Third Party & Independents: Archives

Indeed. Those darn Liberals!!! Without them, segragation would still exist!!! Married women would still be banned from collages!!! Blah, blah, blah.

Heh. Its all nonsense anyway. Who cares?

Misha, good article. Objectively, the Congress had overstepped its authority in hiding usurpation of state’s rights under the Commerce clause and I agree the Rehnquist Court had just cause to instill constraints through rulings.

What I find scary about your article, the Libertarian Party, and many Republicans who have any knowledge of what we are talking about here, is the black and white view of this issue. There is a huge difference that you all can’t see. That difference is between exercising legitimate authority by Congress through the Commerce Clause, and overstepping that legitimacy.

Y’all, at times come off as wanting to eliminate the Commerce Clause altogether, or, if not that far, deprive use of the Commerce Clause for Congressional response to real legitimate problems in our society that cannot be addressed in other ways, without doing even greater harm to checks and balances.

BTW, do you have any insight as to the defensible grounds (if any) upon which Pres. Bush just waived the ‘posse comitatus’ provisions? Does the office of the President now have the power to simply waive the Constitution and the body of laws that emanate from it, if the Pres. deems the reason good enough?

Misha:

So Rehnquist reined in Congress. This may be good or not, depending on your legal philosophy.

Why not consider his view in Plessy v. Ferguson, where Rehnquist insisted that separate can be equal? Rehnquist was a racist. He was against anything that would help the blacks and other minorities.

He was a hypocrite even with reference to states rights. States rights was OK when he wanted to keep down blacks, women and other minorities. He tore states rights to shreds when he helped appoint George W. Bush president in Bush v. Gore.

After he arranged Bush’s election I decided Rehnquist had no judicial philosophy. He favored those in power.

The important work of future justice Roberts and whoever replaces the Chief will be to guide the Court into respecting the role of the national government as one of limited and enumerated powers.

Judge Rehnquist was the most activist judge of the modern era. Some appreciated his brand of activism while others disdained it, but history will view him as among the influential and important judges of all time. He was a truly brilliant man, but I think the Bush v. Gore decision will forever tarnish his reputation as a man of principle.

There’s some irony that his death is overshadowed by the horrors of New Orleans. If there was ever a time to realize that federal, state and local governments deeply depend on one another, it is now. Today, we’re all much more likely to identify ourselves as Americans rather than New Yorkers, Virginians, etc., as we did when the nation was founded. The Commerce Clause is an exceedingly clunky mechanism to hold together the union and I personally often object to decisions based on it, but something needed to be invented to do the job. Ultimately, we’re going to require some people of deep wisdom sitting on the Supreme Court to handle the challenges of state vs. federal issues that lie ahead.

Paul S:

Thank you for not disappointing me. Continue to kick a man even before his body is cold.

You said, “He was against anything that would help the blacks and other minorities.
He was a hypocrite even with reference to states rights. States rights was OK when he wanted to keep down blacks, women and other minorities. He tore states rights to shreds when he helped appoint George W. Bush president in Bush v. Gore.
After he arranged Bush’s election I decided Rehnquist had no judicial philosophy. He favored those in power”
So basically you are calling him a racist. Perhaps you have some proof of the charges you just made or were you just wasting oxygen?

Perplexed

Perplexed:

I mentioned Plessy v. Ferguson. Also, here’s a quote from David Corn at the Huffington Post:

“It’s not hard to conclude that Rehnquist was on the wrong side of history and then lied about it—especially given actions he took later. In 1964, Rehnquist testified against a proposed ordinance in Phoenix that would ban racial discrimination in public housing. As The Washington Post notes in today’s stories on his death, Rehnquist wrote at the time, “It is, I believe, impossible to justify the sacrifice of even a portion of our historic individual liberty for a purpose such as this.” In other words, people are not truly free if they are not free to discriminate. In his 1971 hearings, Rehnquist repudiated that stance. But did he really mean it? Twelve years later, he was the only justice to say that Bob Jones University—that hotbed of racial discrimination and religious bigotry—had a legal right to keep African-Americans off its campus.”

Of course, you do not agree with Corn or me. That’s OK. I can live with it.

Reed —

Very astute, calling Rehnquist an activist. He unquestionably was.

Time to level, folks. I’m a lawyer, and without hesitation I can say, in my more realistic moments, that constitutional law and jurisprudence is complete and utter bullshit. It’s pure politics, and one side of the political spectrum is just as activist as the other. If you tell yourself otherwise, you’re hopelessly naive. Both sides are trying desperately to shoehorn their politics into the Constitution. Some are more unabashed about it than others, but they all do it to varying degrees.

