Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mack4289]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/26/opinion/edsmith.php

"When a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices adopt a manifestly ideological agenda, it plunges the court into the vortex of American politics. If the Roberts court has entered voluntarily what Justice Felix Frankfurter once called the "political thicket," it may require a political solution to set it straight."

Based on this article http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0706/p09s01-coop.html?page=3, the Court definitely skews conservative but not in an indefensible way. The op-ed author's call for stacking the court with liberals seems completely unnecessary and an irresponsible overreaction.

- Upholding the ban on partial-birth abortion was a mistake because there was (I'm pretty sure) no exception included to protect women's health.

- Striking down the law that prohibited corporations from opposing candidates at certain times is alright- I'm not a big believer in the campaign finance laws. If we want money to be less influential in politics, the best solution is for all of us to vote, not for politicians to try to get big money out of campaigns.

- Letting a school punish a kid for holding a sign that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" seems stupid to me. The kid was doing it on his own time and not doing anything directed at disrupting the school.

- Striking down the voluntary integration laws is a good decision. The point of the anti-segregation laws is not to make sure kids of different races are going to the same school but just to make that scenario possible (even Thurgood Marshall agrees with that- if you have Times Select, read the 6/29/2007 article by Juan Williams to read Marshall's quote). Integration strikes me as a political football used to distract from more substantial educational issues.

- There was also a decision not mentioned in that article to overturn a restriction on price fixing between manufacturers and distributors. The Roberts decision will allow manufacturers and distributors to agree on a minimum price (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/28/business/price.php). Any rule that allows price fixing seems dangerous to me but this has been described as a harmless decision in every article I've read.

Of course not everyone is going to agree with all the Supreme Court decisions. But none of these seem to so blatantly place politics over legal concerns that Congress has to intervene.

[Kuros]

[Hater Depot]

When has the Supreme Court ever not taken its cue from the prevailing winds of popular or political sentiment, or reevaluations of the practical consequences of earlier decisions? How else to explain the journey from Dred Scott to Topeka Board or Roe to Casey or Hardwick to Lawrence?