Friday, May 8, 2009
Obama's Supreme Court Pick
We still have on the Court the two Right-Wing Ringleaders of the notorious Bush v. Gore Election Heist of 2000 -- Scalia and Thomas; plus Dubya's two new Conservative hacks -- Alito and Roberts. What other Neanderthal Horror will the Congressional Right-Wing Dinosaurs try to foist upon the American people now?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Since joining the Court, Thomas has taken a judicially conservative approach, seeking to uphold what he sees as the original meaning of the Constitution. I fail to see that as a problem, what is wrong with up holding the values that made this nation. I'm not against change, but if something works why change it. I understand changing some of our "broken" system, but the thing is that not all of our system is completly broken, and does need not change.
I agree with Matt, maybe if more Democrats were is open minded as him, your party wouldn't be a joke, and discrace to this nation.
Matt:
Clarence Thomas is not trying to uphold "the original meaning of the Constitution". He is trying to impose his own personal social and political ideas, no matter how he tries to camouflage his Right-Wing views in Conservative legal jargon.
What is it, Matt, that you say "does not need change"?
In the original Constitution, there was no provision for the Supreme Court to rule laws of Congress unconstitutional. That power was created for the Supreme Court in an 1803 decision by the first great judicial activist, Chief Justice John Marshall. Does Clarence Thomas want to go back to the "original Constitution" and eliminate the Court's power to rule any laws unconstitutional?
The "original Constitution" allowed slavery and said that a black man counted as only 3/5 of a person. Does Thomas want to revert to those portions of the "original Constitution"?
In 1858, the discredited Dred Scott decision said that, according to the "original Constitution", a slave was property, and a runaway slave had to be returned to his master. Does Thomas want to return to that part of the "original Constitution"?
The "original Constitution" had a very narrowly interpreted interstate commerce clause and, accordingly, many early New Deal laws of 1933 and 1934 were struck down as unconstitutional by the Conservative Supreme Court of the early 30's. Does Thomas want to revert to that narrow interpretation which would allow so much of today's social legislation to be overturned?
For a "non-activist" Justice, Thomas was one of the prime movers in the notorious Bush v. Gore decision of 2000 (probably the Court's worst decision ever, along with Dred Scott), in which the US Supreme Court took away from the Florida Supreme Court the power to set the rules for counting the votes in the State of Florida, thus preventing all of Florida's votes from being counted. As a result, the presidential election of 2000 was decided without all the votes having been counted. Just as in Fascist countries, the president in 2000 was appointed by the Supreme Court, not elected by all the voters.
In other words, this "strict Constitutionalist" can be a very activist Justice when it suits him. His talk about following the "original Constitution" is a smokescreen. Thomas always follows his rock-ribbed Conservative ideology, wherever it might lead him.
If you would read my post you would see that I said "I am not against change, but if something works why change it. I understand changing some of our "broken" system, but the thing is that all of our system is not complety broken, and does not need change." Perhaps you did not understand. I am simply stating that parts of our Consitution are fine, and those parts need no change. I am not how ever saying that all of origianl constitution is perfect, and I do not beleave Thomas is saying that either. After all why would a black man only count himself as 3/5 of a person.
No one is in favor of changing everything in our original Constitution. However, the Founding Fathers themselves said that they were abandoning the Articles of Confederation and adopting a new Constitution in order to form "a more perfect Union". The Founding Fathers were the first ones to recognize that neither the Articles of Constitution nor the Constitution formed "a perfect Union", but that the new document simply created "a more perfect" one.
They knew that, as time went on, some things would have to change. Indeed, Slavery was deliberately left by the Founding Fathers as a matter to be settled in the future, since they couldn't resolve it among themselves.
In more recent years, other issues have arisen -- including One Man One Vote, Desegregation of the South, the right to organize labor unions, abortion, school prayer, affirmative action, burning the American flag, legal rights for Gitmo detainees, and so many more.
Thomas is always on the Conservative side of these issues. It is not because he wants to preserve the "original Constitution". I have tried to show you in my previous response that this is a phony argument since there are quite a few things in the "original Constitution" that no one would want to preserve -- having state legislatures, instead of the people, elect US Senators -- to name but one more. It is, rather, because Thomas has a Right-Wing Conservative viewpoint on so many of today's issues. He votes his political philosophy, not his real view that he wants to preserve the "original Constitution".
As you so aptly pointed out, Matt, "why would a black man want to count himself as only 3/5 of a person?"
Post a Comment