Thank you for posting this. As I was listening to Nina Totenburg reporting the latest Court decisions on NPR this morning, I had a flashback to the last presidential election. I pleaded with people to consider your final question. I don't care how much people didn't "like" John Kerry (as if "likability" somehow means something anyhow) or how much they won't "like" [2008 candidate], for the love of justice, think about what it will mean for the courts! It's not just four years of [insert candidate here], it's judicial decisions that will impact generations.

I had a similar thought seeing the "Bong hits" and campaign ads rulings side by side. I read something recently in Anne-Marie Slaughter's new book, "The Idea That is America," that it's a little funny (not ha-ha funny, but the other kind) that we, a democracy, go to the branch of government that isn't elected to redress our civil rights grievances. She was of course referencing cases from the civil rights movement: Brown, Plessy, etc. But it's disquieting to think how this court would have ruled on those cases, to say nothing of the truly generation-defining questions facing this century. Unfortunately, I doubt we will have to challenge our imagination much.

It was a series of Court decisions in the 1960s that effectively swung the South hard right and to the GOP for the better part of 2 generations. And, more recently, Kelo reinvigorated the property rights crowd.

Perhaps the coming catastrophic decisions from this extremist court might be good for the political make-up of this country.

We can thank single issue organizations like the Sierra Club and NARAL who have supported and helped elect allegedly "moderate" candidates who were unwilling to filibuster the Alito nomination. Alito's ascendancy has made all the difference in these outcomes. The last "moderate" Republicans left in the era of Jacob Javitts. And the Liebercrats, well.. they are unmasked now hopefully.

We can thank single issue organizations like the Sierra Club and NARAL who have supported and helped elect allegedly "moderate" candidates who were unwilling to filibuster the Alito nomination. Alito's ascendancy has made all the difference in these outcomes. The last "moderate" Republicans left in the era of Jacob Javitts. And the Liebercrats, well.. they are unmasked now hopefully.

Totally agree. Don't forget to also blame the same people, including Wyden, who also refused to filibuster Roberts. A lot of us were calling his office asking him to do that and he basically, not so politely, told us to get lost.

Chuck Sheketoff wrote:

The issue ads case is not so clearly a loss as Jeff makes it out to be.

Our colleagues at the Alliance for Justice, who have been leaders in fighting the Bush court nominations, see the decision as a win for grassroots advocacy by non-profits.

This is the one decision I share the nuanced Alliance for Justice position.

Jeff Alworth wrote:

I don't buy that argument for a second, Chuck. Since nonprofits and unions have pennies compared to the vast lucre of corporations, the marginal benefit they'll experience by the ruling is offset by the sea of money that will overwhelm liberals from the other side.

Jeff, it is fascinating that you believe you know what is in the best interest of nonprofits and unions, but that you believe that they don't know what is in their best interest and you know better. This is not a casual action by the AFJ, it is a carefully thought out position that is in line with their commitment to justice and equity. Frankly, I don't think you are even capable of understanding the issue.

Just for the record, a quick scan of recent AFJ press releases shows their positions include:

1) Repeated calls for the Senate Judiciary committee to fully investigate politicization of the Justice Department by the Bush Administration and to fully prosecute the people AFJ believes have broken the law.

2) Commended the 4th Circuit for narrowing the Military Commissions Act and called on Congress to repeal "habeas-stripping" provisions of the MCA.

3) Criticized the hypocrisy of the dissent in the recent 5-4 ruling upholding EPA enforcement powers to fight global warming, cited this as evidence of the poor job Congress did in the Roberts' hearing while calling on Congress to exercise more scrutiny in Judicial confirmation hearings than they did in the Roberts' and Alito's hearings.

4) Applauded the decision by military judges to dismiss charges brought against two people under the MCA, and called on Congress to restore habeas corpus.

5) Called on the Judiciary Committee to reject the nomination of right-winger Judge Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals because "his troubling rulings on civil and equal rights and a record that staunchly favors special interests over individual rights and liberties makes him unfit for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench."

You and Kari have become increasingly astounding.

Thank God for a serious response to the decisions which came down from the SCOTUS yesterday. All I have read are silly responses to the "Bong" decision. It was indeed a Black Monday. The decision which disturbs me the most is the one in favor of Bush using federal money (our tax dollars) to support religious groups who will, in turn, go out and vote Republican. This was a blatantly unconstitutional decision in regard to separation of church and state. No one can say any longer that Justice Kennedy is a swing vote either--he is a member of the 5-4 conservative Catholic majority now.

You guys who wanted to filibuster Roberts expected the ultimate outcome to be what, exactly?

Evidence of a backbone, which would have had a positive equilibrium-shifting effect on the whole political process. There was no downside to a filibuster, in terms of restoring some measure of integrity to our entire government, particularly in the Roberts' nomination, and it would have set up a very different equilibrium by the time we got to the Alito nomination. Even if the Republican scum had used the "nuclear" option, because in that case we would have just gotten Roberts' and Alito anyway and the Democrats still would have taken both chambers in 2006.

Don't forget there are other parlimentary processes that would have thrown a morally defensible monkey-wrench into these nominations, and other Senate proceedings, that Wyden and the other sellout Democrats didn't use, so they could make it seem to the average citizen they had no choice and they could continue to use those who defend them as tools. The form letter I got from Wyden defending his "aye" vote for Roberts --- did you forget that? --- was fairly dripping with contempt for the arguments and positions of those who had opposed the Roberts nomination because he was unqualified and unfit for to be the Chief Justice, starting with the fact he had only been a judge for two years and had already shredded the Constitution in Hamdam case, and just called for something as simple as avote against Roberts.

This argument about filibuster is a long standing one that started with Roberts nomination. The thing to observe about those who have defended Wyden and the rest who didn't filibuster, is that they are mainly using the manifest character flaws and corrupt leadership of Shrub and the right-wing Republican crooks and liars to justify the manifest character flaws and corrupt leadership of those in our Party who have failed us. Of the three, Shrub, Democratic leaders like Wyden who failed us in these confirmation hearings, and unimaginative, self-centered enabling apologists for them, who actually does the most damage to the common good?

I disagree with your premise that the Court has moved to the right. I think your omission of the fifth decision the Court issued - increasing the sovereign immunity of government officials - has led you to miss the real direction the Court is taking. It is moving toward decreasing the power of you and me and increasing the power of the government, the wealthy, and the corporations. I can only assume that the reason the left is ignoring that fifth decision is because it was a property rights case, but regardless of your stance on property rights - a touchy issue in post-Measure 37 Oregon - you ought to be very disturbed that government officials engaging in behavior that would be deemed racketeering if you and I did it cannot be held personally responsible for their actions. Combined with the abuses of power we've already seen from this Administration and its friends throughout government, this decision is very serious and deserves more scrutiny by progressives.

I haven't plowed thru all of the decisions yet but the ones I've read don't bother me too much. The majority is having a difficult time figuring out how they're going to over rule previous cases. I liked the Thomas opinion in the bong hit case, he seemed to be the only one that was making sense.

That whole case was absurd. Some idiot class clown makes a 14 ft banner and trys to get some attention by holding it up. The principal takes it down and suspends the kid. Big deal. So why did it go to the Supreme Court? The only reason I see is because the idiots on the 9th circuit screwed up again and so the Supreme Court had to take the case to keep from letting the 9th circuit clowns from messing up yet another area of the law. The 9th circuit is a constant source of stupid decisions, that is what ought to be fixed.

I'd really like to know why people on this site who claim to "school friendly" have an issue with the bong hit case. After all, in this case you have a disruptive class clown, a stoner by the way, who has been a constant source of trouble for the school. The principal suspends the kid for the disruptive behavior. The suspension is reviewed by the school superintendent. The school board also weighs in and upholds the suspension. The district court grants summary judgment saying the principal has immunity for damages and that speech rights were not infringed.

Why exactly does this class clown keep the litigation going and why does anyone pay any attention to him. The school superintendent says the student was defiant, disruptive, belligerent. The student disregarded school officials instructions, failed to report to the principals office on time, had poor attendence records, etc.

Sorry, I just don't see any reason to give a jackass of a kid any benefit of doubt. He was just a typical moron trying to get some attention and he deserved his suspension. All of this bleating about free speech is just as stupid as his bong hits 4 jesus banner.

