Patterico's Pontifications

7/9/2007

Linda Greenhouse: Our Side, I Mean, The Liberal Side Is Not Winning As Much As I, I Mean, As They Would Like

Filed under: General,Judiciary — Patterico @ 7:58 pm



Linda Greenhouse says: “Judicial liberals have been playing defense for close to 40 years . . .”

Yup. All they got in the last 40 years was Roe v. Wade (establishing a right to abortion), Casey (reaffirming Roe), Dickerson (reaffirming Miranda), Grutter (supporting affirmative action), McConnell (allowing suppression of free speech in the name of campaign finance reform), Furman (striking down the death penalty), Roper v. Simmons (banning execution of juveniles through disingenuous arguments), Atkins v. Virginia (banning execution of the retarded through disingenuous arguments), Kelo (egregiously expanding eminent domain powers), Raich (egregiously expanding the reach of the Commerce Clause), and about fifty other ridiculous decisions.

I mean, if these guys are playing defense, I’d hate to see them playing offense.

What scares me is that I may live to see exactly that.

P.S. Here’s how this neutral, fair, and balanced journalist ends her piece:

Two years ago, Professor Tribe suspended work on the third edition of his monumental treatise on constitutional law, declaring that the moment had passed for propounding a “Grand Unified Theory.” His current ambition, he says now, is to “teach to the future,” in ways that will challenge the current climate and “make a difference 20, 30 or 40 years from now.”

Now there’s a plan.

I’m all for that! I mean, I suppose liberals would be all for that!

16 Responses to “Linda Greenhouse: Our Side, I Mean, The Liberal Side Is Not Winning As Much As I, I Mean, As They Would Like”

  1. to “teach to the future”

    IOW, to indoctrinate the next generation. The last 30 years of indoctrination almost put them over the top; they own the media, academia, and even political discourse (e.g., Republicans proudly calling their base bigots). Do conservatives have the will or the message to stop it?

    Patricia (824fa1) — 7/9/2007 @ 8:10 pm

  2. The scariest part is that Bush didn’t really beat Kerry by all that much in Ohio, which would have turned the electoral vote. Imagine what kind of court we’d have now if Lawrence Tribe and Stephen Yagman (or whoever else you think President Kerry would have appointed) were sitting on the court right now instead of Justices Roberts and Alito. We’d have the Warren Court all over again.

    Xrlq (c70197) — 7/9/2007 @ 8:15 pm

  3. Not really working too hard to hide the bias … err, objectivity challenged … is she?

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/9/2007 @ 8:45 pm

  4. Man, I compliment you for seriousness and you come back with this.

    Cass Sunstein
    Imagine that by 2030, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have both resigned, and their successors are much more liberal than anyone serving now on the Court — far to the left of the Court’s supposed liberal wing. The new justices believe that the death penalty is always unconstitutional. They argue that the Constitution creates a right to education and very possibly to welfare and housing as well. They think that affirmative action programs are fine, even if they operate as rigid quota systems. They are not merely committed to a right to choose abortion; they say that the Constitution requires government to fund abortions for poor women, even when those abortions are not medically necessary…
    Does this Supreme Court of 2030 seem utterly fantastic and unimaginable — a conservative’s worst nightmare, a liberal’s wildest dream? If so, think again. The court just described is no fantasy. In essence, it is the Supreme Court of 1980… The court of 1980, so far to the left of the court of 2007, was itself described as a conservative court. After all, it included five Republican appointees… who generally rejected the liberal rulings of their predecessors on the Warren Court… What was once conservative is now centrist. What was once on the extreme right — so extreme that it was not represented on the Court at all — is now merely conservative (Scalia and Thomas). What was once on the left no longer exists.

    I think Scalia will have been gone for a while by 2030, but you get the point, even if, of course, you don’t.

    AF (4a3fa6) — 7/9/2007 @ 9:06 pm

  5. I think you don’t get the point.

    The fact that such a Court existed shows what a real possible disaster we are facing.

    The fact that it could be described as conservative shows what a pathetically leftist media we have.

