A Washington Post article made a big deal about how nearly a third of the public thinks the U.S. Supreme Court is too far to the right, according to a new poll. But should that be surprising? What percentage of the U.S. population is liberal or leans to the left? Wouldn’t they think the court is too liberal, especially after the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Meanwhile, about half the public thinks the court is generally balanced in its decisions.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- sunflower5 on Overheard from the 2nd District campaign
- sunflower5 on Three trillion-dollar strikes and you’re out?
- outlander on Three trillion-dollar strikes and you’re out?
- Boxlock on Three trillion-dollar strikes and you’re out?
- newsletter on Three trillion-dollar strikes and you’re out?
- newsletter on Tiahrt gives tanker 50 percent chance
- outlander on Three trillion-dollar strikes and you’re out?
- Boxlock on Open thread 10/12
- LonnythePlumber on Overheard from the 2nd District campaign
- Maggotpunk on Three trillion-dollar strikes and you’re out?
17 Comments
The “majority” on the U.S. Supreme Court does not have to worry about the Kansas Republican McCarthy Committee going after them.
Big deal. A third of the country think BUsh intentionally caused 9/11. Probably the same 1/3.
The problem with such “polls” is that they inevitably avoid the real issues. Liberal/conservative? Whatever.
Scalia wrote the opinion disallowing infrared searches of homes. A rare moment of lucidity, and I agreed with him. Most of the time, he’s a scarily unprincipled proponent of unchecked Executive branch power.
By “too conservative,” what I would hope the public is reacting to is, ironically, a court increasingly inclined to rubber-stamp goverment power–and most particularly, Executive branch “cowboy” operations–at the expense of their very freedoms.
But that may not be it. We don’t know–relevant details have been buried under the labels. We’re supposed to either nod knowingly, or have psychic powers, I guess.
Remember when “conservatives” wanted government out of their lives? At least that’s what I heard. . .haven’t seen much evidence of that lately.
Certain trends of the Courat recently have been downright scary. This Court’s lack of respect for the fourth Amendment is of major concern as is the Court’s bowing to big government (witness the decision regarding eminent domain)
witness the decision regarding eminent domain)
Posted by: Benbob | July 31, 2007 at 02:48 PM
Better check again. I don;t think it was this court.
From wiki”
On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, found for the City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Kennedy also penned a concurring opinion setting out more detailed standards for judicial review of economic development takings than that found in Stevens’ majority opinion. In so doing, he contributed to the Court’s trend of turning minimum scrutiny–the idea that government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose–into a fact-based test
No socalled conservatives voted for taking land away from individuals and giving it to the government. Imagine that
Heh, yeah, lj, imagine that. And Stevens issued stupid dissents in Keello (sp?) case (infrared search), and Texas vs. Johnson (the flag-burning case).
Stevens, the “liberal” Republican (no irony: on THIS court, he’s a liberal), also invented the “indecency” doctrine for telecommunications.
You kinda made my point, lj, with your mindless pennant-waving.
I take back what I said on the AF1 thread. You don’t know better. Obviously.
Benbob:
Cite this court’s “lack of respect for the fourth Amendment.”
Please cite the case - decided by the court as currently constituted - which demonstrates this alleged “lack of respect for the fourth Amendment.”
Then we’ll take it apart, applying established precedent. I think you’ll find this court’s 4th amendment jurisprudence is consistent with that precedent.
You’ve already missed on the eminent domain case; it was largely the precious “liberals” on the court which decided Kelo.
Rage-
what are you talking about?BenBob used the Kelo case as a mark against the current court. My point was it was not the current court, nor was it the conservatives doing the stealing. I pointed out the error of his post? I suppose that is pennant waving? What pennant waving was I doing? None. What are you talking about?
Speaking of stealing land, how do y’all in Kansas enjoy renting the property that you have/are purchased/purchasing? Government enforced rent. Gotta love it.
Never mind, lj. I misread what you said. My apologies.
Shouldn’t do this when I’m working.
GMC–I’m ignoring the “red meat” you threw out for the same reason.
Rage-no problem. I understand. Completely
Thanks, lj. I appreciate it, seriously.********Sigh. . . I won’t (and shouldn’t) engage now, but. . .GMC: TLO? And its progeny? Half the Fourth? Ya know?
C’mon. I AGREE that eminent domain decision sucked–and yes, it came from the “liberal” wing of the Court. But there hasn’t been a genunine ‘liberal’ on the Court since Marshall stepped down in 1991.
Food for thought, folks.
Rage:
TLO was not this court. Ya know.
and “Half the Fourth? Ya know?”
No, I don’t know, ya know. Would you like to specify the 4th amendment jurisprudence of this court which you find so objectionable? No??
I thought not.
Ya know . . . .
The Court has clearly moved to the right but just how far cannot be determined yet. Some of the decisions they have made I have found myself in agreement with but probably for not the same reasons that Conservatives do. Such as assigning students to schools by the colour of their skin. I cannot support any discrimination based on skin colour- negative or positive. I do however support fully the ideals of affirmative action based on other factors such as economic status, residence and other factors.
GMC, what a pointless cheap shot–you KNEW I was bowing out.
And BTW, Kelo was not decided by this Court EITHER. . ya know?
“Half the fourth” refers the doctrine began with cases like TLO, where only the first half of the Fourth amendment is quoted (the “reasonable”) part, turning one of the most vital protections against excessive state power into, essentially, a Rhorshach test.
The “conservatives” gave us that one.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to bow out again.
Rage:
Bow out if you like, but I’ll say it anyway. Nothing cheap about the “shot” at all, either.
The “half the 4th” theory you decry, to be blunt, doesn’t exist. I don’t know that I want to get into a dissertation on the 4th amendment here; suffice it to say that the two clauses of the 4th amendment, the “reasonable” clause and the warrant clause, have had a strained relationship for a very long time, well past your heros Marshall et al. “Reasonableness” alone has been completely rejected as a test under the 4th amendment, as well it should be. With a very few exceptions, the touchstone is probable cause, again, as it should be. Determined by a judge, either prior to the search with a warrant, or after the fact, if some exigent circumstance applies; either way, a judge decides whether PC exists.
Despite what you read from the ivory towers of academia and the talking heads, the 4th amendment is alive and well in the criminal courts in this country. I apply it daily, and it limits the actions of police, as it should, daily. We may well disagree as to exactly where the lines are on close cases - even judges disagree with each other - but the idea that the 4th has been “gutted” by the “rightwingers” is pure BS.
If you have some specific doctrine in mind, I’ll be glad to discuss it with you. But a general condemnation of 4th amendment jurisprudence is simply not warranted. Conservatives and liberals have, for the most part, broad agreement in this area.