Well, some of us tried to warn what was coming if the Dems did not block Chimperator Bush's nominees. Sadly, far too few listened, especially among the PTA/Soccer Mom crowd. They never "get it" until it is too late. Then they whine and wring their hands! Here are highlights from a Washington Post story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800645.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AP :
About half of the public thinks the Supreme Court is generally balanced in its decisions, but a growing number of Americans say the court has become "too conservative" in the two years since President Bush began nominating justices, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Nearly a third of the public -- 31 percent -- thinks the court is too far to the right, a noticeable jump since the question was last asked in July 2005. That's when Bush nominated John G. Roberts Jr. to the court and, in the six-month period that followed, the Senate approved Roberts as chief justice and confirmed Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
The public seems to have noticed the shift. The percentage who said the court is "too conservative" grew from 19 percent to 31 percent in the past two years, while those who said it is "generally balanced in its decisions" declined from 55 percent to 47 percent. "I think it shows that we're at a tipping point in time," said Ralph G. Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way. "And it's why a major priority for us over the next 16 months will be to emphasize the importance of the Supreme Court and why it should be an important factor in voting for president."
I guess it is better to notice eventually, that not at all. However, in the meantime, I will continue to pray for the continued good health of the remaining moderate and liberal justices. To me, the direction of the Supreme Court is a huge issue as to why the Dems must devastate the GOP at the pols in 2008. If we think Bush has fucked things up now, let him appoint another Christianist to the Court and we will see how bad can go to much worse.
2 comments:
So many of my friends voted for Bush this last time around saying to me "Pobble, you don't understand; I have children and he will keep them safe." My arguments fell on deaf ears to the point I stopped making them any longer. There is more to keep our children safe than controlling the Middle East (which we aren't doing anyway but that was the crux of their argument.) I don't have to have children to want children to grow up in a society where the laws are just and the legal system hasn't been bought. (and they have food on the table, and don't have to worry about being shot in drive-bys and, and, and...)
I could go on but this isn't my post, it's a comment. I think you get the point I'm trying to make, though.
Frankly, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas arguing a "color-blind" society cannot use race for restitution of its racist past, when in 1954 it quite clearly insisted otherwise, only illustrates the casuistry of the high court. Besides, it was the high court's Plessy v. Fergusson that justified segregation, reversed 50 years later in Brown.
Even worse, this time the high court deferred to legislative bodies to determine the appropriate remedies, rather than imposing its own remedies for its own errors, only to nix the communities efforts.
Clearly, institutional and politically-sanctioned racism over several centuries requires a remedy, if justice is to have any meaning in our society. The remedies are best left to legislative bodies with court approval, and in terms of racial considerations, applies only to those of African descent, since only they were enslaved and suffered directly by systemic racism and segregation. And the period of remedy has yet to be determined, whether 40 years or three centuries.
But using race of Africans to remedy the racism against them is the only means of restitution. It will probably require some sort of quota system and affirmative action, huge financial commitments to education, housing, employment, and socialization mechanisms, as legislatively determined and court approved for a specified term. Then, and only then, is justice served.
Well, our Right wing justices just "wiped the slate clean," eliminating race from any consideration in determining restitution for racism. Presto! We're now colorblind? After three centuries of racism? Without restitution? Hell, that ain't justice, it's abrogation. No wonder citizens no longer trust any of the three branches of government.
Post a Comment