experience as a political science student, I spent a great deal of time studying the effect that media has on political culture, and even visa versa. I came away from that experience very disturbed about how some complex political topics get dumbed down to fit our fast-paced culture. One of my concerns centers around our Judicial Branch of government -- even more specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court.
There has been a plethora of discussion over the last two years over whether U.S. Supreme Court cases should be televised for the American people to see, just as any presidential news conference. Certainly, there are a few legitimate reasons for doing so:
Many state Supreme Court cases are televised anyway.
Young Americans could learn more about the U.S. Supreme Court, and so could adults. Judging from the fact that a whopping cannot even name one Supreme Court justice, putting the cases on television might help more Americans better understand that branch of government.
The Judicial Branch will get more coverage from the news networks. The 24/7 political news always reports on the battles in the Legislative and Executive Branches. The kind that happen in a judicial setting are about issues, precedent and the constitution -- not petty attacks on character. These intellectually controlled discussions might raise the bar for lawmakers and the White House.
Even when considering what television could do in terms of raising interest about the Judicial Branch, there is a whole other side to this that worries me.
Everyone wants to look appealing on television -- both visually and rhetorically. In 2000, we watched how Al Gore's intellect and nuanced grasp of the issues was portrayed by the media as nerdy. It does not look "cool" to obsess about things that most people don't understand -- as was the case in 2000 with Social Security (i.e. "locked box", which when you look back on it was not such a bad idea after all). Gore was the nerdy basket case and Bush was one of those funny friends of the family that you meet at a barbecue. So, in today's media age, who do you think won?
To get right to the point, the worry is that judges might feel pressured to start acting differently in the court room. The style of debate would change to the kind we see nightly on infotainment shows like the O'Reilly Factor, which is plagued with after . Remember, the justices are all humans. None of them wants to be made fun of by the media -- even if it is a tabloid joking about how they dress. Why not leave one branch of government as a completely intellectual setting, so that justices can focus on the specificity of each case rather than worrying about trying to sound appealing in a 24/7 news cycle?
Already, the Roberts era court has been very , and has moved in the direction of opening the court to a national audience. But is this the kind of Judicial Branch that our founders intended? Do we want justices Scalia and Breyer to debate as intellectuals, or like guests on Hannity and Colmes? That is what is at stake.
Under the current political radar, which has focused largely on the Iraq war and the midterm elections, the Supreme Court is about to address the most important environmental case that has ever come before our Judiciary Branch. It has to do with whether that must be regulated by the EPA. The Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in December.
breaks down what is at stake:
What's at stake is whether or not the federal government has theauthority to deal with climate change. Given that climate change is themost pressing environmental issue to face the planet, whether or notthe U.S. government can do anything about it is a damn importantquestion. The court will decide two questions. Does the Clean Air Actgive the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulategreenhouse gases? If it gives EPA that authority, can EPA avoidexercising that authority simply because it doesn't want to? Ouranswers to those two questions are yes and no respectively.
Also, at stake is whether the auto industry will be forced by the U.S. government to start backing new green technology. Gee, it makes you wish that Al Gore had been President -- then instead of Roberts and Alito, he would have nominated two pro-environment Supreme Court justices.
Last night on the Colbert Report, host Steven Colbert underscored how stupid any Republican would look if they attacked Cindy Sheehan or any of those war veterans who are running for Congress as Democrats this year:
------- Partial Transcript ------
COLBERT: "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country, he won it by standing behind his president. All this bull you anti-war vets have been saying about ending the war is just a bunch of horse dung. All real Americans love the sting of battle. And veterans, you should love it more than anyone else. You hold a unique position in society. You've lived through the horrors of war. That's why you have a special responsibility to be for it."
Absolutely hilarious! This is the only strategy that Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman and Frank Luntz can go on when it comes to campaigning against these war vet Democrats. If they try to do what they did to or , it will backfire.
Even though President Bush predicts that , he recently said that he will stand back and .
Gee, I think I know where this one is headed. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the legality of the facility, then Bush can say that it was not his fault. If the Supreme Court rules that it should be closed, then Republicans will blame liberal activist judges.
Recent Comments