    Btw, you didn’t actually compliment me for seriousness, so don’t feign disappointment now.

    Patterico (2a65a5) — 7/9/2007 @ 9:15 pm

  6. I did pay you a compliment, but I’ll take it back, and replace it with a smaller one:
    You take a step back when you know you’re over your head and risk getting caught.

    You’re in favor of executing the retarded and kids. You ignore Bush’s record of immindent domain abuse (the Texas Rangers) You’re opposed to Miranda.

    You’re a conservavtive from 1927

    AF (4a3fa6) — 7/10/2007 @ 5:40 am

  7. Very nice and offensive AF. Talking points straight from the loony left with no qualifiers based on your time reading and commenting on this site.

    It will be interesting to see our host’s response, if any.

    daleyrocks (906622) — 7/10/2007 @ 6:43 am

  8. AF,

    I see you’re a fan of argument by bumper sticker. I’m not.

    I have discussed my views on Roper, Atkins, and Miranda on this site, in posts easily accessible through the search button. If anyone is interested in a non-bumper-sticker explanation of why these cases are wrong, it’s at your fingertips.

    Or you can engage in simplistic sloganeering. I think I know which AF will choose.

    Patterico (bcb1cf) — 7/10/2007 @ 7:10 am

  9. On Roper I read that it was one of the most important cases that should be reversed. On that and the others [Miranda!], give me a link to an argument. On Raich you weren’t happy with Scalia.

    “Remember, folks, that Commerce Clause challenges to laws means you need to go to Congress, but if you want an abortion, or gay marriage, or a ban on the death penalty, feel free to file a lawsuit.”

    What possible reason would the government have for regulating marriage? Commerrce should be free but the bedroom should not?
    The mainstream on both sides in this country support decisions that have the effect of destroying community and strengthening the capitalist juggernaught. Middling liberalism conflates liberty with government subsidized pity (and not much of it) and the right defends corporations in the name of individual freedom. Who should run the world, Government bureaucracy or corporations? That’s a big choice you people give us.
    The right wing however are the only one’s to argue the relation of the commerce clause to love.

    AF (4a3fa6) — 7/10/2007 @ 8:14 am

  10. The Federal govt does almost no regulation of marriage. What it does do is related to its own tax policy and benefits where the need to decide what forms of marriage to recognize would seem obvious.

    Besides the Commerce clause power, for an issue that is actually a state responsibility, there is the Full Faith and Credit clause power to determine the rules for recognition.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/10/2007 @ 8:27 am

  11. I’m sorry, I should have been more clear. I wasn’t referring to the commerce clause as such but to claims as to when where and how “The State” should or should not be allowed to meddle in the affairs of its citizens.
    Screaming or pontificating as the case may be about homosexuals and trade in the same sentence is just a little bit much

    AF (4a3fa6) — 7/10/2007 @ 8:55 am

  12. What possible reason would the government have for regulating marriage? Commerrce should be free but the bedroom should not?

    The government doesn’t regulate marriage. You can get married without a marriage license. You only need a marriage license to have your marriage recognized by the government.

    aunursa (9c2e31) — 7/10/2007 @ 9:22 am

  13. In what way did Kelo expand eminent domain powers? It is my understanding that it just affirmed long existing precedents.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 7/10/2007 @ 10:09 am

  14. Beware the capitalist juggernaut!

    LMAO

    daleyrocks (906622) — 7/10/2007 @ 2:43 pm

  15. I’m sorry, I should have been more clear. I wasn’t referring to the commerce clause as such but to claims as to when where and how “The State” should or should not be allowed to meddle in the affairs of its citizens.

    In other words, you hijacked a thread on the judiciary by babbling about a political preference having nothing to do with the judiciary. Or is it your view that the judiciary should assume the role of the Supreme Soviet, ignore the written Constitution, uphold every law you think is good and strike down every law you think is bad?

    Xrlq (c70197) — 7/10/2007 @ 4:34 pm

  16. No I quoted Pat on the judiciary and made a comment about his priorities. And yours I guess.

    AF (4a3fa6) — 7/10/2007 @ 8:18 pm


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0666 secs.