The ACLU Begins to Win Back Our Country
If you haven’t given to the ACLU in a while, here’s the donate button. The ACLU (with some help) has scored some important wins this week, starting with today’s decision that National Security Letters are unconstitutional.
The ACLU said it was improper to issue so-called national securityletters, or NSLs — investigative tools used by the FBI to compelbusinesses to turn over customer information — without a judge’s orderor grand jury subpoena. Examples of such businesses include Internetservice providers, telephone companies and public libraries.
Yusill Scribner, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office, said prosecutors had no immediate comment.
JameelJaffer, who argued the case for the ACLU, said the revised law hadwrongly given the FBI sweeping authority to control speech because theagency was allowed to decide on its own — without court review –whether a company receiving an NSL had to remain silent or whether itcould reveal to its customers that it was turning over records.
Here’s the decision for your reading pleasure.
And just the other day, a different judge ruled that DOJ had to provide specifics about the documents it was refusing to turn over in FISA. Maybe the ACLU will pull of a hat trick and get the FISC rulings from earlier this year.
This separation of powers thing might pull us through yet, not thanks to Congress.
Update: cboldt’s right. The Hepting case would be more likely to be the third part of the hat trick.
God bless the ACLU!!!
and blessings on EW, bmaz and Mary for staying abreast and clarifying so many things legal…
And thank God the courts aren’t ready to capitulate to El Presidente as readily as Congress. Thanks for the glimmer of hope EW. With Congressional Dems caving in again, I needed the cheery news
The decision relating to NSL’s is substantive, and it’s interesting to go back and read the history, that is, the 2005 decision and 2006 opinion of the 2nd Circuit on appeal (the government lost, and appealed). The logic here plays in FISA context too.
I think the FOIA case to obtain the FISA applications and legal arguments is not in good shape for the ACLU. The judge there appears prepared to withhold the requested documents, but finds the arguments by the government to be, well, actually, to â€not be.†There’s no substance to support the arguments, but the same or similar documents are deemed properly withheld, when the support is presented to the Court.
Keep an eye on the 9th Circuit and the ND of CA; the Hepting case in particular.
The ACLU is a class organization with really top quality staff and a lot of savvy. (Disclosure: I served on both national and local boards in the ’80s and early ’90s.)
They have a reputation as one of the very best issue groups, combining well-informed lobbyists with activists at the local level. They are also principled almost to a fault in that they will defend the free speech rights of anyone, even those dedicated to their destruction. Donations to the Foundation are tax deductible and go toward the legal and educational programs; membership dues go toward lobbying and aren’t.
The ACLU is worth supporting if for no other reason as an insurance policy if you are in any sort of out-group (gay, progressive, religious minority, etc) because they will always be there to defend members of your group.
I am donating to the ACLU on a monthly basis. I would love to have been listening in around Washington when they heard this decision. Now we need some Dems to step up and kill that provision for good.
cboldt
Agree completely on the applicability of the logic to FISA–I’m still working through the ruling, but that’s what I was thinking of as well. A really good use of the First Amendment, let’s hope.
Oh, and cboldt, I agree that the judge in the FOIA case seems predisposed to give the actual documents. But I suspect once we get a log, it’ll be a lot easier to get the documents and understand what’s going on.
– A really good use of the First Amendment, let’s hope. –
First and Fourth.
I figure judges are small barriers to unreasonable searches … but better a small barrier than none whatsoever.
Maybe today’s decision will help people remain mindful that any branch can run afoul of the Constitution. If (emphasis on the â€if†there) the TSP was unconstitutional without changes to FISA, how does it become constitutional with revisions to FISA?
