Category: Supreme Court

The Sotomayor QUESTION

Patrick J. Buchanan called Sonia Sotomayor a “Quota Queen for the Court.” Newt Gingrich called her a racist, then backed off; of course, Newt also said, “No group has benefited more from impartial justice than the less fortunate.”

Her controversial quote: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

My initial reaction was well, a non-reaction. I knew what she meant. When people who are the “other” in this society succeed, they’ve often learned to navigate both the majority culture as well as their own. For instance, I know there are things that I don’t have to endure because I’m a male. I don’t always know what they are, but I surely know they exist.

Lanny J. Davis in the Washington Times makes the case that in the “3,000 decisions in which Judge Sotomayor participated and the more than 400 opinions that she signed during her 12 years on the appeals court…in case-after-case, she has voted based on applying the law to the facts — even where the result is contrary to the expected ‘liberal’ ideological position…” He says further, “As to Judge Sotomayor’s statement…: The obvious answer is to view the statement in the broader context of what she meant — similar to what Judge Samuel A. Alito said during his confirmation hearings, i.e., that his background coming from an immigrant family would inevitably be ‘taken into account’ as he made his judicial decisions.”

So her “controversial” remark bothered me not at all. The use of the word “better” will be written off as a gaffe, which, politically, it was. She appears to be well-qualified and I imagine she’ll be confirmed.

But that’s what I think. What says you?

ROG

ROG

Russert, Sports, Obamas

Yeah, I know I’ve written a lot about dead people lately, but-
This one was only three years older than I, a political and news junkie from upstate New York, just like me. I RELATED to Tim Russert. He worked for politicians I had voted for, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Mario Cuomo. He was a sports fan. I did not always agree with him. But more than most in his profession, I thought he tried hard to be fair. And he clearly enjoyed his work.

So, I get a terse New York Times message at 3:28 pm, “Tim Russert, the host of the NBC program ‘Meet the Press,’ has died of an apparent heart attack at age 58, his family confirmed.” No story, just a sub-headline. No story on the NBC networks. But soon enough, I found it was all too true, as Tom Brokaw broke the news:

I did not know that he was on the board of the Baseball Hall of fame until I read about it yesterday.

This begs a different question for me. Why did I continue to listen to the news on MSNBC for another hour after his death was confirmed? Why did I watch the CBS Evening News, which Harry Smith was anchoring, but for which Katie Couric showed up to tearfully explain how Russert had hired her to be deputy Pentagon correspondent for NBC some years ago? I don’t know. Sometimes, you keep watching to try to make sense of it all.
***
The good news is that In a blow to Bush, the Supreme Court restores habeas corpus re: Gitmo. the bad news? It was a 5-4 vote, and most of the five are considerably older than the four.
***
Apparently, the FOX News ‘baby mama’ comment towards Michelle Obama was, I’ve read. FOX trying to be cool by referencing the Tina Fey movie that came out a little while back.
***
The basketball officiating scandal had specifically targeted game 6 of a series between Sacramento and the LA Lakers. Apparently, there is a group called the League of Fans who had complained about this years ago. The founder of the League of Fans? Ralph Nader? The page looks as though it was all but defunct for about a year, except for a recent flurry of press releases. the group also has taken positions on steroids, public financing of stadiums and other topics. Interesting, albeit somewhat dated stuff.
ROG

ROG

RM

You know those folks who can’t come up with a cohesive concept for a column, so they compose these little snippets of unrelated ideas and throw them together? This is one of those pieces. Not only that, unless I find some extra time somewhere, there will be another one next week!
***
Earlier this month, I praised Sandra Day O’Connor for her dissenting opinions in two highly controversial cases. Right after that, she announces that she’s leaving the Court. Coincidence…or conspiracy?
***
Been in the attic again. Trying to figure out what I can prepare ahead of time for those days when I’m out of town, or don’t have Internet access (or even a word processor), I hit upon an answer. I found this folder with a personality profile of me from six years ago, and an astrological reading of me from about 20 years ago. I found them to be surprisingly accurate, and somewhat interesting. So, when I’m stuck, I’ll be going to that well, including at least once next week.
***
There was this “contest” last year to see who would be on the cover of Metroland, the alternative newsweekly around these parts. I didn’t win, but I was a runner-up, and they actually did a story about me which appears about 4/5s of the way down. Such narcissism.
***
As I was checking out some blogs to see if my Mixed CD got reviewed (it wasn’t), I saw a reference to a “racist Mexican stamp”, which led me to another blog, which led me to this news report. The story then was mentioned briefly in Metroland yesterday. Do I think the stamp is racist? At the risk of sounding too PC, do you really have to ask? Mexican President Vincente Fox has NOT acquitted himself well in the situation, either.
***
The United Church of Christ has taken a strong, affirming stance with regard to gay and lesbian members. As my delighted UCC friend Jenny noted, “It will bring considerable challenges for those churches who have not been welcoming to gay and lesbian members.” Probably NOT the end of this issue in the UCC or any of the mainline Protestant churches, including my (Presbyterian) denomination.
***
Venus Williams was a Wimbledon underdog. I like this story of this once dominant player, who, due to injury and other interests, slid down to 14th in the women’s tennis rankings, but came back to win an amazingly hard-fought battle against Lindsay Davenport, part of which I had a chance to watch.
***
The most poignant irony about the horrific London blasts is that people could seek safety in the tunnels during the German bombing in World War II, but that in this case, some of the bombs were IN the trains in the tunnels. I’ll always remember the date as Ringo Starr’s 65th birthday, just like I remember September 11, 2001 as Moby’s 35th (and I imagine how crummy they must feel). About.com reports that bloggers have played an important role in getting out news about the bombings yesterday. Ultimately, I relate pretty well to what my buddy Fred Hembeck (July 8) has to say. My prayers go out to those affected.

