Religions > Atheism > Racism and Sexism are at the Core of John Roberts’ Judicial Activism
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Sep 2005 02:16:08 PM |
| Object: |
Racism and Sexism are at the Core of John Roberts’ Judicial Activism |
Racism and Sexism are at the Core of John Roberts’ Judicial Activism
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/1803/1/32/
(EXCERPT)
By Leo Walsh
In a weak effort to shift searing public critique of the Republican and
Bush administration’s inadequate, incompetent, and racist response to the
Katrina disaster, President Bush announced over the weekend that he was
amending his nomination of John G. Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court.
This announcement shocked much of the civil rights and democratic rights
community as revelations about Roberts’ views on women, civil rights, and
the Bill of Rights have shown him to be a hard line conservative whose
judicial activist career aims to roll back some of the most advanced and
democratic laws, decisions, and practices won over the last 40 years.
Hearings that were scheduled to begin before the Senate Judiciary Committee
on Tuesday (Sept. 6th) were postponed until next week.
Of Roberts’ proposed elevation to the powerful Chief Justice position, Wade
Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
a coalition of labor unions and civil rights organizations, said, "We need
to ask ourselves whether John Roberts is the right person for this
influential post. What we know of Roberts’ record raises warning flags on a
number of important issues, including disturbing efforts to reshape civil
rights policies such as court-ordered desegregation of public schools, as
well as voting rights and Title IX implementation."
[SNIP]
Other proponents of the Constitution have pointed to Roberts’ disregard for
the basic principle of the separation of church and state. One group of
activists have launched StopJohnRoberts.com to oppose the nomination of
John Roberts for Chief Justice. The group launched their first television
ad titled "School Prayer" last week, which can be viewed at
StopJohnRoberts.com.
The ad focuses on John Roberts’s role in the 1991 Lee vs. Weisman case, and
the ramifications of his confirmation on the future of the separation of
church and state. The "School Prayer" ad will be aired in selected markets
around the country during the Senate confirmation hearings.
Stop John Roberts.com is calling for a delay in the confirmation hearings
and announced that it will not advertise or fundraise this week due to the
relief efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
"Roberts’s actions in support of prayer in public schools once again
demonstrates his disregard for our fundamental constitutional rights," said
Aaron Ament, a co-founder of StopJohnRoberts.com.
In addition to a record on Constitutional matters that puts Roberts far
outside the mainstream of public views on civil rights and Constitutional
protections, Roberts recently lied about his membership in the
arch-conservative Federalist Society.
After his nomination was announced last July, several prominent newspapers
reported that Roberts had a been a member of that lawyers’ and judges’
association which has vowed to infiltrate the federal judiciary and
actively overturn and strike down all manner of civil rights decisions from
voting rights laws, to reproductive rights decisions, and laws that aim for
women’s equality.
Roberts denied his membership in the Federalist Society and demanded that
these newspapers retract their reports. Roberts understood that his
membership in that ultra-right organization made him something less than a
"non-controversial" candidate.
Just a day after Roberts demanded the retraction, the Washington Post
published a story describing a membership list of the Washington, DC
chapter of the Federalist Society showing Roberts not only as a member, but
also as holding a leadership position on the chapter’s steering committee.
Roberts’ lie was quickly dismissed by his handlers and ignored by the
national media enamored with his good looks and charm.
(END OF EXCERPT)
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: Racism and Sexism are at the Core of John Roberts’ Judicial Activism |
08 Sep 2005 04:26:10 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Racism and Sexism are at the Core of John Roberts’ Judicial Activism
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/1803/1/32/
(EXCERPT)
By Leo Walsh
What I find funny is that StopjJohnRoberts.com wants the new justice
to be another Sandra Day O'Conner.
"On September 21, 1981, Sandra Day O'Connor was unanimously confirmed
by the Senate by a vote of 99-0. President Bush now had an opportunity
to nominate another Supreme Court Justice who could be a consensus
choice among Democrats and Republicans and represent all Americans.
This nominee is NOT John Roberts. "
Then they go on to give a mischaracterized summary of an ADA case
involving Toyota....they even provide a link to the SC decision which
backed Toyota (represtented by Roberts, they claim). Guess who wrote
the decision? You got it...O'Conner.
