March 2, 2006

The Supreme Judiciary

It's a good thing for Justice Thomas that the biggest news story today is the Bush Administration's advanced warning of the destructive power of Katrina.

Otherwise, his narcolepsy while the court was in session would have been front page.

I'm sorry. Not Justice Thomas.

Former ACLU lawyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    The Supreme Court had put the Texas cases on the fast track, scheduling an unusually long two-hour afternoon session.

    The subject matter was extremely technical, and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair. Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge.

    The court has struggled in the past to define how much politics is acceptable when states draw new boundaries to reflect population shifts.


I could see how the technicalities could be boring. But being the ultimate arbiter of American judisprudence is not my line of work. Couldn't someone have gotten her a cup of coffee?

SCOTUS Posted by AlexC at March 2, 2006 2:45 PM

Ok, I gotta jump in with a side comment. Speaking of the Supreme Court, how about the first major decision of the new Roberts Court? The conservatives were on the losing 6-3 end of trying to uphold the Attorney General's power to supercede Oregon's right to die statute. What? The conservative non-activist side is against federalism and directly for challenging a state law by spurious use of anti-drug trafficking laws? How is this either conservative or non-activist?

Posted by: Silence Dogood at March 2, 2006 3:41 PM

Same score as those who blew off Federalism in Raitch v Gonzales, but not the same people.

There are very few pure Federalists (I would cite Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review). I fear most others use it when it serves their interests.

I wish it were more firmly followed as a guiding principle but I have learned to be disappointed. Oregon v Gonzales is a blow for Federalism only if you ignore Raitch.

Posted by: jk at March 2, 2006 7:51 PM

Here's an article from NRO.. http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200502230745.asp

From the summary, it was more about the Controlled Substances Act and use of drugs regulated by it.

The conclusion..
"Gonzales v. Oregon is one of the most important public-policy cases to come before the Supreme Court in recent years. But we should be clear about what it involves: It isn't about whether states have the power to legalize assisted suicide. That issue is not before the court. Nor is it a dispute over "states' rights," as apologists for assisted-suicide assert. Rather, the Court's ruling will determine whether the federal courts will resurrect John Calhoun's long-discredited doctrine of state nullification by permitting states to opt their citizens out of generally applicable regulations with which they disagree."

Posted by: AlexC at March 2, 2006 8:08 PM

Maybe you both missed my main point, that lately "judicial activism" is more about what you are being active about than whether you are being active. I would describe judicial activism as inserting judicial power via interpretation of laws rather than allowing the legislative branch (as our elected representatives) to pass laws that govern our interactions. In this case I believe it would be perfectly applicable for the US Congress to pass a federal law banning assisted suicide. This to me would be the proper way to supercede a state law, rather than using an interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act. (which was put in place to control trafficking) The Constitution seems very clear that those powers not granted to the federal government are granted to the states. Additionally how do you not classify the Attorney General's action as executive activism as he too is interpreting laws to reach for the conclusion he wants. Whenever I hear conservatives wail for "strict constructionist" judges rather than "activists" I say bring 'em on. Let see how pleased they are if those judges really do act as constructionists and do not promote the conservative active agenda.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at March 3, 2006 12:48 PM

I would have to agree with Silence on this one. I don't know any more details on this ruling or on Raich than I've read here, but to claim that justices ruling in favor of christian morality in clear contravention of individual rights are not activists is laughable.

Posted by: johngalt at March 3, 2006 3:34 PM | What do you think? [5]