In answer to cboldt’s last question, of course, it doesnt, as was his implication. As to the EPIC/ACLU case, I am not sure i see the promise EW does; although the court might release the actual opinions themselves, even that is not clear as it appears that the court may be contemplating additional hurdles after this initial one is cleared. Kind of hard to tell where this court really is headed if you ask me. The cases out here in the land of enlightened though do indeed present the best hope. Marrero’s decision stands a decent shot in the 2nd Circuit as well, depending on the panel drawn. There are a lot of worse Circuits to be in though. The ACLU apllication to the FISC is a goner as an ultimately dispositive legal event; the fascinating thing is to see what havoc and mischief Kollar-Kotelly et. al. stirs up in the process. I am still hopeful for a good amount of that.
Sorry. Land of the enlightened=The Coast With the Most (Left). 9th Circuit.
– Marrero’s decision stands a decent shot in the 2nd Circuit as well –
A similar decision of his was there before … in this very case.
Doe and ACLU v. Gonzales 05-0570-cv(L) and 05-4896-cv(CON) (2nd Cir. 2005) (text of Judge Cardamone’s concurring opinion)
Orin Kerr (Volokh Conspiracy) weighs in, with a link to Judge Marrero’s 2004 decision.
– the fascinating thing is to see what havoc and mischief Kollar-Kotelly et. al. stirs up in the process –
A well composed opinion, even one unfavorable to the relief petitioned for, will put the fire where it belongs.
Not that the public will notice. — sigh –
Right. Now, here is the $64,000 question. Will the Administration bugger up the release of such a decision through a state secrets claim and demand seal until through at least FISC Review level if not through the Supremes? Their track record says yes….
– Will the Administration bugger up the release of such a decision through a state secrets claim and demand seal until through at least FISC Review level if not through the Supremes? –
I’m anticipating an opinion cast in the style of Marbury v. Madison. FISC taking the unclassified arguments presented to it, along with the statutory language, and ruling that it is powerless to grant the relief — because Congress has tied its hands and the Executive holds the â€generic†right to classification and assertion of state secret.
What would be outstanding would be the FISC elucidating the distinction between â€a case†and â€a policy.†The issue here is a policy issue. So many people are swept into the scope of the policy decision (to obtain the right to wholesale snoop on Americans’ international calls without court preview), that the question presented by the ACLU motion doesn’t fit the mold of being â€a case.â€
cboldt – whether the public notices or not, it is worth something to have DOJ lawyer finally told by someone that they actually have to do a better than moronic job at what should be a more than frivolous attempt to actually comply with the legal standards. You are so very right that the courts can at least light a fire where it is sorely sorely needed.
It really does make Hepting and related case that much more privotal. Here’s hoping for the best. Doesn’t Walker have some other motions before him at the Dist ct level now too?
Backing up, if anyone remembers or knows – Are the John Doe I and II that originally went up on the appeal both librarian cases? IIRC the Ashcroft case was. Again, IIRC, the overall context was that Gonzales made noises about never having used NSLs on libraries and the librarians were pitching fits bc the ones who had received them were gagged from saying they had received them and calling him out on that – but my memory isn’t that reliable without going back and double checking. I may just be misremembering that Gonzales was a bit fibby. Can’t imagine why.
There is a reference in that 2nd Cir Opinion that, while not specifically on point, made me think about entities like Congress and the ABA, that really should intervene in or file amicus for the ACLU/FISC case and make the argument I’d like to see made with better clarity.
