John Paul Steven's resignation from the supreme court and its implications

John Paul Steven's basically 90 now, resigned from the Supreme Court, old news though, and with his leaving, the court moves dangerously more right.

Steven's originally appointed as a Conservative Judge, has not moved Left, but now has become the only seemingly rational voice on the court. By our standards today, he is Center to Light Liberal. Thus showing how far right the court has moved, putting it off balance.

He wrote the only dissenting case in the fundamentally and morally challenging citizen's united case which allowed unlimited business funding into elections. And he Read it ALOUD for 20 minutes.

He was the minority in being part of the dissenters in the court saying that, in Illinois v. Wardlow, that there was no reasonable suspicion to stop of fleeing young black man because he bolted at the sight of police. He wrote that growing up in a community like this teenager's that the police were associated with poorly and that contact with police could lead to detainment regardless. Basically the others said that only guilty people run.

Dangerous shift right, unless Obama appoints another John Paul Stevens

The Supreme Court itself is dangerous. They've been messing with the Constitution in ways obviously never intended by the Founding Fathers. The entire Court should be disbanded.

Well, no, They interpret it, its part of how the constitution is a living document.

What was set forth 300 years ago can't always be right in the 21st century where we are recreating the big bang.

Yeah, Founding Fathers never intended for corporations to control the government, and I can tell you they never intended for political parties at all. In fact, one of them openly stated in public that having political parties was UNconstitutional.

Actually, Thomas Jefferson founded the first political party, then Alexander Hamilton Followed suit.

Republican and Federalist i believe, memory foggy on that, 3 years ago.

George Washington on the other hand never liked the idea.

I believe Washington was right. Without political parties, room for corruptions drops.

Well, yes, I think that too, I wish there was a way, party loyalty is stupid honestly, it just creates, imo, a bureaucracy inside a government, which isn't a very good way to run a country.

This is why I stopped supporting any party.

Is there even an open ballot? If you are registered do you only see your parties candidates?

Oh I'm still listed under a party, but I'm not going to vote for anyone but Presidential candidates, and only in the real election.

it's true the founding fathers did not want to have political faction, but the thing is the the moment the federalists and the anti-federalists have debated over the ratification of the constitution parties were created. Why you ask are parties here? well they allow for easy political socialization and a way to combine support for a candidate. Otherwise everything's a clusterfuck

Now supreme court, I think Judicial activism under the warren court was awesome, but neo-conservatives are pissy about Roe V. Wade and Reagan and the two Bush presidents are willing to push anyone to assert their strict constitutionalist views.

Ever hear of Robert Bork, he was a crazy motherfucker whose nomination was bitterly contested, even today it's called "borking". I just did a term paper on Clarence Thomas's nomination and I honestly think he should of never been nominated. First off, Clarence Thomas had only been a lawyer for 5 years and a federal judge for 18 MONTHS!! when he was nominated. Granted you don't need qualifications, but seriously do you want someone with that inexperience on the highest court in the land?

Second, his nomination was based PRIMARILY ON RACE. Let's get a black man to disorganize civil rights movement opposition was H.W's thought. Finally, there was the Anita Hill allegations. JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS HAS SEXUALLY HARRASSED COWORKERS AT THE EEOC AND SHOWED UP TO SOME HOUSES UNINVITED!

yeah, and now he's a justice

Too long didn't read lol people: I hope there is a new nominee who can counter the ties of conservatism (especially thomas who doesn't deserve to be there)

said nothing about John Paul Stevens

also, I'm sure people could run on their own platforms, not party platforms.

that's because stevens is old :/

and people can run on their own platforms but Politics costs money..

Ross perot ran on his own...got 19% of the vote..

but even then that's a minor party..this is a plurality system. No proportional representation here..winner takes all

to me it seems they will need to get some one that starts right and swings left... allow me to demonstarte...

In 1978, Stevens was not only in the majority in University of California Regents v. Bakke, but he wrote the opinion holding that the school's race-based admissions program violated Title VII and ordering the university to admit Bakke.

In another case of government race-based classifications, Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980), Stevens ridiculed the idea of race-based "remedies" being applied.

Adopting Justice William Rehnquist's view that the specific history of blacks in America makes their claims unique, Stevens wrote: "Quite obviously, the history of discrimination against black citizens in America cannot justify a grant of privileges to Eskimos or Indians." Unlike blacks, who were "dragged to this country in chains to be sold in slavery," Stevens said "the 'Spanish-speaking' subclass came voluntarily, frequently without invitation, and the Indians, the Eskimos and the Aleuts had an opportunity to exploit America's resources before the ancestors of most American citizens arrived."



While in 2003, when the court considered the race-based admissions policy at the University of Michigan. The school automatically awarded 20 points -- one-fifth of the total points needed for admission -– to every minority, including not only blacks, but also Hispanics, Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts.

This time, affirmative action for Aleuts was, apparently fine with Stevens, who came up with a ludicrous procedural objection to the lawsuit, basically concluding that no one ever has standing to sue for race discrimination in college admissions.

That is a bit of a change from the Justice Stevens who compared government affirmative action programs to Nazi policies, saying if the government "is to make a serious effort to define racial classes by criteria that can be administered objectively, it must study precedents such as the First Regulation to the Reich's Citizenship Law of Nov. 14, 1935," translated in Volume 4 of "Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression."

But that does not mean he swung a little left now does it?

this was pulled from here

from the site that says in its ads, "liberals gone wild?" omg?!?!

Ptolemy, come back with that information from a reliable web site and we can talk, until then, think about how Conservatism has changed.

Nihil wrote:John Paul Steven's basically 90 now, resigned from the Supreme Court, old news though, and with his leaving, the court moves dangerously more right.

Sorry Nihil, no room to talk when you make the what is, essentially, the same statement.

Yes, but that is my interpretation of what has been stated on the news about his policies. It is common knowledge that he was a conservative judge, although, imo, there should be no such thing as a liberal or conservative judge, just a judge, but, his decisions reflect the fact that he has held on to the decisions, such as the citizens united case, which you thought was bad too aard, where unlimited funding by any coporation for a campaign was legal, now, he wrote the only dissenting case, so, doesn't that seem to say something? It was obviously a conservative conclusion, and to me, a poor interpretation of the law.

It was a stupid conclusion that's against the Constitution. Both parties are becoming blind so I fail to see a distinction anymore. It's become no more then two toddlers throwing tantrums over who is better. All I'm doing is saying that you can't discount Pto's statement just because of an add saying "Liberals Gone Wild" when your own point makes the equivalent statement against conservatives.

As far as I'm concerned we need to nuke D.C. and start over.

Nihil wrote:Yes, but that is my interpretation of what has been stated on the news about his policies. It is common knowledge that he was a conservative judge, although, imo, there should be no such thing as a liberal or conservative judge, just a judge, but, his decisions reflect the fact that he has held on to the decisions, such as the citizens united case, which you thought was bad too aard, where unlimited funding by any coporation for a campaign was legal, now, he wrote the only dissenting case, so, doesn't that seem to say something? It was obviously a conservative conclusion, and to me, a poor interpretation of the law.

that seems to answer what you just posted aard^

also, there is no need to nuke d.c didn't anyone read that Fareed Zakharia articl e I posted?

All I'm saying is that if you discount Pto's post for bias, then you have to discount your own first post for the same reason.

Nihil wrote:from the site that says in its ads, "liberals gone wild?" omg?!?!

Ptolemy, come back with that information from a reliable web site and we can talk, until then, think about how Conservatism has changed.

Did you look up the information or just dismiss the source that i used. All the info i got from there is a matter of public record. do not believe me look it up your self...

well, the first case was based on the constitutionality of the governments funding to give 10% of public works to minority owned businesses

Facts of the Case:
In 1977, Congress enacted legislation requiring that at least 10 percent of federal funds granted for local public works programs had to be used to obtain services or supplies from businesses owned by minority group members. H. Earl Fullilove and other contractors filed suit, claiming they had been economically harmed by the enforcement of the statute. The defendant was Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary of Commerce.

Question:
Did the provision of the statute for minority business enterprises violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion:
No. The Court held that the minority set-aside program was a legitimate exercise of congressional power. The Court found that Congress could pursue the objectives of the minority business enterprise program under the Spending Power. The plurality opinion noted that Congress could have regulated the practices of contractors on federally funded projects under the Commerce Clause as well. The Court further held that in the remedial context, Congress did not have to act "in a wholly 'color-blind' fashion."

Here is a snippet from his dissent

"The 10% set-aside contained in the Public Works Employment Act of 1977 (Act), 91 Stat. 116, creates monopoly privileges in a $400 million market for a class of investors defined solely by racial characteristics. The direct beneficiaries of these monopoly privileges are the relatively small number of persons within the racial classification who represent the entrepreneurial subclass -- those who have, or can borrow, working capital.

History teaches us that the costs associated with a sovereign's grant of exclusive privileges often encompass more [p533] than the high prices and shoddy workmanship that are familiar handmaidens of monopoly; they engender animosity and discontent, as well. The economic consequences of using noble birth as a basis for classification in 18th-century France, though disastrous, were nothing as compared with the terror that was engendered in the name of "egalite" and "fraternite." Grants of privilege on the basis of characteristics acquired at birth are far from an unmixed blessing.

Our historic aversion to titles of nobility [n1] is only one aspect of our commitment to the proposition that the sovereign has a fundamental duty to govern impartially. [n2] When government accords different treatment to different persons, there must be a reason for the difference. [n3] Because racial [p534] characteristics so seldom provide a relevant basis for disparate treatment, [n4] and because classifications based on race are potentially so harmful to the entire body politic, [n5] it is especially [p535] important that the reasons for any such classification be clearly identified and unquestionably legitimate."


In the Second Stevens wrote a Special Concurrence for the case: that is "a concurence in the judgment, is when the justice agrees with the Court's disposition but not its opinion."

basically, they agreed that race could be used as a factor for admission, but not for omission.

obviously they were different circumstances.

also aard, as I quoted myself saying, it was common knowledge he was appointed as a conservative judge.

"On the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, John Paul Stevens had a moderately conservative record. Early in his tenure on the Supreme Court, Stevens had a relatively moderate voting record. He voted to reinstate capital punishment in the United States and opposed race-based admissions programs such as the program at issue in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). But on the more conservative Rehnquist Court, Stevens joined the more liberal Justices on issues such as abortion rights, gay rights and federalism. His Segal–Cover score, a measure of the perceived liberalism/conservatism of Court members when they joined the Court, places him squarely in the ideological center of the Court."

as you can see, the court moved right, he didn't.