Kennedy (and the Court) Without Tears

If there is a redeeming quality to the just-completed term of the U.S. Supreme Court, it is that the much-acclaimed veneer of collegiality and consensus between and among the justices can now be seen for what it is and always has been: a fraud perpetrated by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to ease his own transition into the court's hot seat. The unvarnished truth is this: The court is fractured, the justices are rankly ideological, and a very conservative Reagan appointee, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, now holds the court's center, such as it is.

All of this is, in my opinion, a bad thing for litigants and the law. But at least the court's raw power plays over the past few months have swept away the cobwebs from some voters, who have written me pledging to remember the court's work when they choose a president next year. Elections do matter. We have to live with whatever hapless politician we choose as president for only four years, but that hapless politician gets to pick judges and justices that we will have to live with until our children grow old. President Bush's victory in 2004 gave us Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., and they in turn gave big business and conservative interests one big victory after another -- victories, I daresay, that the president himself has been unable to deliver.

The court's direction this term -- and the role that Roberts and Alito played in it -- also laid bare the futility and hypocrisy that is the Senate confirmation process for judicial nominees. I covered both the Roberts and Alito confirmation hearings and can testify to the gulf between what those two men said they would do on the court and what they did on the court once they got there. Adherence to precedent? Oh, yes, absolutely, they said to the senators. But when they had a chance to ignore long-standing precedent they did so, over and over again this past term. Respect for Roe v. Wade? Oh yes. But when a late-term abortion case presented itself, the pair helped undercut existing abortion precedent.

Startled by the direction the court has taken? Unhappy with some of its recent rulings? Alarmed that you have to rely upon the inconsistent soul of Justice Kennedy if you want to win a round? Resigned to the fact that your senators are unwilling and unable to do anything about it?

Don't write to me about it. I can't help you. But you can help yourself. Vote. And remember that even if you aren't crazy about the candidate you are voting for, he or she is going to be able to choose, mostly without limits, the future shape of the Supreme Court. After all, Alito and Roberts will be around for decades after President Bush has receded into history.

By Andrew Cohen |  June 29, 2007; 9:02 AM ET
Previous: The Court's 'Swing Vote' Finally Swings Again | Next: Get Your Own Bench


Please email us to report offensive comments.

It's amazing how people's perspective changes with the balance of power on the high court. "The Court is fractured, the Justices are rankly ideological" was true when the balance was 5-4 but on the liberal side! It's finally nice to know that "the other side" has to feel it for at least awhile. With this Court we may get back to at least a few of the founding fathers intentions.

Posted by: Carol T | June 29, 2007 10:56 AM

Why is anyone surprised that the current supreme court justices have forgotten that they are suposed to serve the law and the American people. After they assigned their president they now serve only him.

Posted by: jjaycedar | June 29, 2007 11:44 AM

Someone should make a comedy/satire out of Alito and Robert's behavior and statements during the confirmation and while in office.

(but don't shoot me , but I LIKE what they tried to do re Roe and affirmative action)

Posted by: indeterminate | June 29, 2007 11:51 AM

Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas strike me as more "authoritarian" than "conservatives".

There are certainly conservative strains that would be at odds with the type of "conservativism" evidence by the knee-jerk deference that the 4 Horsemen of Reaction (or the Bong Hits 4 Roberts Majority) are showing to fundamentalist and corporate interests.

Already Christ's outcasts haven't received a particularly even-handed hearing from these earthly-power-is-King group of Christians.

In reference the alleged "liberal" tilt of the court I find that statement a little odd when you consider that just two of the SCOTUS judges were nominated by Democrats--while SEVEN of those replacements received the blessing of Republican president's.

Granted those nominees had to go through a Senate vetting process that was often comprised of Democratic majorities; and in keeping with Hamilton's Federalist Papers the Executive did not always get his choice "in the first degree". However, the balance of power even in those situations tends to go with the Executive.

The main difference here is that the Republican (far right president) was able to railroad these nominees through an impassive, and extremely deferential Republican Senate majority (with some blame also due to the Democratic minority here as well here).