In the context of a vacatur the 2nd cites the Sup Ct in Bancorp and says:
That’s the aspect that I’d like to see fleshed out. Legal decisions are something in which the whole of the legal community has an interest and also with respect to decisions regarding legislation, in which the whole of the legislative branch had an interest. Apart from the arguments ACLU has made to FISC, I’d like to see members of Congress and â€the legal community†which has its own interest in access to the law generated by opinions, get involved. That legal community is represented by all kinds of entities – state and national bars not the least of which – but also other District Courts. Wouldn’t that be interesting – to have other District Courts file amicus or intervene for access to the legal opinion now that Patriot Act allows the use of â€foreign surveillance†to be used in plain vanilla envelope criminal cases. The courts that may be impacted by having defendants before them who have been subject to executive branch â€substantial purpose non-criminal†surveillance generating â€ok to use in criminal cases†info really ought to be able to know the legal parameters of how FISA is handling those applications. As an integral part of the legal community, courts in particular should be able to see what has already been ruled upon. And of course, Congress doesn’t know how to draft or re-draft legislation or exercise oversight if it is not able to see the legal opinions with respect to its existing legislation and lawyers cannot counsel clients appropriately when legal holdings are stamped â€secret.â€
– Doesn’t Walker have some other motions before him at the Dist ct level now too? –
Yes. He has a mess of state AG cases in his lap. Those and whatever else is in the multi-district consolidation. Hepting and the charity cases are the only two that I know of that are at the 9th Circuit.
– Are the John Doe I and II that originally went up on the appeal both librarian cases? –
Doe I (the NY case) is an ISP. I don’t know what Doe II’s (the CT case) business was.
– I’d like to see members of Congress and â€the legal community†which has its own interest in access to the law generated by opinions, get involved. –
Congress is a mixed blessing. The people haven’t yet figured out exactly how to steer â€good government,†in large part because they ask for too much of it (government), and because they don’t understand balance of powers. It seems most people are outcome-oriented, instead of process oriented. Twist the process this way and that to get the outcome you want.
At bottom, Congress is a risk-aversion clique. They make decisions based on re-election. In the case of the USA PATRIOT Act, Congress was part of the problem, likewise with FISA/PAA. Not that they won’t petition the courts. McConnell petitioned to have McCain/Feingold overturned, Graham and Levin filed amicus briefs in habeas cases, etc. Senator Specter has openly asserted that Congress WANTS Courts to make the tough social decisions, in his words, â€Congress punts to the Courts.†He likes that arrangement, as ling as he gets to pick the issues to punt.
– Congress doesn’t know how to draft or re-draft legislation or exercise oversight if it is not able to see the legal opinions with respect to its existing legislation and lawyers cannot counsel clients appropriately when legal holdings are stamped â€secret.†–
Congress is completely indifferent as to individual defendants — except wealthy and (vote) influential ones. I’m amazed at the assumptions made by some Congresspeople, e.g., that 100% of the detainees in Gitmo, and 100% or extraordinary renditions are â€guilty,†â€the worst of the worst.†How do they know?
As for the very legitimate need for them to understand the ramifications of the legislation they pass; I have the impression that a minority of them are competent to perform the mental activity necessary to estimate the effects of the legislation they pass. In many cases (FISA and USA PATRIOT Act being prime examples) they aren’t even the authors!
The system is in a state of whip-saw at the moment. Who knows where it’ll end up. But it sure is fascinating to watch.
Cboldt and Mary – There are three Walker cases in the 9th Circuit. The two actually before the 9th circuit that were consolidated for oral argument on August 15 (EFF/ATT and al Haramain/Bush) that are now pending decision; and one still at the District level in front of Walker currently, In Re: NSA (CCR v. Bush).
I again, as I have from the get go, agree with Mary on the subject of â€secret lawâ€. The sheer concept of â€secret lawâ€, law that substantively and DIRECTLY impacts citizens (as opposed to examples previously mad of secret budgeting and the like which do not directly impact specific citizens) is inherently contra-constitutional. But lets take another generalized analogy. courts in America, led by the Supreme Court, have consistently held that laws that were so vague and ambiguous, whether as to specific elements or as a whole, are impermissible for the exact reason mary discussed above here. Namely, they don’t provide the citizen, and counsel to citizens, the opportunity to knowingly and intelligently discern how, when and where the power of the realm (the law) is being applied to them. The principle with a secret law is not only no different in this regard; it is arguably more offensive because the citizen not only doesn’t know how it aggects him, he can’t see it at all. Really, short of eliminating habeas corpus, what would possibly be more offensive to the American concept and rule of law?
