Thursday, July 5, 2007

Justice Supplied

Well, the New York Times is at it again.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth has yet to subside over the recent rulings of the SCOTUS. In today's weepy editorial titled "Justice Denied," the writer bemoans,

"Time and again the [Roberts] court has ruled, almost always 5-4, in favor of corporations and powerful interests while slamming the courthouse door on individuals and ideals that truly need the court’s shelter."

Au contraire.

For fifty years the Supreme Court has been slamming the courthouse door on individuals (unborn babies) and ideals (morality and a belief in God) that truly need the court's shelter.

In 1948, voluntary religious instruction was outlawed in public schools. In 1962, school prayer went. In 1963, voluntary daily reading from the Bible was declared unconstitutional. In 1973, women were granted an unrestricted right to kill the unborn. In 1980, a Kentucky law that called for posting the Ten Commandments on classroom walls was overturned because the Commandments serve "no secular purpose." In 2000, a Nebraska statute criminalizing partial birth abortion was held to be unconstitutional. In 2003, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law forbidding same-sex relations, and in the words of dissenting Justice Scalia, "signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."

It is only in the last two years that the Court has exercised any sense of judicial restraint. But the NYT misinterprets this to be a "radical new court" with a "sharp shift to the right."

Well, I suppose the addition of Roberts and Alito constitutes a sharp shift to the right -- but from way out in left field, that leaves us somewhere near center.

Back to "Justice Denied,"

"Chief Justice Roberts said that he wanted to promote greater consensus, but he is presiding over a court that is deeply riven."

Don't buy into the rhetoric. The Supreme Court has been deeply riven for decades. Only, whereas it was once split 7-2 and 6-3, liberal/conservative, it is now split down the middle, 4-4 with Kennedy's swing vote making 9.

"The flip side of the court’s boundless solicitude for the powerful was its often contemptuous attitude toward common folks looking for justice."

Pure bunk. It was the powerful elites in Seattle who were (rightfully) held in contempt (cf., More on the Gang of 5), and it was the "common folks" of America whose desire to ban the barbaric procedure of killing half-born babies was upheld (cf., The Gang of 5).

2 comments:

BabyGhost said...

Seriously. I love how being conservative is seen as "radical"

Does that sound a little ironic to you?

Tom & Carrie Herring said...

Very.

Especially when the recent decisions of the SCOTUS are seen in light of the last five decades -- which were truly radical.