judicial tyranny

[Nathan Newman]

Actually, there had been a number of cases, albeit less than earthshaking
areas, where Rehnquist or Scalia had gone against corporate interests based
on principle.  Early on in his SC career, Rehnquist was actually a pretty
consistent judicial restraint guy - he basically let governments do whatever
they wanted.  He dissented from extending protections against discrimination
to women or to other oppressed groups, but he also dissented from extending
first amendment protection to corporations in the early commercial speech
cases.

Somewhere along the line, maybe as he was joined by conservative judicial
activists like Scalia and Thomas, there was a hardening into opportunistic
political intervention.  There were a lot of bad conservative legal
decisions over the years, but usually on procedural matters or legislative
interpretations, but the last couple of years have seen an acceleration in
massive judicial intervention striking down federal and state laws that I
think is qualitatively different.

Maybe Justin or Charles would disagree, but I don't think in even the
relatively recent past there was quite the same concentration of massively
activist decisions as the Burma law, Kimel, Morrison, Garrett, and other
decisions we have seen just in the last year or so.

So there is something shockingly new, especially when Bush v. Gore is thrown
into the mix.   Remember, all the smart political money, including on the
Right, was that the Court would refuse to take the case.  Even conservatives
like Robert Bork thought the injunction by the Court stopping the vote count
was a complete betrayal of principle, especially by the conservative
majority.

-- Nathan newman

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Perelman" <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu>
To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: judicial tyranny

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