JSL
In a weak effort to shift searing public critique of the Republican and
Bush administration’s inadequate, incompetent, and racist response to the
Katrina disaster, President Bush announced over the weekend that he was
amending his nomination of John G. Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court.
This announcement shocked much of the civil rights and democratic rights
community as revelations about Roberts’ views on women, civil rights, and
the Bill of Rights have shown him to be a hard line conservative whose
judicial activist career aims to roll back some of the most advanced and
democratic laws, decisions, and practices won over the last 40 years.
Hearings that were scheduled to begin before the Senate Judiciary Committee
on Tuesday (Sept. 6th) were postponed until next week.
Of Roberts’ proposed elevation to the powerful Chief Justice position, Wade
Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
a coalition of labor unions and civil rights organizations, said, "We need
to ask ourselves whether John Roberts is the right person for this
influential post. What we know of Roberts’ record raises warning flags on a
number of important issues, including disturbing efforts to reshape civil
rights policies such as court-ordered desegregation of public schools, as
well as voting rights and Title IX implementation."
[SNIP]
Other proponents of the Constitution have pointed to Roberts’ disregard for
the basic principle of the separation of church and state. One group of
activists have launched StopJohnRoberts.com to oppose the nomination of
John Roberts for Chief Justice. The group launched their first television
ad titled "School Prayer" last week, which can be viewed at
StopJohnRoberts.com.
The ad focuses on John Roberts’s role in the 1991 Lee vs. Weisman case, and
the ramifications of his confirmation on the future of the separation of
church and state. The "School Prayer" ad will be aired in selected markets
around the country during the Senate confirmation hearings.
Stop John Roberts.com is calling for a delay in the confirmation hearings
and announced that it will not advertise or fundraise this week due to the
relief efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
"Roberts’s actions in support of prayer in public schools once again
demonstrates his disregard for our fundamental constitutional rights," said
Aaron Ament, a co-founder of StopJohnRoberts.com.
In addition to a record on Constitutional matters that puts Roberts far
outside the mainstream of public views on civil rights and Constitutional
protections, Roberts recently lied about his membership in the
arch-conservative Federalist Society.
After his nomination was announced last July, several prominent newspapers
reported that Roberts had a been a member of that lawyers’ and judges’
association which has vowed to infiltrate the federal judiciary and
actively overturn and strike down all manner of civil rights decisions from
voting rights laws, to reproductive rights decisions, and laws that aim for
women’s equality.
Roberts denied his membership in the Federalist Society and demanded that
these newspapers retract their reports. Roberts understood that his
membership in that ultra-right organization made him something less than a
"non-controversial" candidate.
Just a day after Roberts demanded the retraction, the Washington Post
published a story describing a membership list of the Washington, DC
chapter of the Federalist Society showing Roberts not only as a member, but
also as holding a leadership position on the chapter’s steering committee.
Roberts’ lie was quickly dismissed by his handlers and ignored by the
national media enamored with his good looks and charm.
(END OF EXCERPT)
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Racism and Sexism are at the Core of John Roberts’ Judicial Activism |
11 Sep 2005 01:34:56 PM |
|
|
(Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|>Racism and Sexism are at the Core of John Roberts’ Judicial Activism
:|>http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/1803/1/32/
:|>(EXCERPT)
:|>
:|>By Leo Walsh
:|
:|What I find funny is that StopjJohnRoberts.com wants the new justice
:|to be another Sandra Day O'Conner.
A moderate, yes probably so
O'Conner, doubtful, She wasn't always a moderate and not always a friend of
church state separation.
She was pretty consistent on some other moderate issues
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: (To late 2003)
How the Supreme Court Fits in the Larger Political Picture
The question can be asked whether in this massive shift from the liberal
1932-1968 period to the conservative 1980-present period the U.S. Supreme
Court was part of this shift. The answer of course is Yes, and it is
evident in battles over church-state cases. We need merely equate
regressivism with less "separation of church and state" and progressivism
with more. When we do this equating, we see that the 1930-1968 period was
clearly a pe-riod of expanding separation and thus greater religious
liberty, and we see that since 1980 this expansion has slowed down and in
certain respects is now being challenged. How do we know? By looking at how
the justices vote on church-state issues.
In almost all church-state cases, justices are asked (1) to allow-on
free-exercise grounds-what is not now allowed, or (2) to prohibit-on
establishment grounds-what is now al lowed. Affirmative votes in both types
of cases are "separationist" votes, making it easy to "score" each justice
and learn how inclined each is to keep and/or expand the separation of
church and state in the United States.' On this basis the leading
separationist title belongs to Justice William O. Douglas with a score of
100 percent, and the antiseparationist title belongs to Justice Clarence
Thomas with a score of 0 percent. In the eight church-state cases heard by
Douglas after Warren became chief justice, Douglas voted to expand
religious liberty either by enlarging religious free exercise or by
outlawing an unconstitutional establishment of religions By contrast,
Thomas has so far heard thirteen cases, and in no case did he vote to
expand religious liberty. In all probability he would not even acknowledge
the legal standing of a "conscience."
Combining the scores of all justices sitting under each of the last three
chief justices shows that the Court under Earl Warren (1953-1969) was the
most separationist (liberal) with an average score of 67 percent. Under
Chief Justice Warren Burger (1969-1986), the average dropped to 50 percent,
where it has stayed under Chief Justice William Rehnquist (1986-) if all
fourteen justices serving under him thus far are counted. Five of these,
however, have since retired. Without those five, the average of the 9
justices now on the Court is 40 percent, which is strong evidence that the
shift from liberal to conservative in the larger political context is
mirrored in the judicial branch, at least where church-state issues are
concerned.
One more aspect of these voting records is noteworthy. Since Scalia joined
the Court in September 1986, he and Rehnquist have heard twenty-two
church-state cases and voted alike in all. In eighteen cases they voted
"antiseparationist," twelve as part of the majority, six as part of the
minority. The only "separationist" votes they cast were the four cases that
were unanimous.
Since Thomas joined the Court in October 1991, he has heard thirteen cases
and voted every time with Rehnquist and Scalia. It is truly meaningful to
say that these three justices constitute a hard-core, regressive bloc on
church-state matters.
SOURCE: RELIGION ON TRIAL, How Supreme Court Trends Threaten Freedom of
Conscience in America. Phillip E. Hammond, David W. Machacek, and Eric
Michael Mazur, Altamira Press, A Division of Rowan & Littlefield Publishers
Inc. (2004) pp.133-135
Appendix 2
Separationist Votes by U.S. Supreme Court justices since 1960
Justices Separationist Average Vote (N)
The Warren Court (1953 (1960]-1969) 67%
Earl Warren 63% (8 cases)
Byron White 50% (8)
Hugo Black 75% (8)
Potter Stewart 50% (8)
John M. Harlan 63% (8)
William Brennan 63% (8)
Tom C. Clark 71% (7)
William O. Douglas 100% (8)
The Burger Court (1969-1986) 50%
Warren Burger 24% (33)
Byron White 33% (33)
Hugo Black 67% (6)
Potter Stewart 36% (22)
John M. Harlan 40% (5)
William Brennan 73% (33)
William O. Douglas 100% (8)
Thurgood Marshall 76% (33)
Harry Blackmun 64% (33)
Lewis Powell 40(25)
Sandra Day O'Connor 40% (10)
William Rehnquist 5% (19)
John Paul Stevens 61% (25)
The Rehnquist Court (1986- ) 50%
William Rehnquist 10% (29)
Byron White 39% (18)
William Brennan 77% (13)
Thurgood Marshall 79%(14)
Harry Blackmun 70% (20)
Lewis Powell 40% (5)
Sandra Day O'Connor 38% (29)
John Paul Stevens 66% (29)
Anthony Kennedy 25% (24)
Antonin Scalia 24% (29)
David Souter 65% (17)
Clarence Thomas 0% (21)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 83% (12)
David Breyer 58% (12)
SOURCE: RELIGION ON TRIAL, How Supreme Court Trends Threaten Freedom of
Conscience in America. Phillip E. Hammond, David W. Machacek, and Eric
Michael Mazur, Altamira Press, A Division of Rowan & Littlefield Publishers
Inc. (2004) pp. 163-64
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: Racism and Sexism are at the Core of John Roberts’ Judicial Activism |
12 Sep 2005 12:38:40 PM |
|
|
wrote:
linder.one@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
:| wrote:
:|
:|>Racism and Sexism are at the Core of John Roberts’ Judicial Activism
:|>http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/1803/1/32/
:|>(EXCERPT)
:|>
:|>By Leo Walsh
:|
:|What I find funny is that StopjJohnRoberts.com wants the new justice
:|to be another Sandra Day O'Conner.
A moderate, yes probably so
O'Conner, doubtful, She wasn't always a moderate and not always a friend of
church state separation.
Convenient snip there.
Let me put it back in.
What I find funny is that StopjJohnRoberts.com wants the new justice
to be another Sandra Day O'Conner.
"On September 21, 1981, Sandra Day O'Connor was unanimously confirmed
by the Senate by a vote of 99-0. President Bush now had an opportunity
to nominate another Supreme Court Justice who could be a consensus
choice among Democrats and Republicans and represent all Americans.
This nominee is NOT John Roberts. "
Then they go on to give a mischaracterized summary of an ADA case
involving Toyota....they even provide a link to the SC decision which
backed Toyota (represtented by Roberts, they claim). Guess who wrote
the decision? You got it...O'Conner.
JSL
She was pretty consistent on some other moderate issues
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: (To late 2003)
How the Supreme Court Fits in the Larger Political Picture
The question can be asked whether in this massive shift from the liberal
1932-1968 period to the conservative 1980-present period the U.S. Supreme
Court was part of this shift. The answer of course is Yes, and it is
evident in battles over church-state cases. We need merely equate
regressivism with less "separation of church and state" and progressivism
with more. When we do this equating, we see that the 1930-1968 period was
clearly a pe-riod of expanding separation and thus greater religious
liberty, and we see that since 1980 this expansion has slowed down and in
certain respects is now being challenged. How do we know? By looking at how
the justices vote on church-state issues.
In almost all church-state cases, justices are asked (1) to allow-on
free-exercise grounds-what is not now allowed, or (2) to prohibit-on
establishment grounds-what is now al lowed. Affirmative votes in both types
of cases are "separationist" votes, making it easy to "score" each justice
and learn how inclined each is to keep and/or expand the separation of
church and state in the United States.' On this basis the leading
separationist title belongs to Justice William O. Douglas with a score of
100 percent, and the antiseparationist title belongs to Justice Clarence
Thomas with a score of 0 percent. In the eight church-state cases heard by
Douglas after Warren became chief justice, Douglas voted to expand
religious liberty either by enlarging religious free exercise or by
outlawing an unconstitutional establishment of religions By contrast,
Thomas has so far heard thirteen cases, and in no case did he vote to
expand religious liberty. In all probability he would not even acknowledge
the legal standing of a "conscience."
Combining the scores of all justices sitting under each of the last three
chief justices shows that the Court under Earl Warren (1953-1969) was the
most separationist (liberal) with an average score of 67 percent. Under
Chief Justice Warren Burger (1969-1986), the average dropped to 50 percent,
where it has stayed under Chief Justice William Rehnquist (1986-) if all
fourteen justices serving under him thus far are counted. Five of these,
however, have since retired. Without those five, the average of the 9
justices now on the Court is 40 percent, which is strong evidence that the
shift from liberal to conservative in the larger political context is
mirrored in the judicial branch, at least where church-state issues are
concerned.
One more aspect of these voting records is noteworthy. Since Scalia joined
the Court in September 1986, he and Rehnquist have heard twenty-two
church-state cases and voted alike in all. In eighteen cases they voted
"antiseparationist," twelve as part of the majority, six as part of the
minority. The only "separationist" votes they cast were the four cases that
were unanimous.
Since Thomas joined the Court in October 1991, he has heard thirteen cases
and voted every time with Rehnquist and Scalia. It is truly meaningful to
say that these three justices constitute a hard-core, regressive bloc on
church-state matters.
SOURCE: RELIGION ON TRIAL, How Supreme Court Trends Threaten Freedom of
Conscience in America. Phillip E. Hammond, David W. Machacek, and Eric
Michael Mazur, Altamira Press, A Division of Rowan & Littlefield Publishers
Inc. (2004) pp.133-135
Appendix 2
Separationist Votes by U.S. Supreme Court justices since 1960
Justices Separationist Average Vote (N)
The Warren Court (1953 (1960]-1969) 67%
Earl Warren 63% (8 cases)
Byron White 50% (8)
Hugo Black 75% (8)
Potter Stewart 50% (8)
John M. Harlan 63% (8)
William Brennan 63% (8)
Tom C. Clark 71% (7)
William O. Douglas 100% (8)
The Burger Court (1969-1986) 50%
Warren Burger 24% (33)
Byron White 33% (33)
Hugo Black 67% (6)
Potter Stewart 36% (22)
John M. Harlan 40% (5)
William Brennan 73% (33)
William O. Douglas 100% (8)
Thurgood Marshall 76% (33)
Harry Blackmun 64% (33)
Lewis Powell 40(25)
Sandra Day O'Connor 40% (10)
William Rehnquist 5% (19)
John Paul Stevens 61% (25)
The Rehnquist Court (1986- ) 50%
William Rehnquist 10% (29)
Byron White 39% (18)
William Brennan 77% (13)
Thurgood Marshall 79%(14)
Harry Blackmun 70% (20)
Lewis Powell 40% (5)
Sandra Day O'Connor 38% (29)
John Paul Stevens 66% (29)
Anthony Kennedy 25% (24)
Antonin Scalia 24% (29)
David Souter 65% (17)
Clarence Thomas 0% (21)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 83% (12)
David Breyer 58% (12)
SOURCE: RELIGION ON TRIAL, How Supreme Court Trends Threaten Freedom of
Conscience in America. Phillip E. Hammond, David W. Machacek, and Eric
Michael Mazur, Altamira Press, A Division of Rowan & Littlefield Publishers
Inc. (2004) pp. 163-64
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Racism and Sexism are at the Core of John Roberts’ Judicial Activism |
16 Sep 2005 03:29:48 PM |
|
|
(Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|> (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|>>:|
:|>>:|>Racism and Sexism are at the Core of John Roberts’ Judicial Activism
:|>>:|>http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/1803/1/32/
:|>>:|>(EXCERPT)
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>By Leo Walsh
:|>>:|
:|>>:|What I find funny is that StopjJohnRoberts.com wants the new justice
:|>>:|to be another Sandra Day O'Conner.
:|>
:|>A moderate, yes probably so
:|>
:|>O'Conner, doubtful, She wasn't always a moderate and not always a friend of
:|>church state separation.
:|
:|
:|Convenient snip there.
:|
:|Let me put it back in.
Whatever floats your boat
:|
:|What I find funny is that StopjJohnRoberts.com wants the new justice
:|to be another Sandra Day O'Conner.
:|
:|"On September 21, 1981, Sandra Day O'Connor was unanimously confirmed
:|by the Senate by a vote of 99-0. President Bush now had an opportunity
:|to nominate another Supreme Court Justice who could be a consensus
:|choice among Democrats and Republicans and represent all Americans.
:|This nominee is NOT John Roberts. "
:|
:|Then they go on to give a mischaracterized summary of an ADA case
:|involving Toyota....they even provide a link to the SC decision which
:|backed Toyota (represtented by Roberts, they claim). Guess who wrote
:|the decision? You got it...O'Conner.
:|
:|JSL
:|
Now as I said:
:|> (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
:|>>:|What I find funny is that StopjJohnRoberts.com wants the new justice
:|>>:|to be another Sandra Day O'Conner.
:|>>:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
A moderate, yes probably so
O'Conner, doubtful, She wasn't always a moderate and not always a friend of
church state separation.
She was pretty consistent on some other moderate issues
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: (To late 2003)
How the Supreme Court Fits in the Larger Political Picture
The question can be asked whether in this massive shift from the liberal
1932-1968 period to the conservative 1980-present period the U.S. Supreme
Court was part of this shift. The answer of course is Yes, and it is
evident in battles over church-state cases. We need merely equate
regressivism with less "separation of church and state" and progressivism
with more. When we do this equating, we see that the 1930-1968 period was
clearly a pe-riod of expanding separation and thus greater religious
liberty, and we see that since 1980 this expansion has slowed down and in
certain respects is now being challenged. How do we know? By looking at how
the justices vote on church-state issues.
