Previous 21 - 30 Next
So, John Paul Stevens is a communist? Do elaborate. The comment about property ... is based upon Bill Levitt's (American entrepreneur, home builder, father of the suburb) statement that "no man who owns a home has time to be a communist." Guess that one went over your head.
Removal ... as long as the replacement is not made by a Democrat, right? You would wait to impeach until there is a Republican Congress with a temperament to oust Roberts? Any amendment would likely "grandfather in" sitting justices.
Big conservative is writing about Chief Justice Roberts ... I was responding to that. As to Stevens claims ... No .. on the 2nd No ... on the death penalty although Catholics have to reconcile the "life argument" which applies to both abortion and the death penalty On campaign finance .... money is speech as long as donors are not anonymous ... speech/donations are a right but with that comes responsibility Same as my advocacy here with the editors .... do away with anonymous names ...
First of all, if you think the Court was designed NOT to be an elitist institution, I suggest you read Hamilton in the Federalist Papers and then follow up with the opinions of Chief Justice John Marshall. Do remember that the Constitution, as ratified, was democratic and elitist. The Framers deferred to the states on voting eligibility for the U.S. House. Otherwise, every Federal office was beyond the hands of the people. The Senate ... state legislatures; the President ... electors chosen by a method specified by state legislatures. The Court ... beyond election, indirect or direct. Now, as to your classifications ... Regressive. What rulings of Stevens are you talking about? If your take your paragraph "Now, just what kind of" ... please explain why your categories are Classist, Fascist, Socialist, Technocrat, or Communist. Is that it? Are those mutually exclusive and exhaustive? Stevens was a pragmatist. Left at times, right at times, center at times. You cite no specific opinions or writings of his. Again, the key point here is that your definition of Socialist is power to the elite (as opposed to the classic definitions of "ownership of the means of production"). You are the first I have encountered that associates the elitism (as opposed to pure democracy) of the Framers with Socialism. But, heck, this is fun and it is a provocative idea.
So you would remove despite all of the decisions where he has written for a conservative majority or voted with the conservative majority (and, according to the rules) and assigned the writing of the majority opinion? Or are there other opinions on which you take issue? Does violating orthodoxy on one case justify removal?
Today? OK ... let's run with your argument. He's retired. He is expressing an opinion. He has no vote on public policy.
I have addressed the topic (in various ways, read below). The man is distinguished; served his country, earned a law degree; practiced law successfully, was well-regarded in Republican circles, appointed by President Ford to the U.S. Supreme Court, served with distinction and was well respected in the legal community; he wrote numerous opinions -- some liberal, some conservative, some moderate. Maintained his health sufficiently to serve his country until nearly 90 years old. Writes a book (which no one has yet read) that takes controversial opinions. From the blurb, I disagree with some. But, here, he is called a Marxist, a traitor, senile, and other derogatory terms. Read below. He is condemned. So, there. I've addressed the topic more directly. Stevens may be right or wrong, according to one's beliefs. But tell me when one's beliefs justify demeaning an honorable man who served his country? OK. Ball in your court.
Roberts is a traitor? Do explain.
Drifter33, did you think he was still on the Supreme Court? psydoc helped you on that one.
Service during WWII. Bronze star. You can disagree, but why sink so low as to call an honorable man with whom you disagree a non-American? Very curious.
The Court has NEVER been apolitical. Read Marbury v. Madison and its history. The Framers knew that. You win elections, you nominate the justices subject to Senate confirmation. You use "activist" (without definition) and imply it is modern. If you mean striking laws that were passed by popularly elected legislatures, that is as old as the Republic. Read John Marshall's opinions. Marbury struck an act of Congress, for example. Dred Scott struck the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850. The court of the early 20th Century struck numerous laws. A conservative court struck many acts of the New Deal. Best you clarify what you mean by activism. It has been around since the beginning of the Republic.
Previous 21 - 30 Next