Thanks for all the info bmaz and cboldt.
How do they know?
What really makes me hugely angry is that if they â€know†anything, then it is from the testimony that was presented to the Armed Services Committee and that was that absolutley there were a large number of â€sent to gitmo for the money†prisoners. That was the evidence they took at the hearing I saw a part of – and yet, knowing that, they do what they do. Cover up.
Don’t get me wrong cboldt – I wasn’t positing any of that about Congress and legislation bc I think that very many in Congress could begin to care. And all the Executive Branch crimes cover up legislation, like FISA and Patriot Act etc. doesn’t seem to really be generated in Congress anymore. What I was instead going to was the fact that a couple of Congresscritters could – if they chose – raise those legitimate interests in either an amicus or, better yet, a motion to join as a party in interest or intervene.
Congress wrote the statute and I’d like to see a court explain how it is that Congress has no right to see how it is being interpreted.
Purely beside the point, too, I’d like for someone to raise the DOJ’s standing to attempt to have the court’s order classified. Last I looked, the President’s Executive Order on classification says that he won’t be having the Executive classify things that involve breaking the law – if the order explains that what they were wanting to do – or did do – broke the law, then the would seem to be pre-empted by the published Executive Order from having the ability to block the release of the judicial holdings as to illegality.
Thanks again for the info – haven’t watched as closely as I should.
bmaz – think about it. What if they said sure, the courts have habeas jurisdiction, but we’ll classify the holdings as to whether or not someone should be released. *g*
Wait. I want to taket hat *g* back – with this crew you say something outrageous like that and suddenly worry that it will show up in a brief somewhere.
I just finished reading the decision, and was deeply moved by the language concerning the separation of powers and the role of the courts in deciding what is Constitutional. It was very impressive, and beautifully written, and left me elated that all may not be â€lost,†yet.
Margaret or EW,
I know that I for one and I presume other IANALs would be happy to have some suggestions for delving into the decision. Directions to the part with the â€language concerning the separation of powers and the role of the courts in deciding what is Constitutional†would be gratfully received.
I am hungry, no starving, for evidence that our beautiful constitution can be restored and would love to share your elation.
BSRH – Really, the entire decision is underpinned with Constitutional law and principles as applied to courts, from jurisdiction to standing to standard of review etc. It is a long decision, but it strikes me as intentionally that way so that everything was there in full and explained for the populous, not just lawyers. This opinion was crafted to make a statement to the people. If you are inclined, it is worth plowing through in full. You will see a lot of the goofy things that the lawyers here (and EW who is better than most lawyers often) bandy about. A lot of these things make a lot more sense when you see them laid out in the context of a case in controversy as opposed to snippets thrown around here and there. If you want only to focus on the separation of powers discussion, see pages 65-71.
– … and one still at the District level in front of Walker currently, In Re: NSA (CCR v. Bush) –
The docket sheet listing only plaintiffs, defendants, intervenors and interested parties — for the multidistrict case M:06-cv-01791-VRW — has just over 10,000 lines. Some parties use over 20 lines or so (name and address of multiple counsel), others use 5. There are 164 defendants (many of them the same defendant, but named in multiple cases) and about 500 plaintiffs (each one unique).
Here are most of the defendants (not counting Bush, Gonzales, Ashcroft, etc.):
NSA, FBI, CIA, DHS, USA
Verizon [many independent companies]
Verizon Wireless LLC (out of case April 2007)
BellSouth Communications [several independent companies]
AT&T [many independent companies]
MCI
New Cingular Wireless
Pacific Bell Telephone
SBC Long Distance, LLC
Illinois Bell Telephone
Indiana Bell Telephone
Nextel West Corp.
Sprint [several independent companies]
Southwestern Bell
Qwest Communications
TCG St. Louis Holdings [multiple TGC companies]
Missouri Public Service Commission
CT Dept Public Utility Control
Maine Public Utilities Commission
Deputy Attorney General of the State of New Jersey
Vermont Public Service Board
Walker has a fairly full plate of this mess.
Best way to clean that docket up quick so the court staff can have a leisure filled happy holiday season is to call BS in one big giant way on the Administration/Telcom conspirators position; then let it be certified pretty much in mass to the 9th Circuit. Judge Walker, you listening….?
When you look at the whole pile, you start to appreciate part of why the administration wants statutory immunity. Out of all of those cases and various arguments, one is apt to hit paydirt, and the political fallout is, by now (with all the prevaricating, crappy arguments and cover up), serious business.
My hunch is that Congress will roll over and grant retroactive immunity. Pretty much making a mockery of its past lawmaking. Nothing new there, unfortunately.
I liked judge HKennedy’s wielding of the term ’baffled’ for his reaction to the compartmentalization of his own clerk, described with a blend of scolding and opprobrium in footnote 5 of the Wednesday EPIC opinion to which ew linked: ’this stance is baffling and has been significantly disruptive of this court’ review…’ ibid. at pp4-5, footnote 5. Caveat, this pdf has too much skew for word search in Adobe or IE6.
You know, this is more a philosohical thought than a legal one in a way; but it is Constitutionally impermissible to make prior actions and conduct, that were legal at the time, retroactively illegal (prohibition of ex post facto laws). It is damn near as unsavory here contemplating the retroactive legalization of prior actions and conduct that was illegal at the time. I wonder if ole Strict Construction Scalia would like to apply some Rogers v. Tennessee like creativity to this thought. Naw, he wouldn’t.
cboldt – Back to the â€When you look at the whole pile, you start to appreciate part of why the administration wants statutory immunity†thought. Fuck the Administration. They are reaping that which they have cravenly sown. Just because their meglomaniacal authoritarian raw power grabs have created endless docket fulls of aggrieved plaintiffs doesn’t mean they shoud be let off the hook for their malevolent conduct. The thought that such could occur should have been cause for intelligent Constitutional restraint before the fact, not a get out of jail free card after the fact.
Somehow, somewhere, I got a nice clean copy of that 06-cv-00096 [Doc 48] — the ACLU FOIA request for TSP-related documents.
Text version (has link to DC Circuit Court PDF too .. I think a clean one)
– Fuck the Administration. They are reaping that which they have cravenly sown. –
That reminds me of a joke about a lottery in Bombay. Thousands of people in the square, listening for their number to be called. The crier calls out winning numbers, gives out money, cars, vacation cruises, etc. working up the top prize.
Gets to 1st prize (the one just -below- the grand prize), and after congratulating the winner, announces the prize as dinner with Indira Gandhi.
â€What?! These other people get cars, week-long paid cruise, homes … and I get a dinner date with Gandhi?! FUCK Gandhi!!â€
Comes back the crier … â€Oh no … that’s the GRAND prize.â€
Hey … I’m with you. Live by the rule of law, then follow the darn thing (more or less, de minis, or reasonable and admitted deviations are part of the calculus). I much prefer the facts come out than they be buried under a smokescreen.
Oh, I know, my scream was not directed at you, only precipitated by your mostly innocuous thought.
I like the Ghandi joke. I used to tell an analogous one. Three yuppy guys seeking their inner Hemmingway decide for their vacation to go walkabout in a very primitive jungle region. They are quickly captured by a band of extremely hostile natives who tie them up to a tree. Come nightime, most of the male natives of the tribe start dancing around wildly with spears and knives and the like, while the others are stoking a big fire pit with a giant pot in the middle. The head native comes up to the first yuppy and shouts â€Death or Bundi?†over and over. The yuppy finally decides that death doesn’t sound good and responds â€Bundiâ€. He is immediately sodomized by all the male natives in the tribe and then sat by a tree and given food and drink. When the head native approaches the second yuppy with the same question, he thinks to himself before he answers â€man this Bundi looks painfull and is no damn good, but it is a lot better than death. So he answers â€Bundi†and the same scenario plays out in full. The third yuppy is stubborn. When the question â€Death or Bundi†is put to him, he thinks â€No way I would rather die than get that treatment by every male in the tribe. He responds defiantly â€Death!†The head native gets a huge smile on his face and shouts â€OK, Death by Bundi it is thenâ€!
Those damn primitive jungles. Rugged. Cruel. And full of jokes.
Like the tribe with the compassionate leader who, after announces that after you are dead, you will be skinned, and your hide will be used to make a canoe, gives the trespassers their choice of weapon for suicide. One picks a gun, another chooses the knife. The third picks a fork.
Compassionate chief is bewildered, â€A fork?†Yes, a fork. And so, the trespasser, now in possession of the fork, [this is a visual] commences rapid stabbing at his belly while shouting â€Fuck your canoe!!â€
Don’t get me going on the blind date with the gal who owns a monkey that understands English, and plenty of it.
cboldt, I found your blog again, with its searchable though funnily formated pagebreaks version of the memorandum opinion and order; the DC District court version, I suspect, confounds Adobe software search by beginning with the EPIC name enclosure graphic box; I verified this by a direct repeat download from the ecf site, same unsearchability in that version.
I still like Judge HKennedy’s subtle examination of how his clerk had to undergo ultra unusual clearance to view documents in the instant matter, and then the clerk once cleared and having viewed those papers, had the overseeing secret clearance agency impose the subsequent handicap of being disallowed thereafter from viewing the court pleadings in the instant matter. Baffled, indeed. But this is only the DC court. I wonder how the Scotus AssociateJustice-clerk relationship would remedy this barrier to assuring the judge had effective assistance to adjudicate and research before writing the opinion, or if Lyle Denniston would find the matter worthy of a post at Goldstein’s goldStandard site. Check back in a moment. And I appreciate the comment. JL
Hi… I hate to interrupt all this unbridled, buoyant optimism, but whenever I see something such as a â€good†decision by a Federal court, I begin to feel the dread.
In this Bush era of lawlessness and Unitary Whatsis, tactically I feel it would have been better if they had kept in limbo any chance at a final decree in all such Constitutional cases as this; my knee-jerk reaction is, â€Oh my God, no!†Because after a Federal court sees it and renders such a favorable decision, you know where it’s going next, and you know what will happen. Well, you should. These people don’t do â€losingâ€.
If the ACLU (or whoever is fighting such a Constitutional case) could have held out taking this stuff to court until there was a Supreme Court majority appointed by a Democratic president; or just thrown enough legal molasses into the proceedings to make it last that long, that would be one thing.
But I am called to mind that great scene in â€Angels In Americaâ€, where the Washington GOP operative was explaining to the young Republican lawyer over dinner how his colleagues (obviously, a fictionalized Federalist Society) were going to be loading-up a coming Reagan administration with all their â€plantsâ€: they go to court, BAM! We shoot ’em down. They take it to the appellate level, BAM! We nail them on the appeal. We take it to the Supreme Court…
Why, exactly, are we celebrating this decision? Is there really a chance in Hell that they won’t be taking it (and any subsequent Constitutional cases) to Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito? Is there even the tiniest of questions, which way THAT will go?
– the DC District court version, I suspect, confounds Adobe software search by beginning with the EPIC name enclosure graphic box –
No … it’s the difference between a character-based file and a graphics-based (picture, scanned-in) file. The â€enclosure box†in the PDF that was easily converted to faithful text is made of line characters.
I manually inserted the <hr> pagebreaks for visual convenience, using my personal sense of visual appeal as the sole guide.