ROG

Supreme surprise

One of the things that I think is generally a good thing is getting my assumptions challenged now and then. Well, that’s happened to me this past month with regard to the Highest Court of the Land.

Apparently, the term “liberal” and “conservative” are not as meaningful on the Supreme Court as I thought they were, or mean different things than I thought. In the medical marijuana case that I mentioned on June 7Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, while Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, considered a moderate, penned the dissent, supported by the ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, part of the conservative wing of the court.

Last week, in the eminent domain case, Justice Stevens, deemed the most liberal on the Court, wrote for the 5-4 majority in favor of the government, while Justice O’Connor again authored the dissenting opinion, saying that the Court abandoned a basic limitation on government power and, in doing so, “washed out any distinction between private and public use of property.” O’Connor said economic development is not a constitutionally permissible reason to take people’s land.

Further, she wrote: “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.” O’Connor was supported by the conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and again by Rehnquist and Thomas. I can’t remember the last time I agreed with Rehnquist AND Thomas on a non-unanimous decision twice in one month.

The cautious, mixed Ten Commandments ruling this week adhered more to the traditional liberal/conservative split of the Court.

I was disappointed by the marijuana ruling, and generally pleased by the Ten Commandments decision, but I remain deeply troubled by the eminent domain case. It appears that the underlying assumption in the latter case is that government will always work for the benefit of all, rather than just the “connected,” and I’m suspicious enough of government – all government, however well-meaning – that that chance of greed and corruption driving a land grab is very high. I predict that in a couple decades, this ruling will be overturned when some egregious activities are uncovered.

My regrets to the folks of New London, CT, who have vowed to stay in their houses until the bulldozers come.

ROG

Going from pot

I’ve purchased marijuana exactly one time in my life. It was some years ago (note to law enforcement officials: the statute of limitations applies) that a friend of mine, who I knew to be fairly staunchly opposed to ever smoking pot himself, asked me if I knew where to buy some. His uncle had glaucoma, and the scientific research of the time suggested that marijuana could relieve the uncle’s extreme discomfort. He also had some other ailments, and the nephew had hoped that the pot would stir his meager appetite.
So I asked the one person I knew would likely know where to find some marijuana. He sold it to me, I passed it on to my friend (at the same price), and I heard later that the uncle did seem to respond well to the “treatment.”

The interesting thing about Supreme Court rulings (well, interesting to a political science major, which I was) is that their rulings are not phrased as about the issue that gets played in the press (“Court Knocks Pot”) but about more arcane matters. So, in the case decided by the Court on Monday, it’s not so much about medical marijuana, it’s a states’ rights issue, whether Congress had exceeded its authority vis a vis the states regarding medical marijuana.

SCOTUS

The old poli sci major finds the federal government’s argument to be strong: state law is generally subservient to federal law, “even as applied to the troubling facts of this case,” as Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, put it. But I find the position stated in Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissenting opinion that a state has a right to take care of its citizens even more compelling. If you’ve seen the videos of Angel McClary Raich before treatment when she could barely move, and after treatment, when she appeared as a normally functioning person, you’d find her, at bare minimum, a sympathetic respondent. And I do believe there is sufficient science to suggest that there are real medical benefits of marijuana.

Which begs the question: if I had it to do over again, would I purchase marijuana for someone in medical need? Let’s put it this way: Montel Williams indicated that he’ll still be using marijuana for his multiple sclerosis, but knows that by saying so, he makes himself a target for prosecution. I wouldn’t SAY that I’d buy it, but…

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial