RSS

Tag Archives: xtreme court

Is the Supreme Court “Legitimate” Anymore?

After the stunt McConnell pulled to deny President Obama a Supreme Court appointment, and the subsequent appointment of a Chumph Cartel member post election, I have little belief in the legitimacy of the Supreme Court serving wither as a defender of the Constitution or in its role as a check and balance on the other two branches of the Government.

The Supreme Court is just another hostile Chumph entity by a 5-4 margin, not unlike Jefferson Davis Sessions racist DOJ.

The Chumph led Republican government is the existential enemy of every Minority in the United States, as well as freedom respecting whites.

In my mind at least, the Chumph is illegitimate – and as such anyone he appoints or hires is illegitimate.

Image result for Supreme court

In Trump’s America, is the Supreme Court still seen as legitimate?

 

On Oct. 10, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments about the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s travel ban. The justices may rule that Trump has exceeded his constitutional authority, or they may dodge the issue entirely, saying that the travel ban’s scheduled Sept. 24 end date takes the decision out of the court’s hands.

Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, some Americans will agree and others will not. And whatever the decision, the court will expect the president to comply with its ruling. Political leaders usually follow court decisions they disagree with out of a sense of duty: They believe the Supreme Court’s decisions deserve respect because obedience to the law is an essential feature of democracy. Political scientists call this belief “legitimacy.”

Research suggests that the U.S. Supreme Court’s legitimacy is high and holds steady, even when it makes decisions the public dislikes.

Only a few Americans would want to eliminate the Supreme Court altogether. About 20 percent would endorse narrowing the scope of the court by limiting the types of cases it is able to decide. And about 32 percent felt that even if the court made unpopular decisions, we should leave it alone. The margin of error for these results was ± 4.2 percent.

The largest group of respondents – 44 percent – endorsed the idea that justices should be periodically reappointed rather than serving life terms. Reappointment procedures are already used for many state supreme courts, including those in New Jersey, South Carolina and Virginia. Women, African-Americans and Americans over 65 were especially likely to endorse periodic reappointment.

After respondents gave their answers, we asked them to explain their choices in their own words. These responses provide a richer description of how ordinary citizens think about the judicial branch of our government.

In their own words

Citizens expressed concern about the Supreme Court’s accumulation of power and were mindful of its role in the system of checks and balances. Many who supported periodic reappointment focused on the inflexibility of current justices. Many characterized sitting justices as “old-fashioned,” “out of touch” and “unable to keep up with the times.”

Many mentioned the need for “new ideas” and more “open-minded justices.” A 52-year-old independent from Missouri summed it up this way: “No one should serve for life. In anything.”

A sizable number felt that the court’s decisions should fall more closely in line with public opinion on individual cases, illustrating a longstanding debate in the U.S. about the ideal level of political independence for the judicial branch. Research on the Supreme Court appointment process suggests that periodic reappointment may satisfy these concerns. If each president is able to appoint a set number of justices, rather than waiting until there is a vacancy due to death or retirement, the court’s membership might better reflect the recent political climate.

Perhaps the most striking pattern in the answers we received is the lack of polarization. There was some modest difference – for example, Democrats were a little more likely to favor reforms of all kinds. However, supporters of reappointment and supporters of that status quo included large numbers of Republicans, Democrats and independents.

We see no evidence that Trump’s rhetoric about judiciary legitimacy has created two hostile camps with widely differing views on the court. This is consistent with recent academic research on the topic, suggesting the possibility that future public debates about judicial reforms can be multipartisan, reasoned and thoughtful.

The ConversationMost importantly, the poll’s results show that the Supreme Court is broadly supported by the American people. Even at a point in history where support for other politicalinstitutions is low, we can expect that the vast majority of Americans will respect the court’s decisions on the controversial issues it faces this term.

But is this true in the midst of our current political turmoil?

We set out to find the answer. Here’s what we found.

The Supreme Court’s broad support

We asked a representative sample of Americans about the U.S. Supreme Court’s legitimacy in a recent Penn State McCourtney Mood of the Nation Poll. Specifically, we asked citizens about what they would want to do if the Supreme Court began making many unpopular decisions.

Advertisements
 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

SCUMUS 5 Set to Re-segregate America

Well, the 4 bigots in black robes, and their Uncle Tom are about to screw over black folks again. I surely hope that one of more of the Scumbag 5 dies soon (of natural cause) so either Obama or his Democrat successor can appoint someone representative of,  and representing the law and the American citizens. Ladies – don’t forget to send a pigfoot or some fried Chicken to Uncle Tommie to help that heart condition along!

Supreme Court Justices Look Anew At Affirmative Action In Texas

Basketball coaches, leading military officers and many of the country’s biggest businesses agree that the Supreme Court should preserve the use of race as a factor in college admissions. But they may be in a fight they cannot win as the justices take up a case that presages tighter limits on affirmative action in higher education.

The court is hearing arguments Wednesday for the second time in three years in the case of a white Texas woman who was rejected for admission at the University of Texas.

Abigail Fisher did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her high school class, which would have won her a spot at the state’s flagship college in Austin. She also did not get in under the program that looks at race among many factors and through which Texas admits about a quarter of its incoming freshman classes.

Lawyers for Fisher say the university has no good reason to consider race at all because the “top 10” plan that the state put in place in 1997 works well to bring in Hispanic and African-American students. Texas says the plan by itself is not enough and it needs the freedom to fill out its incoming classes as it sees fit.

Fisher’s argument did not persuade the conservative-leaning federal appeals court in New Orleans, which has twice upheld the university’s admissions process. The second ruling, last year, followed a Supreme Court order to reconsider Fisher’s case.

Among the many groups urging the justices to leave the Texas program in place are the coaches, including Duke’s Mike Krzyzewski and University of Connecticut’s Geno Auriemma, who said they have firsthand knowledge of the value of diversity on campus. “We are not writing as dilettantes or tourists. We live this life,” the coaches wrote.

The high court has been much more skeptical of the role of race in public programs since Justice Samuel Alito joined the court, taking the seat of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. In 2003, O’Connor wrote the court’s opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger that allowed colleges and universities to use race in their quest for diverse student bodies.

The conservative majority of which Alito is a part generally is cohesive on issues of race. It stuck together in cases that stripped the Justice Department of its power to approve in advance changes related to elections in all or parts of 16 states with a history of discrimination in voting, and threw out local plans to integrate public schools in Louisville, Kentucky, and Seattle.

The only break from this pattern was in June, when Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the four liberal justices to preserve a key legal tool in fighting discrimination in housing.

“Every time they take one of these cases, I worry,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Ifill’s worry may be especially apt in Fisher’s case because there is no split among lower courts to attract the justices’ attention. In addition, Fisher herself will not benefit from the ruling because she graduated from Louisiana State University in 2012, and one liberal justice, Elena Kagan, is absent from the case due to her earlier work on it while serving in the Justice Department.

So it appears that the conservative justices have more they’d like to say about affirmative action.

The first time Fisher’s case was heard by the court, shortly after her graduation, people on both sides of the issue expected a decision that sharply cut back on or eliminated public universities’ use of race in admissions. Instead, after sitting on the case for eight months, the justices released an opinion that ordered appellate judges to look anew at Fisher’s complaint to see whether Texas sufficiently explained its need to take account of race in admissions.

The vote was 7-1, with only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in dissent. Kagan sat out the first round, too.

The outcome, in June 2013, concealed tense divisions among the justices, according to author Joan Biskupic’s account in her book “Breaking In” about Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Kennedy initially had written a decision striking down the Texas program that split the conservative and liberal justices, Biskupic wrote. Sotomayor drafted a blistering dissent that eventually caused Kennedy to reconsider, Biskupic said.

Last year, Sotomayor did issue a strong dissent to Kennedy’s majority opinion in a case from Michigan that essentially looked at the flip side of the Texas issue and concluded that Michigan voters could ban racial preferences in university admissions.

Michigan is one of eight states in which race cannot be a factor in public college admissions decisions. The others are Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Nebraska, New Hampshire and Washington…The rest here

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 6, 2015 in The New Jim Crow

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

The New Jim Crow – SCUMUS 5 And Employment Discrimination

The SCUMUS 5 are at it again in their ongoing effort to assure the safety of Jim Crow in America.

Appropriate Attire for the 5 Thugs In Robes Sitting the Supreme Court

Supreme Court to consider another case on racial bias in hiring

Chicago firefighters say they were illegally discriminated against through test scores. A lawyer calls it the flip side to last year’s case involving white firefighters in New Haven, Conn.

Reporting from Washington – The controversy over racial bias, testing and firefighters that blew up at both the Supreme Court and the Senate last year returns Monday, this time as the justices decide whether blacks who were not hired in Chicago because of their test scores are due damages for years of lost wages.

The potentially $100-million civil rights case comes before a high court that has already shown its skepticism toward such claims.

Last year, the justices ruled for white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who said they were victims of illegal racial discrimination when the city threw out the results of a promotion test. The whites had earned high scores and would have gotten nearly all the promotions. City officials dropped the test results because they feared being sued by blacks who were denied promotions. Read the rest of this entry »

 
3 Comments

Posted by on February 23, 2010 in The New Jim Crow

 

Tags: , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: