How sad that most of the Justices will keep their papers from being made public after their deaths (according to the article.) Seems to me that publishing them would help ensure their places in history, unless they're ashamed of what they've done.
How sad that most of the Justices will keep their papers from being made public after their deaths (according to the article). Seems to me that publishing them would help ensure their places in history, unless they're ashamed of what they've done.
Well, to be fair, path, the article doesn't quite say that. All it says is that "most current justices are expected to ensure their files will be protected long after their deaths". In other words, their papers will be released eventually, but not immediately. What's unusual about Blackmun is that he allowed his papers to be made available to the public only five years after his death.
This NYT article has some interesting information about the different restrictions that different Justices have placed on their papers, ranging from immediate release (Thurgood Marshall) to long-term closure (William Brennan).
As an afterthought: here's the MeFi thread on this topic, which has some interesting links and a charming personal reminiscence of Blackmun himself. The link to Nina Totenberg's report is worth following up, if you have time. It contains some fascinating material, e.g. on the handwritten notes that the judges passed to each other while the court was in session, "I'm bored", "your hearing aid is making a funny noise", "just look at that blonde in the second row", etc.
One of the key differences between the US and Britain, I sometimes feel, is that Americans rely on judges to protect them from politicians, whereas here in Britain we rely on politicians to protect us from judges. (A gross generalisation, I know, but I think there is some truth in it.) Reading Totenberg's report, I can't help feeling that the British have got it right. Some matters are simply too important to be left to judges. In the words of one interviewee: "these are not all-wise people who retire to a secret room with the answer that no one else can figure out, they are human beings who are trying to wrestle with the problem the way the rest of us do". I happen to think that the Supreme Court made the right decision in Roe v Wade, but it disturbs me that such a crucial decision should have hung on a knife-edge in the way it did, depending on the views of a few fallible individuals and (in the end) determined by just one who happened to change his mind.
Any thoughts?
I was listening to the NPR spot while doing dishes tonight, and it was pretty interesting. It does paint a picture of Blackmun as a relatively humble and down to earth guy. As opposed to the Emperor Palpatine-esque persona that Rehnquist gives off. Don't get me started on Scalia. I'm question how that guy ever got there in the first place.
Yes, that was a Star Wars reference made in describing a Chief Justice. Yes, I'm a geek.
Ugh, stop posting at 6am. Sense your postings make not.
It's true in some respects verstegan. The judiciary is a third of our triangle, and it can be weird watching it nullify the other two. On the other hand, the other two can nullify it so things even out. The court is supposed to be above politics. That's why they get appointed for life. The other two branches aren't, what with being filled with politicians. As a neutral entity, it is the best equipped to interpret the constitution. I shuddder to think what it'd be like if Congress got to vote on the constitutionality of things.
such a crucial decision
Verstegan, sometimes the US Supreme Court certainly does make the wrong decision. It's part of the process, like a balance scale wobbling as weights are added. Take the long view: society gets it right in the end.
The judiciary is a third of our triangle, and it can be weird watching it nullify the other two.
People often forget that our government has a fourth arm, the press, that plays a major role in keeping the other three honest.
If only. Our press is weaker than it's ever been in that regard.
Ginsburg said the latest decision “tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.”
Pfft - doctors?? What do they know?!
frickin' SCOTUS dangit stupid *sputtle* *curse*
Here's how they voted, along with a note on their religion:
Justice Vote Religion
John Roberts Yes Catholic
Anthony M. Kennedy Yes Catholic
Antonin Scalia Yes Catholic
Clarence Thomas Yes Catholic
Samuel Alito Yes Catholic
Stephen G. Breyer No Jewish
David H. Souter No Episcopalian
John Paul Stevens No Protestant
Ruth Bader Ginsburg No Jewish
It is fascinating that there are five Justices on the Supreme Court who are Catholic. Catholic may be or have been the most prevalent Christian denomination in the history of the United States, yet there has been only one Catholic President. There is some completely asinine government funded position that people don't know about called the Chaplain of the House of Representatives. The guy makes a 163,000 dollars of taxpayer money per year for leading the House in prayer. I am not making this up.
The House Chaplain is currently Daniel Coughlin. Daniel Coughlin is Catholic and is the first Catholic Chaplain ever. How is that even possible? I did not realize that there really is an anti-Catholic bias until I moved to North Carolina. There is, and it is substantial. I find it particularly strange that a majority of the Supreme Court is Catholic when such an incredibly low percentage of Presidents, Vice Presidents, and even Chaplains are.
Is it cultural? What I mean by that is: Are Catholics more likely to pursue a career in law, and thus become judges/justices?
Three out of those five were Bush appointees. Excuse me while I put on my tinfoil mitre and alb... there we go. The conspiracy theorist in me is tempted to believe that the Bush cabal, knowing this would eventually come before the Court, were biased toward Catholics in their selection.
Bush is born again, right? The born-agains and the Catholics are not exactly traditional bedfellows. I find it very odd that he has appointed so many Catholics.
Yeah - that was kind of my point. Since you wouldn't expect an evangelical to appoint so many Catholics, maybe the birth control issue (traditionally an important one for Catholics) was what he had in mind when he chose them.
Very intwesting...
*twists moustache*
As a matter of law, the majority opinion today should have focused exclusively on what has changed since the high court's 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart. Stenberg struck down a Nebraska ban that was almost identical to the federal ban upheld today. That's why every court to review the ban found the federal law, passed in 2003, unconstitutional. What really changed in the intervening years was the composition of the court: Sandra Day O'Connor, who voted to strike down the ban in 2000, is gone. Samuel Alito, who votes today to uphold it, is here.
New Justices, New Rules: FindLaw columnist Joanna Grossman and FindLaw guest columnist Linda McClain, both Hofstra law professors, analyze the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart, in which the Court upheld the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (PBABA). Grossman and McClain explain the evolution of abortion law on the Court, up to and through this recent and important decision. In addition, they explain why -- due to the replacement of Justice O'Connor with Justice Alito -- the Court reached a result, in this case, directly opposite to the result it reached in 2000 when considering Nebraska's ban on "partial birth abortion."
Due to the fact that I will likely freak the f**k out if I read that article, I respectfully decline to do so. However, thank you for posting it, Right Honorable H-dogg.
Now why would Ireland be t- oh. Right, cause of the whole thing there. Wow - written into the constitution y'say. That's hardcore. No doubt put there by concerned women.
I don't know a single person who is against abortion because they want to deny someone sexual pleasure or personal choice. Every person I know is against abortion because they think it is murder. Is it possible that there are some people somewhere who are against abortion because they don't like sexual pleasure. Sure. If you can come up with some sort of reasoning, I am sure that someone somewhere has it.
But pretending that people who are against abortion are primarily against sexual pleasure is ridiculous. It damages the whole pro-abortion argument to even suggest this.
Most people who are against abortion are against abortion because they think that it is murder. A good argument from the left would be one that argues against that idea. Changing the argument into something that is easier to win (sexual pleasure vs. murder) is not going to help the pro-abortion side.
Just. Wow.
Excellent, and terrifying, article h-dogg, thank you. Aside from Roe vs Wade, this bit is worth quoting: The YouTube video is only three minutes and eighteen seconds long, but it's enough to make even the most casual feminist drop chin to the floor in horror, convinced that centuries of progress have become undone.
In it ... Will Albino takes to an all-girls school seeking signatures for a petition to end woman's suffrage. He is equipped with a clipboard, a cameraman, and a lot of chutzpah. The petition is a hoax. ... Mr. Albino goes from one student to the next, and asks each to join his cause to "stop the injustice." The girls, most of them dressed in school uniform, take to his entreaty almost immediately.
"Women's suffrage is really bad," one girl says. "I thought it already ended," another adds. And so on for a few more torturous petition-signing minutes.
Oy.
In related news, Bush supports annual anti-abortion rally
Here's how they voted, along with a note on their religion: Justice Vote Religion John Roberts Yes Catholic Anthony M. Kennedy Yes Catholic Antonin Scalia Yes Catholic Clarence Thomas Yes Catholic Samuel Alito Yes Catholic Stephen G. Breyer No Jewish David H. Souter No Episcopalian John Paul Stevens No Protestant Ruth Bader Ginsburg No Jewishvia