– Is there really a chance in Hell that they won’t be taking it (and any subsequent Constitutional cases) to Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito? Is there even the tiniest of questions, which way THAT will go? –
The case for personal rights is strong in principle, but weak in practice. If SCOTUS goes along with Congress on this one, then I’ll consider the Republic as officially gone and I’ll vote for the politicians who give ME the laziest lifestyle.
Aw jeez cboldt, thats how we got to where we are at today. I understand fully Barry Champlain’s comment and have pondered exactly the same. Among the cognoscenti here though, I don’t recall any â€unbridled, bouyant optimismâ€. Admirable step in the right direction maybe. I think it is naive, however, to think that these decisions can be belayed until there is a clear majority appointed by a Democrat. The next two appointments to SCOTUS will simply insure that the court doesn’t veer hard to the authoritarian dogmatic right, it will not create a substantive shift to the left contrary to popular belief. I would rather it be a different composition, but the SCOTUS is what it is; we have to hope they will do the right thing.
To clarify: I don’t look upon this decision as one of a series of little victories, along the path to Constitutional recovery. More like the ACLU just whacked a hornet’s nest, that would have best remained undisturbed, until there were not an authoritarian Court to codify the police state and the revocation of the Bill of Rights.
Bear in mind also that the smiling cobra Roberts hinted without actually committing himself, during his confirmation hearings, that he would not upset decided law. Okay, fine, he lied to achieve an objective; mainly, SIMPLY GETTING THERE, so he could rearrange America in the authoritarians’ image.
If in the future we ever do get to a more respectful Supreme Court, that Court will be more likely to â€play by the rulesâ€. Meaning that, ironically, they will not want to upset decided law… including the BAD law, the anti-Constitutional law, that the Roberts Court is ramming through for the Bushies now.
Barry – I understand completely what you are saying. But even assuming arguendo that there is indeed a Democratic administration incoming in January 2009, the metrics of composition of the court, at best, will at best likely only strengthen the current alignment as opposed to shifting it to the left noticeably. The likely next two appointments will be for the the Stevens and Ginsburg seats; that does not produce the shift you contemplate. Exactly hoew long do you think you can idly let this stuff meander around in lower courts, or without raising it at all, before you waive the legal arguments? I can flat out tellyou that it is not long enough for your scenario.
– I think it is naive, however, to think that these decisions can be belayed until there is a clear majority appointed by a Democrat. –
I think â€government against the individual†tension works regardless of the party in control. That is, both parties are comprised of controlling elitist nannies. They differ, yes. But Democrats aim for top-down control.
The courts too, although the party-political connection isn’t clear, and probably doesn’t exist â€the same way†it does for elected officials.
– The next two appointments to SCOTUS will simply insure that the court doesn’t veer hard to the authoritarian dogmatic right –
It’d be helpful (in principle – I’m not looking for a discussion here) if you’d attach some specific process, issue and/or outcome to that. â€Dogmatic,†â€authoritarian,†â€right,†and â€left†aren’t meaningful outside of context. The issue could be privacy, income redistribution, education, poverty welfare, health care welfare, family and abortion, etc.
cboldt – I was resonding specifically to the privacy issues and discussion put forth by Barry Champlain and i think the effect of likely replacement of butts in the seats ot Stevens’ and Ginsburg’s plush winback chairs are pretty clear on this topic. If we were going beyond that, I would agree completely with the applicability of relative views of potential Justices on the different categories. While I myself wish for differnt makeups of SCOTUS depending on the issue at hand and time in history; the fact is that this is one area where elections matter, and the results are the American Constitution in simple pure action. For the record, I still have solid hopes that, over time, Roberts will be a good Justice. Not necessarily right or left, just good. Alito, not so much; but I may be wrong, I hope so. Clarence Thomas is an abomination. I disagree often and veheminently with Scalia at times, but I respect him and he has a place on the court. My point above was simply that, on this issue, the shift Barry Champlain above desires (which I would love to see as well I might add) just isn’t in the cards in the foreseeable future.