Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greta Mc who wrote (4623)	4/27/2001 10:08:46 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

Tilting the Scales Rightward nytimes.com A background op-ed piece on what's been going on in the federal courts for the last 20 years. Nothing that's not obvious to anybody who's been watching, but it's always good to understand how we got to where we are when things like this come up. After W puts another couple Scalia/Thomas types on the high court, it'll get considerably worse. In the last 30 years, one glaring difference between Republicans and Democrats has been that Republicans, unlike Democrats, have been obsessed with the composition of the federal judiciary. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush had a distinct agenda for the nation's courts: to reduce the powers of the federal government; scale back the rights of those accused of crime; strike down affirmative action programs; and diminish privacy rights, including the right to abortion. They sought judges who would interpret the Constitution, and other federal law, in a way that would promote this agenda. Under President Bill Clinton, Republican senators were equally single- minded. Showing little respect for presidential prerogatives, they did whatever they could to block Mr. Clinton's judicial nominees. Sometimes Republican senators justified their actions by labeling Clinton nominees as "liberal activists." Sometimes they offered no reasons at all in refusing to schedule confirmation hearings. By contrast, Democrats have been remarkably passive. Mr. Clinton chose centrists like Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Democratic senators, largely unwilling to base rejection of nominees on political disagreements, have usually deferred to Republican presidents. . . . The current composition of the federal judiciary has been influenced by a sustained, ideological program engineered by members of a single political party. The Senate now has a constitutional right, even a duty, to restrain this effort.

To: Greta Mc who wrote (4623)	4/27/2001 11:42:59 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 6089

This decision shows once again the danger of centralizing too much power in the federal system. The court allowed these infraction arrests under the federal constitution. However, in Washington State, I can assure you that our State supreme court will never allow infraction arrests. Our state constitution is more protective of personal rights than post-Warren courts have found the federal constitution to be. In many instances our courts have asserted rights based on the State constitution which were more protective than the federal courts found in the federal Constitution. Just another instance where the local courts, being closer to and more subject to the will of the people, are more in tune with what the people need than the federal courts are. So if this decision really bothers you, which it should, find out whether your state constitution gives more protection than this. It may well. The day after the decision came down I talked with our Sheriff in the club showerroom and he didn't believe me when I told him what the SC had said. I had to email him the actual decision before he would believe me. He is appalled by it. But he agrees, it would never fly in the state. Guess I'd better reconsider that trip to Texas this summer, though.