Paul S. —

It was pretty well known among people in the legal community that Rehnquist was deeply ashamed of Bush v. Gore, which most legal scholars have condemned as one of the worst decisions in the history of american jurisprudence, and he did not want it to be the final decision of his career as Chief Justice. Which, of course, explains his refusal to retire despite being gravely ill.

The passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist is the passing of an era. Hopfully Bush will take advantage of this a appoint a true conservtive this time insted of a so called conservitive.

The one thing to remember about judges though is that they were ALL lawyers at one time.

The one thing to remember about judges though is that they were ALL lawyers at one time.

Not necessarily. I don’t believe there’s any stipulation that an appointee must have any legal background whatsoever, is there?

And afterall, Bush did make a horse breeder the head of FEMA, ya?

Paul S:

Thank you for not disappointing me. Continue to kick a man even before his body is cold.

Yes, careful Paul. No speaking ill of the Fuhrer or his compatriots.

Ron Brown,
That’s indisputably a true statement.
That’s all I got to say about that.
Despite temptation, I vowed not to bash any particular profession anymore. So, no jokes or criticisms today.

But, I have to agree with “unkind k” for the most part. It’s too political. And the recent eminent domain decisions don’t make the supreme court look good at all, in which local governments can now acquire private land if they simply compensate the homeowner for the property. It does not matter that the areas are not blighted (such as the section of New London was not labeled a blighted area).
_____________________________________________
NOTE: I don’t think Rehnquist participated in that decision. So, I’m not sure how he would have voted on it.
_____________________________________________

But we’ve got big problems growing in number and severity:

• recent abuse of eminent domain laws,
  
• election fraud, government for sale,
  
• big money influence on election and government (90% of elections are won by those that spend the most) by a few with vast weatlh and power,
  
• graft, pork-barrel, waste,
  
• main parties blocking 3rd parties access to ballots and debate,
  
• refusal of government to deal with tough problems for fear of risking re-election,
  
• pandering,
  
• plunder of entitlement systems & pensions & PBGC insolvency,
  
• fiscal irresponsibility,
  
• unfair and oppressive tax system,
  
• the falling dollar, printing more money & subsequent inflation and economic destabilization,
  
• refusal to secure borders for hope illegal immigration will create new tax payers and increased populations,
  
• insufficient and selective law enforcement,
  
• increasingly unaffordable and unreliable health care,
  
• presidential pardons for convicted criminals (even those that pled guilty),
  
• corporate/investor fraud (baby boomers lost trillion$ in the last recession),
  
• falling incomes, global pillage (not global village) & the race to the bottom,
  
• energy vulnerability and no energy plan or serious leadership to reduce dependency on oil,
  
• rejection of term limits by both parties,
  
• rejection of campaign finance/election reform by both parties,
  
• violation of the 1st Amendment,
  
• shrinking middle income population,
  
• increased poverty,
  
• top 5% of wealthiest have 59% of all wealth, the bottom 60% only have 5% of all wealth,
  
• continuous growth of the National Debt,
  
• continuous growth, every year, of the government to nightmare proportions (while voting themselves raises and cu$hy perk$),
  
• perpetuation of the myth that we can all live at the expense of everyone else,
  
• incarceration and execution of innocent people,
  
• perversion of the laws to do the very things the laws were supposed to prevent,
  
• and increasingly apathetic voters who feel it no longer matters who they vote for, as they watch both main parties simply take turns at being irresponsible, unaccountable, and sabotaging each other, without regard for the welfare of the nation.
  

Sorry for the repetition, but I’m aghast that our leaders, and economists don’t seem too concerned about these serious issues. Seriously, please tell me why these many pressing problems are nothing to worry about?

Seems to me that Rehnquist was an ideologue in that he decided whether or not he agreed with the intent or results of a legislative enactment or an executive action and then endeavored to find constitutional validation for his opinion. Most of his opinions and decisions smacked of inductive, rather than deductive, reasoning.

He legitimized the prosecution of sexually discriminatory speech in the workplace not because Congress had the right to do so, but because he thought that was right for the country. He opposed abortion rights not because he opposed individual liberty but because the thought that it was right for the country. He supported states rights when he supported the laws in question, such as in the death penalty, but opposed states rights when he opposed the laws in question, such as in eminent domain and medical marijuana.