In almost all church-state cases, justices are asked (1) to allow-on
free-exercise grounds-what is not now allowed, or (2) to prohibit-on
establishment grounds-what is now al lowed. Affirmative votes in both types
of cases are "separationist" votes, making it easy to "score" each justice
and learn how inclined each is to keep and/or expand the separation of
church and state in the United States.' On this basis the leading
separationist title belongs to Justice William O. Douglas with a score of
100 percent, and the antiseparationist title belongs to Justice Clarence
Thomas with a score of 0 percent. In the eight church-state cases heard by
Douglas after Warren became chief justice, Douglas voted to expand
religious liberty either by enlarging religious free exercise or by
outlawing an unconstitutional establishment of religions By contrast,
Thomas has so far heard thirteen cases, and in no case did he vote to
expand religious liberty. In all probability he would not even acknowledge
the legal standing of a "conscience."
Combining the scores of all justices sitting under each of the last three
chief justices shows that the Court under Earl Warren (1953-1969) was the
most separationist (liberal) with an average score of 67 percent. Under
Chief Justice Warren Burger (1969-1986), the average dropped to 50 percent,
where it has stayed under Chief Justice William Rehnquist (1986-) if all
fourteen justices serving under him thus far are counted. Five of these,
however, have since retired. Without those five, the average of the 9
justices now on the Court is 40 percent, which is strong evidence that the
shift from liberal to conservative in the larger political context is
mirrored in the judicial branch, at least where church-state issues are
concerned.
One more aspect of these voting records is noteworthy. Since Scalia joined
the Court in September 1986, he and Rehnquist have heard twenty-two
church-state cases and voted alike in all. In eighteen cases they voted
"antiseparationist," twelve as part of the majority, six as part of the
minority. The only "separationist" votes they cast were the four cases that
were unanimous.
Since Thomas joined the Court in October 1991, he has heard thirteen cases
and voted every time with Rehnquist and Scalia. It is truly meaningful to
say that these three justices constitute a hard-core, regressive bloc on
church-state matters.
SOURCE: RELIGION ON TRIAL, How Supreme Court Trends Threaten Freedom of
Conscience in America. Phillip E. Hammond, David W. Machacek, and Eric
Michael Mazur, Altamira Press, A Division of Rowan & Littlefield Publishers
Inc. (2004) pp.133-135
Appendix 2
Separationist Votes by U.S. Supreme Court justices since 1960
Justices Separationist Average Vote (N)
The Warren Court (1953 (1960]-1969) 67%
Earl Warren 63% (8 cases)
Byron White 50% (8)
Hugo Black 75% (8)
Potter Stewart 50% (8)
John M. Harlan 63% (8)
William Brennan 63% (8)
Tom C. Clark 71% (7)
William O. Douglas 100% (8)
The Burger Court (1969-1986) 50%
Warren Burger 24% (33)
Byron White 33% (33)
Hugo Black 67% (6)
Potter Stewart 36% (22)
John M. Harlan 40% (5)
William Brennan 73% (33)
William O. Douglas 100% (8)
Thurgood Marshall 76% (33)
Harry Blackmun 64% (33)
Lewis Powell 40(25)
Sandra Day O'Connor 40% (10)
William Rehnquist 5% (19)
John Paul Stevens 61% (25)
The Rehnquist Court (1986- ) 50%
William Rehnquist 10% (29)
Byron White 39% (18)
William Brennan 77% (13)
Thurgood Marshall 79%(14)
Harry Blackmun 70% (20)
Lewis Powell 40% (5)
Sandra Day O'Connor 38% (29)
John Paul Stevens 66% (29)
Anthony Kennedy 25% (24)
Antonin Scalia 24% (29)
David Souter 65% (17)
Clarence Thomas 0% (21)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 83% (12)
David Breyer 58% (12)
SOURCE: RELIGION ON TRIAL, How Supreme Court Trends Threaten Freedom of
Conscience in America. Phillip E. Hammond, David W. Machacek, and Eric
Michael Mazur, Altamira Press, A Division of Rowan & Littlefield Publishers
Inc. (2004) pp. 163-64
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
