Politics and the Supreme Court (NY Times)
"They sought to remake law into a weapon of aggressive action." Telling quote ~ pinto
Politics and the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court underscored its power to shape American life when it took major cases about the health care reform law, Arizonas anti-immigrant law and the Voting Rights Act in an election year. But this is not simply a case of the court thrusting itself into politics.
The way these cases developed and made their way to the highest court also illustrates the reverse how politics shape the court. Each case grows out of a struggle between left and right where politics have pushed the law: between a quest for universal coverage and the defense of big health care providers; between an emphasis on openness and hostility toward immigrants; and between a promise of access to the voting booth made nearly 50 years ago and the unyielding opposition to keeping that promise.
Each party has its program and works to turn it into law. The great example of political change through legal change was the long, methodical effort to whittle away at segregation from within the legal mainstream that culminated in the courts decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The conservatives legal-political strategy draws from Brown, but it is also vastly different in nature and design.
<snip>
But the conservative legal battles of our modern times are being waged by the most powerful, often against the weak and oppressed. They began with a carefully planned and successful effort to reshape the courts to be sympathetic to conservative causes. They are largely aimed at narrowing rights, not expanding them except where property and guns are concerned. And beginning with the Reagan administration, conservatives became impatient with the pace of change brought about from within the mainstream. They sought to remake law into a weapon of aggressive action.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/politics-and-the-supreme-court.html?_r=1&hpw
libinnyandia
(1,374 posts)courts.
Dissonance
(12 posts)I saw an interesting proposal the other day to limit SCOTUS justices to 18 year terms and to stagger the process so that every president elected has the opportunity to appoint 2 justices. One of the benefits mentioned was that presidents wouldn't shop around for the youngest nominee they thought they could get away with, and on the other end you wouldn't have ancient justices clinging to their seats until an ideologically acceptable president was in office. It sounded like a pretty good idea to me, though admittedly I'm not a legal scholar and I haven't really put a huge amount of thought into it.