judicial tyranny

[Justin Schwartz]

I can't speak for Nathan, but I was just plain shocked. We are indoctrinated 
as lawyers to think law _isn't_ just politics, that its legitimacy derives 
from adherence to internally consistent principles--the meaning of statutes 
and the constitutional language, respect for precedent. Sure, we know that 
the politics of a judge will affect his or her interpretation, but it's bad 
judging if politics totally determines it in the face of precedent and plain 
meaning. It was a slam dunk that on existing case law, the SCt should never 
have taken Bush v. Gore, and if it did t9ake it, that it whould not have 
pulled equal protection out of a hat in a way that, if taken seriously, 
would strike down the electotal college and the Senate, and then announced 
that this was a one-time only special offer. For a lawyer, that's shocking. 
--jks


>
>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

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