Posted by: JP2 | June 29, 2007 11:55 AM

Justices used to use the Constitution and it's Spirit to Rule the Land. The Ultimate Arbiters of right and wrong. Now votes are nothing more than scores of a hockey game. Full of "our team" - "their team". The only losers are those seeking the Greater Good of Justice Consecrated in the Oaths taken by those whose veracity should be compared with what was said to get to what was once Altruistic and Selfless and a Career to make bad History. Justice - Run over on roads paved by politics and party apparatus. Sad.

Posted by: John | June 29, 2007 12:08 PM

I guess it must hurt the other side when they lost control and now share the same feel the same way most of us felt for years. The Dems were in control so long they forgot how it feels to be on the outside. They may grow up some day.

Posted by: Jim K | June 29, 2007 12:31 PM

I guess it must hurt the other side when they lost control and now share the same feel the same way most of us felt for years. The Dems were in control so long they forgot how it feels to be on the outside. They may grow up some day.

Posted by: Jim K | June 29, 2007 12:31 PM

As a matter of Law the decision on race in schools is correct. There is no question that the 14th amendment applies and you can't use race against anyone.

It makes people unhappy (because they are thinking emotionally), but the intellectual gymnastics you need to jump through to conclude this decision is wrong are extraordinary.

We may not agree with all of the decisions of this court, but the facts are the facts and they should be applied equally for everyone. If you read the majority opinion it's comical that under the Seattle plan a school that was 25% white, 25% black, 25% hispanic, 25% asian is not considered diverse under their standard.

The court got this one right as a matter of law. Treating people equally under the law is the answer. Having a school racially "balanced" does nothing.

I went to an all white grade school, a 50% white 50% black high school and a historically black college.

They were all good experiences for me and race had nothing to do with it.

Posted by: Matt | June 29, 2007 12:58 PM

Andrew: "the MUCH-ACCLAIMED VENEER of collegiality"
I like that

Posted by: | June 29, 2007 01:16 PM

you know JP2, I'll bet these Christian outcasts didn't want the image of Christianity as "turning the other cheek" which of course is totally misrepresentative. Then we have our current post-Reagan/maybe Boesky feel-good self-deception that power and selfishness are good, one is morally obligated to loot as much for oneself as one can (and if any inhibitions, the 92 LA riots, and the corruptness of justice in the OJ trial-the latter amazingly often seen as a race matter but I don't want to get into that- sanctioned ignoring them),power doesn't kill, people do, (many analogues to popular positions and policy) as long as you give a token to charity and recycle.

Posted by: Millar | June 29, 2007 01:26 PM

John, pace glibly misread Nietzsche, when everyone is cheating it becomes a disadvantage to be moral; having ethics indicates a slave/traditional Christian mentality, the superior person breaks morality by their will/isn't subject to it(and not just if caught).

Posted by: Zoro | June 29, 2007 01:32 PM

Millar, when I say "Christ's outcast" I should be more precise. I mean people on the fringe of society--more accurately society's outcasts, or even less extremely those who are simply not well-funded and politically well connected.

As far Matt's point goes, I would agree that quota systems are not a long-term fix. However, in cases where racial discrimination exist, the question remains: What is the appropriate remedy? How do you remedy an injustice which has existed over the course of generations?

As an ideal, you say "apply the law equally," and I would agree with you.

However, if you'd have asked Justice Taney in 1850 if he applied the law "equally" in the Dred Scot decision he would probably say "yes". Henry Billings Brown who wrote the "Plessy" decision post 14th amendment would probably have agreed too that he was applying the law equally.

Yet I suspect you and I would disagree with these Justices over their understanding of what exactly equal treatment looks like. If you were to talk to each of SCOTUS Justice serving today, I suspect that the differences wouldn't be quite so pronounced, but, if you looked closely enough you might find that your understanding of "equality" differed with each of the 9 Justices (some more than others).

Why is that?

Posted by: JP2 | June 29, 2007 02:24 PM

I don't understand some of the comments. It's been a long time since the left has controlled the court. O'Conner was not a liberal. She may not have the same ideological blinders as an Allito, but she was very conservative. So was Rheinquist. The coservative slant on the court goes back many years.

Posted by: rj2z | June 29, 2007 02:28 PM

I don't understand some of the comments. It's been a long time since the left has controlled the court. O'Conner was not a liberal. She may not have the same ideological blinders as an Allito, but she was very conservative. So was Rheinquist. The coservative slant on the court goes back many years.

