Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
 • Intelligent and friendly discussions.
 • It's free and it's quick. Always.
 • Enter events in the forums calendar.
 • Very user friendly software.
 • Exclusive contests and giveaways.

 Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
 Our 2013 Goal: $400.00 - To Date: $00.00 (00.00%)
 Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact Pittsburgh Steelers Forum Feed Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.

Go Back   Steelers Fever Forums > Miscellaneous > Locker Room


Steelers Fever Fan Shop

Doc's Sports Get FREE NFL Picks and College Football picks as well as Football Lines like live NFL Lines and updated NFL Power Rankings all at Doc's Sports Service.

Steelers Steelers - Giants Giants
August 9th, 2014, 7:30pmET

CBS
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-18-2010, 04:36 PM   #1
ricardisimo
Administrator
 
ricardisimo's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Lalaland
Posts: 5,420
Gender: Male
Member Number: 15369
Thanks: 312
Thanked 859 Times in 411 Posts
Default Replacing Stevens (a TRUE conservative) on the SCOTUS

This Will be Obama's Legacy

By ALEXANDER C0CKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

With the impending departure from the U.S. Supreme Court of Justice John Paul Stevens at the age of 89, we lose one of the nation’s last substantive ties to Great Depression and to the effect of that disaster on the political outlook of a couple of generations.

Stevens’ father, Ernest, owned a famous hotel in Chicago – the Stevens, with 3,000 rooms, now the Hilton. It was built in 1927, and there young John Paul met Amelia Earhart, Charles Lindbergh and Babe Ruth.

But by 1934 hard times took their toll. The hotel went bankrupt. John Paul’s father, grandfather and uncle were all indicted on charges that they’d diverted money from the Illinois Life Insurance Co. (founded by the grandfather) to try and bail out the hotel. The uncle committed suicide, and Stevens’ father was convicted. The Illinois Supreme Court exonerated him two years later, stating, “there’s not a scintilla of evidence of any concealment or fraud.”

Thus did John Paul, still in his teens, acquire his life-long skepticism of police and prosecutors. Between the year he went on the Court (put up by Gerald Ford in 1974 on the recommendation of Ford’s attorney general, Chicagoan Edward Levi), and 2010, John Paul Stevens voted against the government in criminal justice and death penalty cases 70 per cent of the time. Only one justice – William O. Douglas, whose seat Stevens took over – served longer on the Court. When Justice Harry Blackmun retired in 1994, Stevens became the senior associate justice and, thus, able to assign opinions to the justice of his choice. Stevens played his field expertly, time and again maneuvering the swing vote – Anthony Kennedy – onto his side by assigning him the task of writing the opinion.

The most famous case of this sort was the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas, which became the equivalent for gay rights as Brown v. Board of Education for racial discrimination. Among other Stevens-written or Stevens-influenced landmark opinions: Atkins v. Virginia, where Stevens successfully won the necessary majority for the view that executing the mentally retarded constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

Stevens was also the Court’s most powerful opponent of the so-called doctrine of unitary executive power, which takes the view that the U.S. president and his executive wield constitutionally unchallengeable power. Stevens – again, a true conservative – opposed all such assertions and extensions of dominance by the executive. The relevant case was Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Stevens wrote the majority opinion that Bush Jr. could not unilaterally set up military commissions to try detainees in Guantanamo.

Stevens, the last protestant on the high court, described himself as a conservative, and in one sense he was, because he tried to preserve the spirit of the progressive Warren court through the decades-long swing of the court toward the right, both among the Republican nominees and the ones put up by Clinton (Breyer and Ginsburg) and by Obama (Sotomayor). As Stevens himself has said to law professor Jeffrey Rosen, “Including myself, every judge who has been appointed to the Court since Lewis Powell [1971] has been more conservative than his or her predecessor.”

As Obama and his counselors ponder potential nominees, the air is filled with counsel that Obama should avoid a protracted fight and should pick “a moderate” – i.e., pro-business, pro-government – nominee, like Elena Kagan, 49, now solicitor general and in earlier years head of the Harvard Law School, where she hired Jack Goldsmith, head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush administration, where he was intimately tied to the torture and detainee abuse scandals. He's Harvard's version of John Yoo. Before that, Kagan served as Clinton’s deputy domestic policy advisor, in which capacity she oversaw, among other assignments, welfare “reform.” One of her colleagues at the White House at that time was Christopher Edley, now the Dean at Boalt, the law school at UC Berkeley. Edley says of Kagan that her politics were “center to center right.”

In the Clinton administration, Kagan helped formulate the Democratic equivalent of what became, in the subsequent W. Bush years, the assertion of unitary executive power. There’s zero evidence that Kagan would do anything to redress the right-wing tilt of the Court and plenty that she might exacerbate it, in the areas of executive power, civil liberties, and assertion of presidential war powers. In her confirmation hearings as solicitor general, she so entranced the right with her proclamations in favor of the War on Terror, indefinite detention, and against any pursuit of war crimes investigations, that Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota) said, “it sounded like she was getting a standing ovation from the Federalist Society.”

Kagan is the worst possibility thus far to surface, but the others potential nominees are scarcely inspiring. There’s the mainstream liberal Diane Wood, who sits the Federal Appeals Court in Chicago, and Merrick Garland, a neoliberal Clinton appointee in the mold of Justice Steven Breyer, corporate America’s judicial representative on the Court. (Stevens, by contrast, began his legal career as an anti-trust lawyer.) Garland, another Chicagoan, is now on the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia.

These are the three frontrunners. The left has put up no preferred nominee, expressing concerns that the Republicans might filibuster. So, why not provoke just such a filibuster with a decent candidate? This appointment, remember, is Obama’s last chance to vindicate the hopes of the left that our African-American president is, at least, as liberal as Gerald Ford and would leave as enduring a legacy as Stevens. Come November, the Democrats will lose control of the House and Obama’s legislative powers will be extinguished, unless he goes into full Clintonian triangulation. It is now, and only now, that Obama can actually install a nominee with the ability to defend and advance progressive interpretations of the Constitution over the next 40 years.

Who could the left put up, as an assertion of what a truly progressive justice might look like? How about Steven Bright, of the Southern Center for Human Rights, the country’s leading anti-Death Penalty litigator from Kentucky? Or, David Cole, professor of law at Georgetown? Or, Pamela Carlan, at Stanford, a former counsel for the NAACP and openly gay? Or, Jonathan Turley, at George Washington, who is particularly strong on civil liberties and the environment? Turley defended Sami al-Arian, the Rocky Flats workers, attacked warrantless wiretapping. Or, within the administration, Harold Koh, Korean American and one of the principle legal opponents of the torture policies of the Bush years? Koh was originally a Reagan appointee to the Office of Legal Counsel. Turley says Koh is the closest we have to Justice Brandeis.

There’s one more name that has been nervously circulated among progressive circles, that of Elizabeth Warren, currently head of the Congressional Oversight Panel on the banking bailout. Warren originally hails from Oklahoma and a professor at Harvard Law School. Warren is as close as we can now get to Stevens’ economic populism and has been eloquent on the topic of corporate skulduggery and on the pro-bank tilt of the bailout. She would, actually, be a shrewd choice for Obama, because it would turn the Supreme Court confirmation hearings into a debate on economic justice, consumer protection and regulation of Wall Street where Warren’s Republican opponents be forced to take the side of the rich, at a moment when the rich are not popular with a large number of Americans.
Don’t hold your breath.
__________________
Why does God hate amputees?
ricardisimo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2010, 05:15 PM   #2
Godfather
Living Legend
Supporter
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,140
Member Number: 547
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Replacing Stevens (a TRUE conservative) on the SCOTUS

Stevens' legacy will always be the awful Kelo decision.
Godfather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2010, 09:25 PM   #3
ricardisimo
Administrator
 
ricardisimo's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Lalaland
Posts: 5,420
Gender: Male
Member Number: 15369
Thanks: 312
Thanked 859 Times in 411 Posts
Default Re: Replacing Stevens (a TRUE conservative) on the SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfather View Post
Stevens' legacy will always be the awful Kelo decision.
You mean the eminent domain decision regarding the mall development? That was truly god awful. By and large he was a smaller government guy, in the best sense of the concept.
__________________
Why does God hate amputees?
ricardisimo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2010, 09:33 PM   #4
Godfather
Living Legend
Supporter
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,140
Member Number: 547
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Replacing Stevens (a TRUE conservative) on the SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardisimo View Post
You mean the eminent domain decision regarding the mall development? That was truly god awful. By and large he was a smaller government guy, in the best sense of the concept.
Yep...that's why I didn't like it when people praised him as a champion of the little guy. That decision affects our day to day lives more than most Court decisions, and does so in one of the most fundamental ways. As a result of Kelo, people effectively no longer own their homes. Anytime the fat cats decide they can make a buck off our property, the government can take it away from us.

My biggest fear is that Kelo will do further damage as a precedent for upholding Obamacare--the argument being that the government can force you into a private transaction.
Godfather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2010, 12:21 AM   #5
ricardisimo
Administrator
 
ricardisimo's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Lalaland
Posts: 5,420
Gender: Male
Member Number: 15369
Thanks: 312
Thanked 859 Times in 411 Posts
Default Re: Replacing Stevens (a TRUE conservative) on the SCOTUS

Liberals absolutely adore eminent domain, and please don't ever bother pointing out to them that in the entirety of its usage in this country, maybe one incident might somehow qualify as "for the greater good", or for a mildly progressive cause. Some part of them likes expanded state powers, despite mountains of evidence that the state will invariably use those powers to benefit the corporate elite, and not ordinary folks.

The last opportunity I saw to use ED for something resembling the greater good was during the Western grid energy crisis. Then-Governor Gray Davis had ample evidence that the markets were being heavily manipulated, and could have done whatever he wanted with overwhelming public support.

Although I personally would have enjoyed watching him send the National Guard to commandeer every plant, transformer and transmission line in the state, realistically speaking he only would have had to take over one small plant somewhere in an outer corner of the state to send the suits a strong message to cut it out. Instead, he did nothing but look prickly on the boob tube, and he was rightly tossed out for his pathetic impotence the next year or so.

Pop quiz: does anyone remember what finally caused the "brown-outs" to stop?
__________________
Why does God hate amputees?
ricardisimo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2010, 06:18 AM   #6
WH
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Member Number:
Default Re: Replacing Stevens (a TRUE conservative) on the SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardisimo View Post

Pop quiz: does anyone remember what finally caused the "brown-outs" to stop?
Bernie Kozar?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2010, 06:23 AM   #7
GoSlash27
Team Captain
 
GoSlash27's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: s t e e l u n i v e r s e . n e t
Posts: 949
Member Number: 3225
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default "Conservative"??

http://pooleandrosenthal.com/the_uni...reme_court.htm

Stevens isn't just a liberal Justice, he is *THE* liberal Justice. Where on Earth did this article come from?
GoSlash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2010, 08:52 AM   #8
revefsreleets
Living Legend
 
revefsreleets's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Akron, Ohio Home of LeBron James
Posts: 15,403
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5353
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Replacing Stevens (a TRUE conservative) on the SCOTUS

Yeah, saying Stevens is conservative isn't just wrong, it's ridiculously wrong...like saying Nixon was a hippy-dippy liberal.

So far, the court is still balanced in favor of Conservatives no matter what Obama does...

Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are all staunch conservatives, with Kennedy (although a Reagan appointee, DID come form the 9th circuit and can be a little wishy-washy) represent the "5" in the 5-4 conservative majority. Stevens is a liberal, who will be replaced with a liberal, so it's a wash.
__________________
Official Steelersfever Arians Nuthugger
revefsreleets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2010, 10:17 AM   #9
ricardisimo
Administrator
 
ricardisimo's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Lalaland
Posts: 5,420
Gender: Male
Member Number: 15369
Thanks: 312
Thanked 859 Times in 411 Posts
Default Re: Replacing Stevens (a TRUE conservative) on the SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by revefsreleets View Post
Yeah, saying Stevens is conservative isn't just wrong, it's ridiculously wrong...like saying Nixon was a hippy-dippy liberal.

So far, the court is still balanced in favor of Conservatives no matter what Obama does...

Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are all staunch conservatives, with Kennedy (although a Reagan appointee, DID come form the 9th circuit and can be a little wishy-washy) represent the "5" in the 5-4 conservative majority. Stevens is a liberal, who will be replaced with a liberal, so it's a wash.
Odd you should say that. Nixon was, in fact, our last liberal president, and you should know that by now.

Scalia, Thomas, and company are not conservatives in the least. They are radicals in the worst possible sense, and you should know that as well.
__________________
Why does God hate amputees?
ricardisimo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2010, 10:55 AM   #10
revefsreleets
Living Legend
 
revefsreleets's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Akron, Ohio Home of LeBron James
Posts: 15,403
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5353
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Replacing Stevens (a TRUE conservative) on the SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardisimo View Post
Odd you should say that. Nixon was, in fact, our last liberal president, and you should know that by now.

Scalia, Thomas, and company are not conservatives in the least. They are radicals in the worst possible sense, and you should know that as well.
Whacko...but it's fun having you here...except when you go off on your Jew hating rants....that's a bit over-the-top...
__________________
Official Steelersfever Arians Nuthugger
revefsreleets is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum
no new posts