If you read the case you'll see just how stupid the 9th circuit opinion was. You have a principal, superintendent, school board, district court and Supreme Court all saying the same thing. Then you have the 9th circuit off in la la land making up new law.

If the 9th Circuit decision was allowed to stand then we would really see some chaos in the class room.

Replacing Rehnquist with Roberts = the court is less conservative

Replacing O'Connor with Alito = the court is more conservative

Alito is probably the new "moderate" of the court. Kennedy would have stuck the McCain/Feingold section completely (as would Rehn.), but both Alito+Roberts didn't...

The decision in the bong hits case was bad. The kid flashed the banner outside of school while not in school. The school shouldnt of had jurisdiction in that case. Also as a high school student we discussed the case in our law class and none of the 25 students in there believed that it encouraged drug use actually we couldnt figure out what it meant. Schools shouldnt punish kids for stupid things they say or write outside of school. If the kid had put up that poster while in school then a suspension would be justified but he wasnt in school. The prinicipal couldve punished him for skipping but thats all.

Mr. Alworth is following the great tradition of polemicists on both the left and right in decrying the Supreme Court.

I'm going to address specifically his dismay at the environmental decision. The Court was given a case where two different federal statutes, the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, led to conflict. This is not a terribly unusual situation - federal courts deal with this kind of issue quite often. The Supreme Court made a decision as to which law had primacy.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the basis of which result would most harm the environment. Their ruling was based upon established legal reasoning. There is a solution: Congress, our legislative body (which the Supreme Court is not) can pass legislation effectively reversing the Supreme Court result by making it clear that the Endangered Species Act has primacy over the Clean Water Act. If Congress, consisting of our elected representatives, refuses to do so, maybe, just maybe, we can find that the Supreme Court's result is acceptable to the majority of Americans as expressed in the votes of their repreesentatives.

Meanwhile, over on right-wing websites, the chorus of dismay has also begun over a recently decided Supreme Court case that Mr. Alworth doesn't seem to mention, Wilkie v. Robbins. In Wilkie v. Robbins, the Supreme Court denied the private property owner plaintiff rancher a damage remedy for the government's attempts to harass him into giving up his property rights without compensation (or so he alleged).

So, readers of Blue Oregon, when you read jeremiads against the evil Supreme Court from polemicists like Mr. Alworth, remember that similar polemics are issuing from the "other side of the aisle" on a whole different set of cases. And then consider what the role of the Supreme Court is.

Jeff, while I agree with you that these decisions would have been different if not for Roberts and Alito, I also see a silver lining here. Since the civil rights era, the left has become dependent on the courts to help us win on issues where we aren't winning the hearts and minds of the people. Environmental regulation, abortion, land use, separation of church and state, etc. Maybe these decisions will spur the left to really work on the public relations part of our movement. Why aren't more people willing to pass laws that protect our air, water, and land from exploitation? Given large pro-choice majorities, why do we keep losing on parental notification and late-term abortions? Why would a green state like Oregon pass something like M37? Why don't more people see the danger of government walking hand-in-hand with God?

I'm optimistic that we have the ability to sway public opinion -- we just haven't really been trying. We don't need the courts to pass strong environmental laws, protect a woman's right to choose, plan for sustainable growth, and keep a healthy distance between church and state.

Sometimes I laugh when I read people complaining about the direction of the Supreme Court and realize I've seen the same people complain about how people won't vote for <insert 3rd="" party="" here="">. The situation of our Supreme Court is a direct result of who was elected President and him appeasing his conservative base.

And the 9th circuit gets blasted again today by the Supremes! The Supremes declare the racial balancing act of the Seattle school district to be unconstitutional. The 9th circuit thought it was consitituitional. Guess those 9th circuit judges need to go back to law school, they just can't seem to understand the law.

Well Mr. Alworth, after hearing about today's school desegregation decisions, I think I'll retract most, if not all, of my criticism of your post.

It's one thing to interpret federal laws in a certain way, or opine on the breadth of a constitutional right.

It's another entirely to invalidate the statutes of elected legislators based upon spurious ideological grounds cloaked in constitutional garb.

And that's what the Court has done with the Louisville and Seattle decisions.

Well Mr. Alworth, after hearing about today's school desegregation decisions...

Good to see they got this one right! While the decision is limited in scope, it’s one more step towards a color-blind society where no one is given an advantage based on their skin color.

Miles brings up the point that the courts are not the only front on which we can fight for what we believe.

He mentions that 'Given large pro-choice majorities, why do we keep losing on parental notification and late-term abortions?' As far as parental notification, I have to remind Miles and everyone else reading here that a parental notification bill was roundly defeated last November in Oregon, thanks to groups like Planned Parenthood, which I volunteer for.

It's true, women (especially young women), cannot take for granted that we'll always have the right to choose, simply because of Roe v. Wade. We have to fight, state-by-state, for women's health and safety, because it is constantly under attack at the local and federal level.

"We are screwed."

We are indeed. The evil that Blinky Bunnypants did will live on for decades, long after his worthless carcass has been shoveled into the ground, because of his success (with the help of the RepugniCON CONgress) in packing the SCOTUS with right-wing troglodytes.

And the worst of it is that four of the Fascist Five are still relatively young and could be around for a long, long time.

Very depressing....I've been watching the Supremes closely too. Don't know why...it's all pretty predictable. The current administration and its lackies are going to do as much damage to civil rights as possible before the end....whenever that might be. Let's not forget the electronic voting debacle, is way back on the burner, and not resolved. If it ever can be resolved. For every patch there is a resourceful hacker.

It's clear the GOP anticipates some collateral damage, and will throw a goodly number of sacrificial lambs (too innocent a word here, I know) at Mammon. To them the endes will always justify the means.

And I am SO disappointed in the DEMs we sent to DC; bogged down in rhetoric, dogma, unimportant details and timidity. Talk about taxation without representation!

Did you watch Pelosi on Charlie Rose? Why is she according the prez "respect" he does not deserve? Even a woman with impeccable good manners should know when the time comes to take off the white gloves, stop being such a Lady, and tell it like it is.....if only for her own party's credibility. Im beyond disappointed with the first woman to hold this powerful position....I'm ranging into disgust at this point. Listen carefully....is that the sound of democracy crumbling? If the DEMs we have in DC now are non-starters, what hope for 2008?

I'm 56 years old, and I was so glad to read this on Marty Kaplan's blog today:

"Despite the criminalization of dissent by the Bush Administration, its Court, and its courtiers, there's something going on among young Americans. You can see it with Joseph Frederick, with the Presidential Scholars, with Jesse Lange, the Boulder, Colorado high school junior who -- with aplomb, civility and absolute command of the facts -- absolutely nailed Bill O'Reilly last week for lying about a sex-education class at his school. You can see it in this new New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll, which shows that majorities of Americans 17 to 29 want single-payer health care and believe that reducing global warming should be a top government priority. Seventy percent of them say the country is on the wrong track, and 77 percent of them "said they thought the votes of their generation would have a great bearing on who becomes the next president."

Sure hope so.

Not sure why all the negative comments. The court said that schools should not be discriminating on the basis of race. Seems fairly logical. Isn't that what progressives have been saying for a long time?

I certainly wouldn't want to get a letter from the local school board telling me I can't send my kid to the local school because he was the wrong color.

For anyone interested in reading the opinion (it is a monster at 185 pages) you might want to focus on the Thomas opinion. His viewpoint on the issue is interesting to say the least. Thomas comes right out and says that it isn't apparent that coerced racial mixing has any educational benefit or that integration is necessary for black achievement. Pretty powerful stuff when coming from a Supreme Court justice.

The SC decisions are bad, and there will be far worse to come, particularly concerning the environment and the commerce clause. The commerce clause will lead to some extremely bad environmental decisions, extremely bad. I would imagine that we will see complete loss of gov to regulate in many arenas.

That said, the SC, even at its most "activist", doesn't make laws. It simply interprets them. And a rash of bad SC decisions will help move more people to vote for legislators who promise antidotes.

For example, the 5-4 Defenders of Wildlife decision that, as far as I recall, found that law A conflicts with law B and therefore law A should be used, rather than law B... well, that is readily fixable via legislation.

There're always legislative solutions, direct or indirect, to SC rulings.

But I agree with another poster that the Democrats are absolutely pathetic this session. They are incredibly weak and timid. Incredibly.

<h2>And Wyden SHOULD be held accountable for his vote for Roberts. That's just disgraceful.</h2>