Good quote from Instapundit.
Yet the Court shouldn’t talk about following a “national consensus” on an issue on which in 1997 only 31% of the American public agreed with the Court and 65% of the public opposed the Court’s view. The justices should admit that they follow ELITE opinion, not the views and morality of the ordinary public. If they can’t go that far, they should at least stop preaching to us about a “national consensus” that is little more than a fig leaf for their own (often quite reasonable) policy preferences.
Indeed, it’s nuts to suggest that there’s some sort of consensus with these sorts of numbers.
If you can stomach, have a look around at what this guy did – it’s horrific in the extreme. But that doesn’t stop the liberal media trying to make it look like he might be innocent.
Interesting to see a poll reported on the Supreme court.
So we now have approval ratings for all three branches:
President (via Fox) 28.3%
Congress (via Fox) 18.5%
Supreme Court: 26%
That’s right: Bush has the highest ratings of the three branches of government.
From Patterico, a post on Justice Scalia’s dissent in the recent Guantanamo detainees case.
But here is a starting taste, along with the ending paragraph (note how Scalia conspicuously declines to write “I respectfully dissent” as is the usual custom for Justices):
“Today, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war. THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s dissent, which I join, shows that the procedures prescribed by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act provide the essential protections that habeas corpus guarantees; there has thus been no suspension of the writ, and no basis exists for judicial intervention beyond what the Act allows. My problem with today’s opinion is more fundamental still: The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application, and the Court’s intervention in this military matter is entirely ultra vires. [emphasis here mine - S1]
I shall devote most of what will be a lengthy opinion to the legal errors contained in the opinion of the Court. Contrary to my usual practice, however, I think it appropriate to begin with a description of the disastrous consequences of what the Court has done today.
We witnessed the ridiculous sight of TV One News’ saying that this judgment meant the constitution could not be “turned off or on like a tap”. Sorry, the US constitution applies to the US and it’s citizens, it does not and never has applied to foreigners, particularly those engaged in war against it.
Can’t really go past the JammieWearingFool’s title on this one, or the video. (Sadly can’t embed here)
It’s obscene how the story has become how Gore lost due to Bush stealing the election, not how the Supreme Court stopped Gore’s attempt. That’s BDS for you – facts are not required.
Snippit from transcript.
“I say nonsense,” Scalia responds to Stahl’s observation that people say the Supreme Court’s decision in Gore v. Bush was based on politics and not justice. “Get over it. It’s so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn’t even close. The vote was seven to two,” he says, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision that the Supreme Court of Florida’s method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional.
Furthermore, says the outspoken conservative justice, it was Al Gore who ultimately put the issue into the courts. “It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question…. We didn’t go looking for trouble. It was he who said, ‘I want this to be decided by the courts,‘” says Scalia. “What are we supposed to say — ‘Not important enough?’” he jokes.
I posted a link to part of this interview earlier.
Trouble with falsely painting a guy as the devil incarnate is that that is easily proven false. I bet a lot of lefties are re-examining their sources after seeing in his interview just how much of a nice guy he really is.
In her two-part profile of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia aired on Sunday night’s 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl seemed repeatedly surprised by how Scalia in person isn’t the “polarizing figure” who protesters call a “fascist,” as she conceded: “What’s interesting is the difference between how you appear in person and the image that you have. Because the writings are so often combative, and your friends say that you’re charming and fun.” In short, Scalia really does not match the left-wing characterization of him adopted by Stahl’s media colleagues.
Stahl began the second segment, on Scalia’s childhood in New York, his wife and kids and his future, by acknowledging, “In spending time with him, we found something we hadn’t expected: a person so unpretentious and down to earth, you could easily forget he sits on the Supreme Court.”
As predicted, the Supreme Court threw out the ridiculous case against the law that requires voters to present photo IDs when voting.
Can’t agree more with this one.
“Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. concurred in the judgment of the court, but went further in rejecting the plaintiffs’ challenge. In an opinion by Justice Scalia, the three justices said, “The law should be upheld because its overall burden is minimal and justified.”
Update: The LA Times puts in solid words another thought that occurred, that the other side may actually have the small resemblance of a point.
Through the 1950s and ’60s, the Supreme Court extended the reach of American democracy. The court asserted its right to review legislative districting schemes that reduced the voting strength of urban voters — mostly African Americans — then used that power to tilt society toward equality. It also struck down literacy tests and poll taxes, contrived by malevolent election supervisors to deny blacks the chance to cast ballots. Those rulings made elections fairer and broadened participation, and they comprised a noble history of overcoming powerful resistance, which dignified the court.
However, requiring all voters to showing ID is legitimate, unlike the “literacy tests” “(please read this Chinese newspaper”) applied only to black people. Then there’s the fact that about a thousand groups would be all over a legitimate case these days – times have changed folks.
Also note that the court has only a one vote “conservative” majority. This ruling was 6-3. Oh, and one of those is Black.