judicial tyranny

[Michael Perelman]

Nathan, I assume you mean shocked, as in shocked, shocked.  The court has
been pretty consistent in coming down on the side that is convenient for
the most powerful corporate interests.

 On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 04:28:30PM
-0400, Nathan Newman wrote: > 
> What shocked most legal scholars about Bush v. Gore was the recognition of
> the complete opportunism of the Rehnquist Court.  Up to that point, some
> (including myself to a minor degree) were willing to grant some consistency
> of principle, however rightwing and bad, to the Court.  Bush v. Gore
> crystalized the inconsistencies in the previous record into being the
> pattern of opportunism, which these other decisions have merely reinforced.
> 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu