Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Gay Marriage Case Likely On Way To Supreme Court For Ruling One Year From Now!

Ronald 1 Comment

The issue of gay marriage is likely on its way to the Supreme Court, and almost certainly will be decided a year from now, in the most blockbuster case of 2015!

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has declared gay marriage to be a basic right, and that means marriages can move ahead in the near future in Utah, which brought the case, along with Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming and New Mexico!

There is a temporary hold, but it is a major step forward, and insures, almost certainly, that the case will go to the Supreme Court this fall.

And it is ALMOST certain that we will have a Loving V. Virginia (interracial marriage) case result next year, allowing gay marriage everywhere in America, whether religious right wingers like it or not! One must realize that no church or other religious establishment would have to promote it, but civil marriage would move forward.

The belief is that there are four certain supporters of gay marriage on the Court—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

Additionally, Justice Anthony Kennedy was the one who decided the path breaking case of Lawrence V. Texas, which greatly expanded the gay rights movement in 2003!

And it is possible to believe that Chief Justice John Roberts could also add his vote, making the vote next June 6-3!

The Dangers Of The Supreme Court Run Amuck In Favor Of Wealthy And Corporations!

Ronald 3 Comments

The Supreme Court is totally out of control, with its new decision on having no limits on campaign spending by wealthy donors, added on to the Citizens United Case of 2010, and the limitation of voting rights in a 2013 decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts has solidified a five member GOP majority to destroy all attempts to prevent corporate and wealthy people from controlling the political system, an effort pursued from the time of Theodore Roosevelt a century ago through Senator John McCain and Senator Russ Feingold in the 1990s and early 2000s.

That is all for naught now, and shows the dangers of a runaway, reckless, right wing radical Court!

This is what made Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Barack Obama criticize Court power, along with progressive reformers including Senator Robert La Follette of Wisconsin, Senator George Norris of Nebraska, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont!

This is the result of 13 Supreme Court nominees since 1960 by Republican Presidents, to only 8 by Democrats, and with two of those Democratic appointments (Arthur Goldberg by John F. Kennedy and Abe Fortas by Lyndon B. Johnson), only lasting three and four years respectively.

Of course, Republican appointments of Harry Blackmun by Richard Nixon; John Paul Stevens by Gerald Ford; Sandra Day O’Connor by Ronald Reagan; and David Souter by George H. W. Bush, turned out to be major surprises in their rulings, but we also ended up with some of the most reactionary and right wing radical appointments in all of American history with the appointments of William Rehnquist by Richard Nixon and the elevation of Rehnquist to Chief Justice by Ronald Reagan; Lewis Powell by Richard Nixon; Antonin Scalia by Ronald Reagan; Clarence Thomas by George H. W. Bush; and Samuel Alito by George W. Bush. The appointments of Chief Justice Warren Burger by Richard Nixon; Anthony Kennedy by Ronald Reagan; and Chief Justice John Roberts by George W. Bush, have been more of a mixed bag, sometimes good, and sometimes horrible in its effect on constitutional law!

Meanwhile, John F. Kennedy selected a mostly conservative Justice Byron White; Lyndon B Johnson selected Thurgood Marshall; Bill Clinton selected Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer; and Barack Obama selected Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, but sadly, their influence in the last four of the five names listed, has been mostly in being the opposition, sometimes vehement in nature!

The effect on the future of American democracy is massive, with this right wing Court majority, and the only hope is the eventual retirement of Scalia and Kennedy, and hopefully, continuation of a Democratic Senate and President for the rest of the decade, so that the Court changes direction in the future!

Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A True National Treasure!

Ronald 1 Comment

Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by President Bill Clinton 20 years ago, has suffered two serious bouts with cancer, and has lost her husband, but she continues to plug on at age 80, with no plans for retirement.

Since other Supreme Court Justices have stayed on in their 80s, it is not all that surprising that Ginsburg refuses to consider retirement.

Always very friendly and accessible, unusual in the history of the Supreme Court membership, Ginsburg has become more openly outspoken over the years, being the true champion of the progressive side of the Court, and critical in a gentle way of her conservative colleagues, while expressing respect for them as individuals.

And she set new ground by marrying two gay men in the past week, one of them being the President of the Kennedy Center, and the other a well known economist. And she also has spoken out now on the Constitution as the promoter of equal rights for all—race, gender, and sexual orientation—even though it might take a long time, many generations, for the promotion of equality to become the norm, in the story of American history!

Ginsburg is an inspiration to all who believe in equality, justice, decency, and fairness, and a great symbol to women, as to what they can attain, as she is the second woman appointed to the Supreme Court, after Sandra Day O’Connor.

It is certainly clear that Ginsburg, O’Connor, and the only other two women appointed to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan have all contributed to the humanization of the Court, and advocated an open minded attitude, which will have a long range effect on Constitutional law!

Applause and commending of the role and significance of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is certainly in order!

The Future Democratic Party Majority On The US Supreme Court

Ronald 3 Comments

When one looks at the Supreme Court in recent decades, it is clear that it has been a conservative Supreme Court, dominated by Republican appointments, and it has shown in such decisions as the Citizens United Case of 2010, and the partial repeal of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, along with numerous other such cases tilted to the right side of the political spectrum.

So for progressives and Democrats, it has been a difficult time, wondering how the Supreme Court can be returned to the glorious era of the Warren Court and Burger Court from 1953-1986.

But there is the reality that the Supreme Court’s future for the Democratic Party and progressivism is very bright over the next decade, assuming what seems highly likely, that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or some other Democratic Presidential nominee will have the electoral college advantage for 2016, and likely for the following 2020 Presidential election.

If indeed the Democrats keep the White House beyond 2016, time and age will turn the Court into a majority Democratic Party appointed Court for sure!

History tells us this fact: If a party keeps control of the White House for an extended period of time, the Court becomes more than ever reflective of that political party.

So, for example, from 1933-1953, we had 20 years of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman in the White House, and a total of 13 Supreme Court appointments, all by these two Democratic Presidents, helping to shape the future Court, with a few “liberal” appointments by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Earl Warren and William Brennan), insuring a continuation of that trend.

But it can be said that from 1953-2013, sixty years of history, the Republicans held the White House for a total of 36 years to the Democrats’ total of 24 years.

In those 60 years, the Republican Presidents made 18 appointments to the Supreme Court, to the Democratic total of just 8 appointments, more than a 2-1 majority. While Republican appointments included Warren, Brennan, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, and David Souter, all quite liberal appointments, even so it still meant that 12 Republican appointments were quite conservative or VERY conservative, so the Supreme Court represents a strongly Republican flavor.

But now, we have four aging Supreme Court Justices–Ruth Bader Ginsberg (80 this year), Antonin Scalia (77 this year), Anthony Kennedy (77 this year), and Stephen Breyer (75 this year), and to believe that by 2020, that any or all of these members of the Court will be still serving, seems quite unreasonable, as they would be ranging between 82 and 87 by the year 2020!

And Justice Clarence Thomas, although claiming he will stay on the Court for 43 years, until age 86, would be 72 in 2020, and Samuel Alito would 70 in 2020.

No one is saying that either Thomas or Alito will have left the Court, but if the four elderly Justices have left, they would all be Democratic Party appointments if the Democrats keep the White House, highly likely, and that would mean SIX of the nine members of the Court would be Democratic appointments, including Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Only Thomas, Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts would be Republican appointments in the year 2020 under this scenario!

So, for Democrats and Progressives, there is hope for a very different Court over the next decade and beyond!

Women On The Supreme Court: Their Impact Is Massive!

Ronald Leave a comment

So far, we have had four women on the Supreme Court in its history:

Sandra Day O’Connor (1981-2006), appointed by Ronald Reagan
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993- ), appointed by Bill Clinton
Sonia Sotomayor (2009- ), appointed by Barack Obama
Elena Kagan (2010- ), appointed by Barack Obama

All four have had a massive effect on the Court, and made one wonder what it would be like if the Court was made up of only women, which of course will never be the case.

However, the likelihood of more Justices who are women seems bright, and when Ginsburg leaves at some time in the future (with her being 80 years of age), it would seem appropriate to replace her with another woman.

This, of course, did not occur when O’Connor left the Court, and we ended up with Samuel Alito, a sour puss who seems hostile to all three woman Justices, and at the least, shows publicly a lack of respect for them, highly regrettable and in reality, outrageous conduct unbecoming a Supreme Court Justice!

The only hope we can have about the Court is that the women will have an insidious effect and move the conservative men toward understanding issues that affect slightly more than half the population of the nation.

Sadly, at this point, Justices Alito and Clarence Thomas seem unreachable, and so we have a schizoid Supreme Court, arguably one of the most divided in its entire history, and that is bad for the nation, and for confidence in American government!

The Humanizing Of The Supreme Court By Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg And Sonia Sotomayor

Ronald 4 Comments

The Supreme Court of the United States is a very “forbidding” institution, with its marble building, opened in 1935, its arches, its tightly controlled public access, and even the robes worn by the nine Supreme Court Justices as they listen to case arguments in the Supreme Court chamber.

The Court has always been seen as an intimidating place, and historically, the Court Justices have made themselves seem distant and aloof from the general public.

But now we are fortunate to have two women on the Court who are particularly open and accessible, and even Associate Justice Elena Kagan has already become much more of a public face, joining Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor in that endeavor.

Ginsburg has, for years, spoken to public school students, given interviews, and made herself the public face of the Court, and now Sotomayor, in particular, and Kagan, somewhat as well, have opened up to the public, with Sotomayor now on a book tour for her revealing autobiography, which makes it easy for average citizens to relate to her and the insecurities she felt as she went from a poor childhood in the Bronx, New York, all the way up the ladder to the Supreme Court.

So two women in particular, and even Kagan moving in that direction, opens up the Court, and it is time for the men on the Court to stop their aloofness and reserve, and show the American people that, while they make judgments on cases as they relate to the Constitution, they are still human beings with real lives and concerns that should not be withheld from public scrutiny.

It would be easier for Americans to respect our system of law and courts if there was more open access to these people, and the women on the Court have done a great service in that regard!

Two Year Anniversary Of Health Care Law, And Oral Arguments On Case Next Week In Supreme Court

Ronald Leave a comment

The Affordable Care Act, the Obama Health Care legislation, hits its two year anniversary this week, and next week, the US Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of the legislation, seen as the landmark case of the past decade by many, and as the crucial issue that will have a dramatic effect either way on the upcoming Presidential Election of 2012.

The Obama Health Care law has allowed young people to remain on their parents’ health insurance to age 26; has prevented pre-existing conditions from being used to deny health care; and has cut down the “donut hole” for senior citizens in relation to their prescription costs.

Many other reforms must wait until 2014, assuming that the Supreme Court does not declare the whole act unconstitutional.

There is furious action to try to destroy the signature legislation that really defines the Obama Presidency, a law that took a full year to pass, and that was passed on party lines, which is actually not at all unusual in history.

Some federal judges have upheld the legislation, while others have challenged it, and it will be argued by both sides over three days for the unusually long total period of six hours, showing just how significant this case is!

As it seems now, the four “liberal” Justices–Bill Clinton appointees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and Barack Obama appointees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—will support the legislation.

For it to survive in one piece, at least one of the five “conservative” Justices would have to join the four liberal appointees of Clinton and Obama.

Anthony Kennedy, usually the swing vote, and usually joining the liberals on about one third of the cases before the Court, is thought to be a good bet, but not a guarantee.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who is very aware of the significance of this case for the Court and for his reputation, is thought to join in the majority, but again no certainty.

Ironically, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who one would think would be opposed, has indicated in other cases as hints that he just might support the legislation.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito is thought less likely to support the legislation, and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is thought to be the one certain, guaranteed vote against the health care legislation.

The argument for the legislation is the application of the commerce clause of the Constitution, which has been utilized over and over again by the US Supreme Court in the past, adding to the powers of the federal government. This was the same controversy with the Social Security Act, with a conservative oriented Supreme Court in the 1930s, and that legislation was upheld.

The argument against is based on opposition to the so called “mandate” that all citizens MUST obtain health insurance coverage by 2014, or face a fine.

What the critics fail to address is that when someone does not have health insurance and ends up needing medical care, he or she ends up in the emergency room, and all of us have to pay for the health care provided. Is it proper that some have no health care coverage and gain medical aid, and the rest of us have to pay for our health care, and also for those who are irresponsible enough to avoid paying for care that he or she knows he or she can gain for free?

This is the crux of the matter, and it is hoped and believed that a majority of the Supreme Court will end up backing the Health Care law, with a prediction by many of at least 5-4, but even possibly 6-3, or 7-2, or even 8-1.

A victory by more than 5-4 would be a real endorsement of the health care legislation, while a 5-4 defeat would be a major blow to 50 million citizens who benefit from the legislation.

In either case, this decision, when it is announced in June, will have a transformative effect on our nation, and on the Presidential Election of 2012. We will all wait with “baited breath” for the result!

The Republican Attack On The Constitution: A Threat To American Democracy!

Ronald 5 Comments

The Republican Party loves to assert that the Democrats, and progressives in particular, are attacking the Constitution, and that they are the experts on the Constitution.

So therefore, in this Presidential primary season, and in the party membership in Congress, there are statements constantly attacking the court system, anytime that a federal judge or court issues a decision against the conservative view of the Constitution. There are condemnations and calls to change the court system on a regular basis.

One would think that the Democrats and their progressive friends have dominated the courts in recent decades, which, of course, is the exact opposite of the truth!

One forgets that from 1969-2011, there have been only 15 years of Democratic control of the Presidency, as compared to 28 years of Republican control.

The vast majority of federal judges have been Republican appointments, as a result, and Republican Presidents have made a total of 13 Supreme Court appointments over those years, and Democrats have made only 4, two by Bill Clinton and two by Barack Obama!

But now,. Newt Gingrich calls for judges to be required to testify before partisan Congressional committees, a violation of the separation of powers, and a danger to an independent judiciary!

What it comes down to is that Newt Gingrich and all of the Republican opponents, with maybe the exception of Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, wish to create a court system that would move away from the path breaking changes that the Supreme Court brought about during the years of the Warren Court, Burger Court, and Rehnquist Court including:

Brown V. Board Of Education
Miranda V Arizona
Roe V Wade
University Of California V. Bakke
Lawrence V Texas

As it is, there are threats presented by the Republican growth of dominance on the federal courts to all of these issues–racial integration, rights of criminal suspects, abortion rights, affirmative action, and gay rights.

The Republicans will not be contented until there are reversals on all of these issues, and a return to the “good old days”, when minorities “knew their place”; police had unlimited rights over those they questioned or arrested; women had no control over their reproductive rights; minorities and women had disadvantages, as compared to white males, on educational and job opportunities; and gays were forced to remain “in the closet” and face open discrimination and hate without recourse!

So when the Republicans claim to understand what the Founding Fathers meant at the Constitutional Convention, they are forgetting that those esteemed leaders put into the Constitution the “Elastic Clause” to allow for expansion of the Constitution beyond the original document, in order to make the Constitution a “living document” adaptable to changing times.

The real threat is not what the federal courts have done in the past sixty years! It is the attempt of conservatives and the Republican Party to negate the great progress brought about the Supreme Court and lower courts in the past sixty years, and revert back to the years after World War II, when all of these great changes started slowly to evolve through courageous judges and Supreme Court Justices, including Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Herman Cain: Reality Check As He Faces Attacks On The Right, The Center, And The Left

Ronald 1 Comment

Herman Cain says he is not the “Flavor of the Week” or “Flavor of the Month”, but he most assuredly is such!

After being on Meet the Press on Sunday and speaking in Tennessee, where he is on a book tour, Cain has major problems and is being attack on the Right, the Center, and the Left!

Cain has not raised much money, has no real campaign staff, and spends time promoting his newly published book in a state that does not vote until Super Tuesday on March 6, long after the early caucuses and primaries. This, in itself, is the weirdest way to campaign for President!

But getting beyond that, the Right, the Center and the Left are displaying anger with and at him. Why, specifically?

On the Right, Herman Cain seems unwilling to support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, which it is clear would never pass in any case. But by leaving it to states, as he advocates, he has made enemies, particularly among social conservatives who like Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum.

Secondly, Cain has demonstrated that he is a novice on foreign policy, claiming to admire Henry Kissinger and John Bolton, which is, as critics say, like admiring both Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a totally preposterous concept. And Cain actually said he saw Clarence Thomas as a model, enough to undermine his legitimacy to be President! It shows he is not ready for “prime time”, and has no clue on international affairs, another thing which upsets conservatives as well as progressives. His ideas on Afghanistan show no depth or knowledge of that war, which has been going on for a decade!

Third, Cain talks about sales taxes on “new goods’, and none on “used goods”! What in the world does that mean, and is it not true that if fewer “new goods” are purchased which would be likely if they are subjected to a sales tax, then the economy will suffer and never recover? And since food and clothing would be taxed, is Cain proposing used clothing only, and how can food be “used”? His 9-9-9 economic plan would hurt the poor and the middle class, and benefit the wealthy, and is an outrageous attack that could be called the true “class warfare”!

And then the Left is furious at Cain’s suggestion that abortion not be allowed for rape or incest, as that is “rare” according to him, and “life of the mother” would be left up to the family. What does all that gobbledygook mean anyway?

And then to suggest an electrified fence along the US-Mexican border is impractical and also horrifying, the concept of inflicting harm on refugees and possibly killing them, and using troops to shoot and kill if necessary to stop refugees! That would be a massive violation of human rights, and would America want to have that image in the world, that it is ready to shoot and kill, or execute by electric shock any refugee, who while doing something technically illegal, is just trying to make a better life in America and escape from poverty?

Herman Cain is a preposterous candidate, and the attacks by his opponents in the Republican Presidential race are likely to escalate in Tuesday’s Presidential debate scheduled in Nevada, and sponsored by CNN. This man, with no political experience at all, is indeed not only the “Flavor of the Week or Month”, but the biggest joke of the loony GOP campaign to find a legitimate candidate for President!

The Supreme Court Membership In Flux

Ronald Leave a comment

We have a new member of the Supreme Court in the new term about to begin–Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

But we also have some flux evident, as there is the possibility of TWO new appointees by 2010–to replace Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Justice Stevens is 89 this year, still in excellent health, but by deciding not to appoint new law clerks for more than a year, causes speculation that he may retire next summer, which would mean he would not break the record for longevity or age, which would only occur if he stayed on the Court to the year 2012.

Justice Ginsburg has had colon and now pancreatic cancer, and this week felt faint, and was taken to the hospital, although now she has been released. It is sad to say that most patients who have had pancreatic cancer do not survive for long, although Ginsburg has been given a clean bill of health. Still, the likelihood is that she might leave soon.

So Barack Obama may have two new appointments, and it would seem to me that these retirements after distinguished years of service would be best if they did occur next summer, before the midterm elections, as there may be a smaller Democratic margin after those elections, making a Supreme Court appointment then much more problematical.

While neither justice retiring will change the balance of the Court, it will be good for Obama to pick two fairly liberal justices who would bring comparative youth and vigor to the Court before any possible change of balance in the Senate. So it is hoped that Ginsburg will decide to retire due to her earlier health problems, and that Stevens, despite being therefore unable to break records, will realize that after 35 years on the Court, it is time to go. It is difficult to give up power and status, but it would be good for the Court and the country for this to occur next summer.