Of course, ideologues have a rich tradition on the Court. For more than half a century, Congress was precluded from regulating interstate commerce in any way whatsoever because the majority had invented a series of so-called “vested rights”, such as the right of contract, that superceded the commerce clause. My God, they overturned child labor laws not once but twice on this fictional premise.

My point is that, if you can find judges who will overturn laws and acts with which they agree personally and sustain laws and acts with which they disagree, grab them and promote them to the bench.

IMO, Rehnquist was the antithesis of such a judge. He had a social agenda, he was a true believer, and was determined to twist or ignore the constitution in any way necessary in order to accomplish his social objectives.

A Supreme Court justice, especially the Chief Justice, should simply decide what the legislature and executive can or cannot do, not what they should or should not do. A Supreme Court justice should never decide a case on the basis of whether he or she thinks a law is right or wrong or good or bad, but only on the basis of whether it is permissible or not under our Constitution.

Against this standard, Rehnquist failed consistently, and I’m optimistic that almost any change will be an improvement.

unkind k and Chuck,

I agree with both of the statements below. The first states the way things are. The second the way things should be. Now, if only the twain could meet. Alas.

Both sides are trying desperately to shoehorn their politics into the Constitution. Some are more unabashed about it than others, but they all do it to varying degrees.

My point is that, if you can find judges who will overturn laws and acts with which they agree personally and sustain laws and acts with which they disagree, grab them and promote them to the bench.

Seems to me that Rehnquist was an ideologue in that he decided whether or not he agreed with the intent or results of a legislative enactment or an executive action and then endeavored to find constitutional validation for his opinion.

Bingo! Expect President Bush to appoint another judicial activist. Ron Brown here is all for judicial activism — as long as it comes down on his side. He’s the “base” that President Bush will target with his next pick, just as he targeted big business with Roberts.

All of a sudden, the national dialogue will be back to “character” and “values”, and President Bush’s Katrina and Iraq failures will be old news.

Oh, and to get back on topic, I’m glad Rhenquist helped cut back some of the excesses of Commerce Clause abuse by Congress.

David,

you said:

Y’all, at times come off as wanting to eliminate the Commerce Clause altogether, or, if not that far, deprive use of the Commerce Clause for Congressional response to real legitimate problems in our society that cannot be addressed in other ways, without doing even greater harm to checks and balances.

It IS a black and white issue.

As Misha said,

“The important work of future justice Roberts and whoever replaces the Chief will be to guide the Court into respecting the role of the national government as one of limited and enumerated powers. I will end with Rehnquist’s simple statement from U.S. v. Lopez:”

We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers.

The Commerce Clause does NOT cover everything. Previous legislators drew up the Commerce Clause for a specific purpose. Legislators today need to learn to legislate something besides pork and not rest on the laurels and hard work of those that have gone before them. It can be done. They just have to do it. Imo, it can’t be any more complicated than the majority of the loopholes they slip in for their special interests. If they think the federal government has a legitimate responsibility/cause to supercede state’s rights, then ENUMERATE those causes and responsibilities! Harn to the checks and balances only occurs when such as the Commerce Clause are abused to effect that it was not inteded to effect.

Paul Seigel,

Touting out racism as the motive behind every decision or circumstance that does not fit a person’s individual liking diminishes the credibility and efficacy of messages.

That said, is Little Havana separate but equal to Little Italy? Are the UNCF and NAACP racist organiziations? Are Seminoles equal to Cherokees? There can be separate but equal which is ‘discriminatory’ yet not oppressive, or it can be oppressive. Imo, we should work toward real choices, making room for and celebrating our differences as well as our similarities.

My views may reflect my multi-ethnic, multi-cultural family, yet this no longer the oddity it once was and is now becoming almost commonplace. We like variety; not everyone does. We should each be allowed some choice.

REED,

Ultimately, we’re going to require some people of deep wisdom sitting on the Supreme Court to handle the challenges of state vs. federal issues that lie ahead.

Well said!! And great choice of quotes! kudos!

Perplexed:

>:^|

Chuck,

i am not so skilled as to discern the intentions and motivations of another person’s decisions or actions. Yet i do stand with REED and appplaud you for

My point is that, if you can find judges who will overturn laws and acts with which they agree personally and sustain laws and acts with which they disagree, grab them and promote them to the bench.

i would further add: If you can find legislators who will write/support laws/bills with which they personally disagree and cross party lines to fairly and accurately represent their constituency, grab them, promote them and retain them in office.

American Pundit,

Thanks for reminding us there was a topic. ;)