Posted by: rj2z | June 29, 2007 02:28 PM

That the current 4 plus one (usually) are not truly conservative, but authoritarian, is exemplified by James Kilpatrick's column lamenting the outcome of the Alaska Student/First Amendment case. Kilpatrick is and has been conservative, but not as the (un) fab four are.

Posted by: "the enemy is us" | June 29, 2007 02:29 PM

Liberals just can't stand it when they don't agree with a ruling. The fact that some of the Republican appointees have "surprised" with their liberal bent merely illustrates the lack of applied litmus tests and/or the extreme filtering of candidates when the Demos controlled the Senate. Quit whining!

Posted by: Mo | June 29, 2007 03:08 PM

JP2: My wording probably wasn't clear enough, but I knew what you meant. No clarification needed.

Posted by: Millar | June 29, 2007 03:10 PM

I wonder how Taney and the Plessy judge could really thought they were applying the law fairly; will have to read it.

Posted by: | June 29, 2007 03:12 PM

Court without tears is one opinion and another is a Court on rule of law and not promoting social programs. The days of public opinion sterotypes of traditional conservative and traditional liberal are gone. (Maybe not for Senator Ed. Kennedy)

Does anyone seriously think the liberal Democrats are for social equality while conservatives are not. Equal opportunity in our society should not discrminate using race, sex, age or religion.

Posted by: AlanKenneth | June 29, 2007 03:15 PM

I doubt Taney thought he was being fair (well, fair to slaveowners, maybe). He was basically a southerner, being from the slave state of Maryland, where support for the Confederacy was strong.

As for Brown, he was from Massachusetts, I believe, and most likely had little if any idea about the situation for blacks in the south.

Posted by: South Loudounian | June 29, 2007 03:18 PM

What's with this "Neener, neener you liberals deserve a taste of your own medicine" stuff. The last time there was a liberal Supreme Court was in 1972 (i.e. before Burger and Rehnquist).

I agree with "enemy" that we have now passed from a conservative Supreme Court to an authoritarian Supreme Court. Anyone who thinks this ia a good thing deserves a no-knock, no-warrant search of their home.

Posted by: Nellie | June 29, 2007 03:41 PM

Mr. Cohen, I must disagree with you that Justice Kennedy is "very conservative", as he has proven himself to be a middle-of-the-road, independent thinker. If he is so conservative, what do you consider the other four conservatives, extreme fascists?

Also I'm curious if you have any other examples of Justices Alito and Roberts disrespecting precedent besides Roe? I've studied Roe, and the issue of late-term abortion was NOT part of the case or the decision. (I believe you'll find that most Americans are in favor of Roe, but don't agree with late term abortion). This one example is a far cry from ignoring precedent, in my opinion.

I'll give some credence to the Alito discussion, but Roberts, if you recall, was approved by an overwhelming majority of the Senate. I have liberal democratic friends who believe he is an honest, exceptionally bright, and fair justice. Fraud, you suggest? I just don't follow.

Your opinions, Sir, are noted but your lack of objectivity and your obvious political bias make your arguments fall rather flat.

Posted by: West End Resident | June 29, 2007 04:17 PM

"Alito and Roberts will be around for decades after President Bush has receded into history."

Maybe. The future is notoriously difficult to predict and, if nothing else, many passions are running way too high about such matters.

Also, Scalia is getting on in years and Thomas doesn't have great demographics on his medical chart.

Any of the present Supremes could be gone next week. Probably some will depart -- for whatever reason -- during the term of the next president.

Mostly it will depend on who is president when the next justice quits the bench, secondarily on the composition of the Senate at the time.

Posted by: Rosebud | June 29, 2007 05:37 PM

I really don't understand some of the comments posted here. The last time there were 5 Justices simultaneously on the Court that were appointed by Democrats was 1965 (look it up on Wikipedia under "list of justices of the Supreme court" if you don't believe me).

Seven of the nine Justices currently on the Court were appointed by Republican Presidents:
Roberts (Bush II)
Alito (Bush II)
Thomas (Bush I)
Souter (Bush I)
Kennedy (Reagan)
Scalia (Reagan)
Stevens (Ford)
Ginsburg (Clinton)
Breyer (Clinton)

And the last five consecutive Justices to retire were all Republican appointees:
Rehnquist (Nixon)
O'Connor (Reagan)
Blackmun (Nixon)
Powell (Nixon)
Burger (Nixon)

So, maybe all of the Republicans who've posted here can tell me when exactly there was a 5-4 majority of liberals in their lifetime?

