Comments on: Issues ‘08: The Supreme Court http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/10/the-future-of-the-supreme-court On Point is a live, two-hour morning news-analysis program, produced by WBUR 90.9 and NPR. Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:13:42 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Rich http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/10/the-future-of-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1#comment-4278 Rich Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:34:05 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=2588#comment-4278 I'm a bit disappointed that yet again we let the conservative talking point of "unelected activist judges" slide. It may be a news flash for conservatives but Supreme Court justices are chosen by the President and voted on by the Senate and not just appointed by some unelected flunkie. Since we elect the President and all the Senators, we have a pretty direct way of "voting on" who sits on the Supreme Court. And spare me the "activist" bit. They're fine with actual activist judges as long as those decisions are conservative (like overturning Roe v Wade). "Activist judges" is a term that's just code for "extending civil marriage to gays & lesbians". If you recall, that phrase entered regular conservative circulation only when Hawaii and then Massachussetts Supreme Courts decided to extend these rights to gays & lesbians. I’m a bit disappointed that yet again we let the conservative talking point of “unelected activist judges” slide. It may be a news flash for conservatives but Supreme Court justices are chosen by the President and voted on by the Senate and not just appointed by some unelected flunkie. Since we elect the President and all the Senators, we have a pretty direct way of “voting on” who sits on the Supreme Court.

And spare me the “activist” bit. They’re fine with actual activist judges as long as those decisions are conservative (like overturning Roe v Wade). “Activist judges” is a term that’s just code for “extending civil marriage to gays & lesbians”. If you recall, that phrase entered regular conservative circulation only when Hawaii and then Massachussetts Supreme Courts decided to extend these rights to gays & lesbians.

]]> By: Andy Goodearl http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/10/the-future-of-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1#comment-3762 Andy Goodearl Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:51:23 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=2588#comment-3762 This discussion was absolutely the best "On Point" ever. What a wonderful synthesis of smart people saying intellegent, incisive things on a topic that really matters. Bravo to Tom and the panelists! This discussion was absolutely the best “On Point” ever. What a wonderful synthesis of smart people saying intellegent, incisive things on a topic that really matters. Bravo to Tom and the panelists!

]]> By: Ann-marie http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/10/the-future-of-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1#comment-3586 Ann-marie Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:40:31 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=2588#comment-3586 The #1 goal of the Palin/McCain zealots to to ban ALL forms of abortion in America. Period. To believe different is to believe in the tooth fairy. To gain female votes they republicans have 2 talking points aimed at down-playing the importance of Roe V. Wade. #1: "If we over-turn Roe v. Wade abortion will not be banned in America due to states right." If that's true why not over-turn Brown v. Board of Education, I'm sure SOME states will treat Black and White children as equal! Federal Law and the Supreme Court is there to provide ALL Americans with equal rights and equal access to protection. States are currently doing everything to BAN women's LEGAL rights to reproductive options and family planning. #2: "Congress will be a Democratic majority, they would never allow McCain to get anti-Roe judges on the bench". Really? last time I checked our current republican president has bullied the spine-less Democrats into: 1) starting a war 2) ilegal wire-tapping of American citizens 3) bringing down the justice system 4) issued "signing statements" to block legislation 5) allowing America to Tortue........... ****************************Falling for this new republican tactic of denying 50% of America citizens the right to own their reproductive organs is outrageous. Accomodating the religious right's war on women via archaic notions of Original Sin is opening the door to the downfall of modernity and welcoming the christian Taliban to rule our nation.******* The #1 goal of the Palin/McCain zealots to to ban ALL forms of abortion in America. Period. To believe different is to believe in the tooth fairy.

To gain female votes they republicans have 2 talking points aimed at down-playing the importance of Roe V. Wade.

#1: “If we over-turn Roe v. Wade abortion will not be banned in America due to states right.” If that’s true why not over-turn Brown v. Board of Education, I’m sure SOME states will treat Black and White children as equal! Federal Law and the Supreme Court is there to provide ALL Americans with equal rights and equal access to protection. States are currently doing everything to BAN women’s LEGAL rights to reproductive options and family planning.

#2: “Congress will be a Democratic majority, they would never allow McCain to get anti-Roe judges on the bench”. Really? last time I checked our current republican president has bullied the spine-less Democrats into: 1) starting a war 2) ilegal wire-tapping of American citizens 3) bringing down the justice system 4) issued “signing statements” to block legislation 5) allowing America to Tortue………..

