Hey, Liberals: SCOTUS Ain’t Your Friend - By Michael Tomasky

[DonViejo]

After the ACA and marriage rulings, liberals might be feeling hey, the court’s not so bad. But it is. And rulings can always be reversed.

It would be understandable if liberals were feeling kind of relaxed, kind of “Supreme Court, what’s so bad?” over the weekend. John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy delivered for our team on Obamacare, and then Kennedy came through again on same-sex marriage. If this is a conservative court, is getting a liberal one—which will be one of the trump-card arguments for voting for Hillary Clinton next fall—really a matter of such pressing urgency?

Well, yes. As we saw yesterday with the court’s death-penalty and EPA rulings, it’s still a long way from being a liberal court. But there’s more to it than that. People should remember that if a Republican is elected president next year and has the chance to replace Kennedy and/or Ruth Bader Ginsburg with another Samuel Alito, the Obamacare and same-sex marriage standings could easily be reversed. And don’t think there aren’t conservatives out there thinking about it, because there most certainly are, and they literally want to roll back the judicial clock to 1905.

An interesting and important debate opened up over the weekend in conservative legal circles that you should take some time to educate yourself about. Many conservatives, of course, are furious with Roberts and Kennedy and are wondering, with conservatives like this, who needs liberals?

The ins and outs of the debate were deftly summarized yesterday by Ian Millhiser of Think Progress. I’m not going to take you as deep into the jurisprudential weeds as Millhiser does, but here’s the basic story. Since the 1980s, “judicial restraint” has been the guiding principle of conservative jurisprudence—the idea that judges shouldn’t make law from the bench but should rule more narrowly and modestly, deferring to the other branches. Roberts was invoking judicial restraint during his confirmation hearings with that famous line about judges just calling “balls and strikes.”

more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/30/hey-liberals-scotus-ain-t-your-friend.html

[merrily]

1. Just calling balls and strikes, like corporations are people?

What convenient "orginalism" for a Republican Court.

[onehandle]

2. The conservative majority's fifth vote votes Purely pro-corporation and pro-profit.

Which is the Only reason that we are not living in the nightmare that four of them want for America.

If not for Bush/Nader, we would have won all of those cases this week.

The England of V For Vendetta is one justice away. We cannot take any chances with this election.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. Which is why we also can't afford a pro-corporation and pro-profit Democrat.

Who will solidify the SCOTUS as a pro-corporation and pro-profit court for the next 30+years.

We need one who will appoint pro-human and pro-labour Justices.

[Romeo.lima333]

5. which is why we cant afford to lose the w.h. by voting for someone who doesnt have a 60%

lead

[UTUSN]

4. R#5 & K n/t

[Romeo.lima333]

6. hey micheal i dont think anyone is fooled

[Bluenorthwest]

7. Being happy about some good decisions is not the same as thinking they are a liberal court, fool.

Sorry to offend Mike by being happy to obtain a long sought victory. A good thing happened. Give it a few days before shitting on it. People can get married. Mike has been married for many, many years and never had to fight for that right. It shows.
I get sick of this shit. Who the fuck does he think he is?