Archive for Tuesday, June 26, 2007

U.S. Supreme Court swings to right with Bush appointees

June 26, 2007


— The Supreme Court liberated corporate and union political spending, limited students' speech and shielded the White House faith-based program from legal challenge Monday in 5-4 rulings that pointed up the court's shift to the right.

President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, were front and center. They wrote the main opinions in those three decisions - including the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" free-speech case - as well as another ruling that had been sought by the administration and business groups in an environmental case.

Five justices - Roberts, Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - formed the majority in each decision. The court's four liberals, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens, dissented each time.

Kennedy, the only justice in the majority in all of the court's 21 5-4 decisions this term, has voted with his conservative colleagues more often recently in the close cases.

With its term rapidly nearing an end, the court has perhaps the biggest issue of the year still to decide: whether public school districts can take account of race in assigning students to schools. Many court watchers are expecting a similar ideological split, with conservatives limiting the use of race.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was among those who bemoaned the court's rightward tilt.

The court "is moving the right wing's agenda faster than we've seen in decades - slamming the courthouse doors in the faces of ordinary people, favoring big businesses over civil rights and undermining protections for women and the environment."

But White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday's decisions included a loss for the administration in the campaign finance case.

"The president's position is that in any case you're going to have someone who loses and someone who wins, but we can all be confident that we have fantastic Supreme Court justices. These are the type of people that the president wanted to have on the bench," Perino said. "Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are proving themselves to be ones who have the intellectual vigor that they can bring to the bench."

Campaign finance

The campaign finance ruling, opening the way for deep-pocketed interests to broadcast so-called issue advertising close to elections, was a clear demonstration that changes in the court's lineup can alter a case's outcome.

In 2003, the court upheld the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which included a provision that barred interest groups from running corporate- or union-funded radio and TV ads that mention a candidate's name within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was in the majority four years ago. On Monday, Alito, who took O'Connor's seat, joined Roberts' opinion taking a dim view of restrictions on those ads.

"Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor," Roberts said.

Justice David Souter, who read from his dissent in the courtroom, said, "After today, the ban on contributions by corporations and unions and the limitation on their corrosive spending when they enter the political arena are open to easy circumvention, and the possibilities for regulating corporate and union campaign money are unclear."

Although the court divided along liberal-conservative lines, interest groups across the political spectrum were allied in opposition to the advertising restrictions.

Student speech

Separately, Roberts endorsed First Amendment limits in his majority opinion in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. Schools can regulate student expression that advocates the use of illegal drugs, he said.

The principal of a Juneau, Alaska, high school suspended student John Frederick who displayed the banner at a public event, provoking a civil rights lawsuit.

The court did not go as far as the Bush administration and the school district wanted, allowing schools to tamp down any speech officials determined ran counter to their educational mission.

Alito, in a concurring opinion, said, "This argument can easily be manipulated in dangerous ways, and I would reject it before such abuse occurs."

Stevens wrote in dissent of the ruling that the banner was a nonsensical message. "The court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding - indeed, lauding - a school's decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with which it disagreed," he said.

Faith-based programs

Alito wrote the court's opinion that said ordinary taxpayers cannot challenge a White House initiative that helps religious charities get a share of federal money.

The decision blocks a lawsuit by a group of atheists and agnostics that objects to government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal grants.

In dissent, Souter said that the court should have allowed the taxpayer challenge to proceed.


scamartist911 10 years, 12 months ago

Who influences US congress??? Hmmmm?

Check this out... (and remember the AIPAC spy scandal trial - postponed until the fall)


Body: In 1992, AIPAC president David Steiner had to resign when he was tape recorded boasting about his political influence in obtaining aid for Israel.

Steiner claimed that he had -- [quote] --"met with (then Bush U.S. Secretary of State) Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. I got, besides the $3 billion, you know they're looking for the Jewish votes, and I'll tell him whatever he wants to hear ... Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don't even know about!" -- Steiner also claimed to be "negotiating" with the incoming Clinton administration over who Clinton would appoint as Secretary of State and Secretary of the National Security Agency. Steiner stated that AIPAC had [quote] -- "a dozen people in [the Clinton] campaign, in the headquarters ... in Little Rock, and they're all going to get big jobs. (!!!)"[6]

Haim Katz told the Washington Times that he taped the conversation because "as someone Jewish, I am concerned when a small group has a disproportionate power. I think that hurts everyone, including Jews. If David Steiner wants to talk about the incredible, disproportionate clout AIPAC has, the public should know about it."[7]



Commenting has been disabled for this item.