ADA suits against states struck down- what's next?

[Justin Schwartz]

Well, here's the real world. Bush is likely to appoint the successor to 
Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor, which won't alter the balance much, and 
Stevens, which will. Unless one of the replacement is a ringer like Souter 
or convert like Stevens or Blackmun, that will give the bad guys a 
rock-solid 6-3 majority that will last for at least 15 years. Stevens will 
try to hang on until the next election cycle, but he may not make it. The 
lower courts also matter a lot, in somed ways more than the Supremes. But 
Bush will be in the incumbent, and the Dems will probably put up Gore or 
someone just as lame; I suspect we have eight years of Resident Bush. So 
what's your solution; drop everything and start organizing for a Dem victory 
in 2004? I think we have to learn to work around the GOP and itrs Supreme 
Court, ugly as that prospect may be. --jks


>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
> >
> >For those who argued that who appoints to the Supreme Court does not
> >matter,
> >I wonder how many more step-by-step guttings of the ability to pass
> >progressive legislation it will take to convince you.
>
>-Nathan, no one, and especially not me, argues that that judiciary does not
>-matter. But here's one for you: how much are Ginsberg and Breyer worth if
>we
>-pay with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the end of
>-"welfare as we know it," GATT and NAFTA? Just for starters with Clinton
>-initiatives. --jks
>
>No, not you, but others do maintain that it makes little difference.
>Michael Moore promoted the idea that it would make little difference in his
>emails supporting Nader.  And others on this list seconded the idea.
>
>As for GATT, NAFTA and welfare reform- here's the big difference.  If
>progressives win elections, we can reverse those.
>
>The Supreme Court, however, can block whole ranges of legislation from 
>being
>enacted even if progressives gain legislative wins.  Progressives pass the
>Burma law in Massachusetts only to see it overturned.  New Jersey
>progressives pass a ban on discrimination against gays, only to see the
>Supreme Court strike it down as applied to the boy scouts.  Progressives
>pass local land use laws only to see the Supreme Court strike them down as
>unconstitutional takings.   Progressives in Congress pass the Violence
>Against Women Act and see its civil suit components struck down by the
>Court.
>
>The Supreme Court can increasingly make any election irrelevant, since no
>regulation will be able to be passed unless corporations are fully
>compensated for their foregone profits, making such regulation economically
>impossible.  I frankly think the threat of the Supreme Court is 
>understated,
>not overhyped, since people focus too much on the social issues like
>abortion - where the conservatives have not won a solid majority - as
>opposed to the core economic and federalism issues where there is an
>increasingly solid 5-4 majority for undoing large swathes of progressive
>legislation.
>
>-- Nathan Newman
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com