****************************Falling for this new republican tactic of denying 50% of America citizens the right to own their reproductive organs is outrageous. Accomodating the religious right’s war on women via archaic notions of Original Sin is opening the door to the downfall of modernity and welcoming the christian Taliban to rule our nation.*******

]]> By: Mark L. Taylor http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/10/the-future-of-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1#comment-3583 Mark L. Taylor Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:20:55 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=2588#comment-3583 Despite my admittedly progressive leanings, Sen. McCain used to be a conservative I could respect. I admired his life story and though I might disagree with many - most - of his positions I had a feeling that he was open to hearing the other side. When he stood up to the religious zealots in 2000 and challenged the Bush Whie House on a few things I felt he had some good and reasoned judgment. But all of that has been blown away by the first major appointment of his hoped for administration - Sarah Palin. Instead of "putting country first" he bowed to some twisted sense of political expediency and bending before some of the most intolerant factions in America. In doing so McCain thumbed his nose at the concept of choosing a running mate qualified by experience and tempermant to step into the presidency and inthe process willing chose to put this wonderful nation at risk. I can't help but think he would make similar disasterous appointments to the Supreme Court and federal bench. Despite my admittedly progressive leanings, Sen. McCain used to be a conservative I could respect. I admired his life story and though I might disagree with many – most – of his positions I had a feeling that he was open to hearing the other side. When he stood up to the religious zealots in 2000 and challenged the Bush Whie House on a few things I felt he had some good and reasoned judgment. But all of that has been blown away by the first major appointment of his hoped for administration – Sarah Palin. Instead of “putting country first” he bowed to some twisted sense of political expediency and bending before some of the most intolerant factions in America. In doing so McCain thumbed his nose at the concept of choosing a running mate qualified by experience and tempermant to step into the presidency and inthe process willing chose to put this wonderful nation at risk. I can’t help but think he would make similar disasterous appointments to the Supreme Court and federal bench.

]]> By: John http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/10/the-future-of-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1#comment-3578 John Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:26:25 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=2588#comment-3578 I take issue with the assumption that if the President and Congress agree on legislation that the majority rules and that the Supreme Court should not intervene. This is the "tyranny of the majority" that the Supreme Court exists to control. I take issue with the assumption that if the President and Congress agree on legislation that the majority rules and that the Supreme Court should not intervene. This is the “tyranny of the majority” that the Supreme Court exists to control.

]]> By: Ronald Kent http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/10/the-future-of-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1#comment-3558 Ronald Kent Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:03:25 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=2588#comment-3558 My view is that the Federal benches should be biased neither liberal nor conservative. They should be independent arbiters of Constitutionality. The direct confirmation of judges and justices to the bench effectively violates the principle of separation of powers - especially so when the President and Senate share a common party philosophy. I would use the existing system to seat candidates not to the bench but to a pool of pre-approved individuals. Vacancies would be filled by random chance drawing from that pool. For this to work, a mechanism would have to be devised to ensure the composition of the pool was, on average, centrist. I want wide diversity of opinion, experience and philosiphy in the individuals, but the courts should average toward the center where the population lies. My view is that the Federal benches should be biased neither liberal nor conservative. They should be independent arbiters of Constitutionality. The direct confirmation of judges and justices to the bench effectively violates the principle of separation of powers – especially so when the President and Senate share a common party philosophy. I would use the existing system to seat candidates not to the bench but to a pool of pre-approved individuals. Vacancies would be filled by random chance drawing from that pool. For this to work, a mechanism would have to be devised to ensure the composition of the pool was, on average, centrist. I want wide diversity of opinion, experience and philosiphy in the individuals, but the courts should average toward the center where the population lies.

]]> By: Sara http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/10/the-future-of-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1#comment-3557 Sara Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:01:59 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=2588#comment-3557 I am hearing Dr. Garnett defending the right of the majority to debate "moral issues" in the legislature. But no one has commented on the fact that legislators are subjected to huge pressures from corporate interests, private lobbies, etc. Why should we allow these important decisions about people's private lives to be so heavily influenced by those who already have access to money and power? I am hearing Dr. Garnett defending the right of the majority to debate “moral issues” in the legislature. But no one has commented on the fact that legislators are subjected to huge pressures from corporate interests, private lobbies, etc. Why should we allow these important decisions about people’s private lives to be so heavily influenced by those who already have access to money and power?

]]> By: Jim Davis http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/10/the-future-of-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1#comment-3555 Jim Davis Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:47:51 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=2588#comment-3555 Regarding the issue of Right to Life and right to choice, it seems this is fundamentally a theological issue, namely when does the soul enter the body. Since different religions have differing opinions of when the soul enters the body, deciding that the time is at the moment of conception is tantamount to establishment of religion in conflict with the First Ammendment. It should not matter whether this decision comes from a democratically elected legislature or a state or federal court. Can the professors comment? Regarding the issue of Right to Life and right to choice, it seems this is fundamentally a theological issue, namely when does the soul enter the body. Since different religions have differing opinions of when the soul enters the body, deciding that the time is at the moment of conception is tantamount to establishment of religion in conflict with the First Ammendment. It should not matter whether this decision comes from a democratically elected legislature or a state or federal court. Can the professors comment?

]]> By: kevin http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/10/the-future-of-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1#comment-3554 kevin Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:47:02 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=2588#comment-3554 Will the liberal court back up the fairness doctrine? Will the liberal court back up the fairness doctrine?

]]> By: Clinton http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/10/the-future-of-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1#comment-3553 Clinton Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:11:53 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=2588#comment-3553 Could you bring up the possibility of Hillary Clinton being appointed by Obama? Personally I think that's what she's holding out for, and why she didn't run as Obama's VP. Could you bring up the possibility of Hillary Clinton being appointed by Obama?

Personally I think that’s what she’s holding out for, and why she didn’t run as Obama’s VP.

]]>