For John, BLUF: The Supreme Court is a law unto itself. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Mr Jeffrey Toobin is the go to guy for legal issues at The New Yorker. In this 1 September 2015 article he speculates about where the US Supreme Court will go next year. "The Coming Liberal Disaster at the Supreme Court"
Of course, bright as he is, Mr Toobin confuses Liberal and Progressive. I am a Liberal, he is a Progressive. I believe in freedom to let people achieve their goals, free as possible from Government regulation. Mr Toobin, as a Progressive, believes that Government is the solution and if you don't agree you are a racist and a fascist.
At any rate, here are the first two paragraphs. Go to the link to read the whole story.
The beleaguered liberals on the Supreme Court had a great deal to celebrate in the term that ended in June. Two epic cases, and even some lesser ones, went their way. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Justices ruled, five to four, that all fifty states must recognize same-sex marriages. And in King v. Burwell, the Court, by a vote of six to three, dismissed a challenge to the Affordable Care Act that might have, as a practical matter, destroyed the law. A surprising victory in a housing-discrimination case and another where the Court allowed limits on judges’ soliciting campaign contributions completed a major run of progressive victories.For me, and interesting read.Don’t expect the streak to last. The liberals’ big victories last term arose from a very particular set of circumstances. Justice Anthony Kennedy has displayed a consistent respect for the rights of gay people, which made his alliance with the four liberals (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) on same-sex marriage almost a foregone conclusion. In King v. Burwell, a group of conservative legal activists pushed such a transparently fraudulent claim about the text of the Obamacare law that Chief Justice John Roberts and Kennedy (who are no fans of the law) had to reject the claim.
Regards — Cliff
2 comments:
It is convienient to be able to define your own terms. That way the definition of Liberal takes on some meaning different than would describe every Republican. I am just sure what the difference is.
It IS convenient, and when someone bends and twists a term, it is useful. I would love it if Rush Limbaugh would start a monologue one day saying that we Conservatives have been wrong to let the Democrat Progressives steal the term Liberal. If there was ever a claim to the term on the part of the Democrats it died in Dallas, a long time ago. [Well, Hubert H Humphrey, but he never made it to the White House.] Boy would that shake things up.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment