 |
| Opinion/Editorial |
Todays lead oped in this mornings New York Times is an interesting one."Politics and the Supreme Court" is the title.The main point that this oped tries to make is how Conservatives try to use the law to bully their way to get laws passed and a court ruling in their favor.
It begins "The Supreme Court underscored its power to shape American life when it took major cases about the health care reform law, Arizona’s anti-immigrant law and the Voting Rights Act in an election year. But this is not simply a case of the court thrusting itself into politics.The way these cases developed and made their way to the highest court also illustrates the reverse — how politics shape the court. Each case grows out of a struggle between left and right where politics have pushed the law: between a quest for universal coverage and the defense of big health care providers; between an emphasis on openness and hostility toward immigrants; and between a promise of access to the voting booth made nearly 50 years ago and the unyielding opposition to keeping that promise."
Let me see universal health care coverage that hardly no American wants which is unconstitutional (for you idiotic leftists Article I Section 8 clause 3) a.k.a "Commerce clause."On Arizona's anti-immigration law it was passed in that state to show the federal government that it was not enforcing the federal law on the books pertaining to immigration and Voting rights act now today all we ask is that people that have an ID to vote can and should have that right as an American.
Just about half of the way through the oped the NYT starts its whining thus going into attack mode "But the conservative legal battles of our modern times are being waged by the most powerful, often against the weak and oppressed. They began with a carefully planned and successful effort to reshape the courts to be sympathetic to conservative causes. They are largely aimed at narrowing rights, not expanding them — except where property and guns are concerned. And beginning with the Reagan administration, conservatives became impatient with the pace of change brought about from within the mainstream. They sought to remake law into a weapon of aggressive action."
Talk about being a hypocrite in the worst way ok NYT you want to talk about conservatives going after the weak and oppressed ok what do you call abortion the legal killing of a unborn baby that is the lowest form of power being waged against the weak and oppressed.How about your buddy Obama he's just not trying to fundamentally reshape the court with his two lame brained appointments to the high court but the country as well towards a European style socialist dictatorship.And you have the nerve to mention about a weapon of aggressive action spre me please.
The oped ends like this "In 2009, the Supreme Court ducked ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. that nonetheless laid out arguments for its unconstitutionality. The opinion is widely read as a warning that the law is vulnerable to being struck down by the conservative court.
The political influences on these major cases are important by themselves, but also as a reminder that the makeup of the court for the next generation, and thus the law’s direction, are likely to be determined by the 2012 election."
Excuse me conservative court in what world NYT? Certainly not the US Supreme Court if I remember there are nine justices on the highest court in the land 4 who are to the left including the two alleged according to the NYT and the rest of the left wing media establishment as main stream jurists 4 of them that correctly interpret the US Constitution and one which is called "the swinger" being Justice Anthony Kennedy.So can somebody please tell me how this is a Conservative court? I didn't think so
No comments:
Post a Comment