Posted by: puzzled by the facts | June 29, 2007 05:40 PM

It is amusing to see all the whining going on. I recall my teen-age years when there were "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards up in parts of the country because parts of the electorate were so upset.

Let's cool down and think. Yes, I know what Brown stood for, but then came Milligan and many other decisions that lead me to think yesterdays ruling was not so earth-shaking after all. A lot of money was spent on busing and a lot of kids spend hours every day riding bussed when they could have attended a neighborhood school. From the test results we have seen, I am not sure it all did much good.
One group that did very well were blockbusting realtors and residential construction contractors. As the direct result of Brown an argument can be made that whatever good it did, the "white flight" it prompted wasn't good for the country.

Posted by: Jsens | June 29, 2007 06:17 PM

These tags of "liberal," "conservative" or the newer "authoritarian" aren't getting any of us anyplace worthwhile. Especially where you see so much confusion about they actually mean to the average, non-college educated American. And sadly even to many of those college educated. It might be better to say, simply, "This person is for the have's," and "This person is for the have-not's," at least then we'd all be addressing the reality of it.
Regardless though, what we're faced with today is the unfettered ruthlessness of a current government ruled by those wanting to advance the agenda's of the Have's, in two of its three branches anyhow: the Executive and the Judiciary -- now that Democrats, traditional Have-not supporters, have managed to recapture Congress. And if those of us who don't own our own pharmaceutical or energy business wonder why and how that's come about all we have is look in the mirror and ask ourselves, "When was the last time I voted," or even better, "When's the last time I became involved in a political campaign and did what I could to get the vote out for those candidates supportive of the Have-not's, like me?" And if the answer is "A long time," or "never," then you know it's time to get cracking because the other side certainly is. And remember, there's no shortage of bought-and-sold creatures just like Bush out there who'll happily pick up the Have's banner and shove it down our throat's, if the price is right. That'll stand in front of the flag, dressed from ankle to chin in red-white-and-blue bunting, and tell you with a straight-face that rat-turds are "yummy chocolate chip" while they're doing it.
So it's up to us; united and acting, we have the power to remedy these growing evils, all we have to do is wake up and exercise it.

Posted by: Uncle dann | June 29, 2007 06:44 PM

"Does anyone seriously think the liberal Democrats are for social equality while conservatives are not."

Yes, right here. See the southern strategy, "caging," and frankly the entire platform of the Republican Party. If every man (and unfortunately too often, child) for yourself and whatever happens to you is your own damn problem and discrimination is all a thing of the past so just get over it while I continue to press discriminatory policies is your idea of social equality, then you need your head examined (or to go look up the term social equality, I don't think it means what you think it means).

"As a matter of Law the decision on race in schools is correct. There is no question that the 14th amendment applies and you can't use race against anyone."

Who's it being used against? If someone can show harm, let him come forward. I would love to hear a white student make the argument that placing him in a predominantly minority school in his own school district is an undue harm.

"The court got this one right as a matter of law. Treating people equally under the law is the answer. Having a school racially "balanced" does nothing. I went to an all white grade school, a 50% white 50% black high school and a historically black college. They were all good experiences for me and race had nothing to do with it."

Glad to hear you got all the experiences that came with a diverse student body, but find it very naive to say that didn't shape your education. Education, especially at the elementary level, is about much more than what is taught in the classroom. It is about socialization, interaction, learning the very basic elements of society. Your education will suffer if everyone you interact with looks and talks the same as you and comes from a similar background.

As you continue to grow, the experience will have numerous additional benefits. You can learn about the Civil Rights movement in textbooks, but the experience is much different when a classmate and good friend of yours (one of Dr Kings dreams, mre realized now thanks to forced integration programs mandated under Brown-not color blindness) can describe stories of the opression his parents, not some distant obscure reference in a textbook, suffered at the hands of segregation, was humilatied and degraded based on their skin color alone. This isn't about racism or harming anyone, it's about bringing all people together to learn from one another to overcome these issues. The idea that this program causes anyone undue harm to override that underlying interest is absurd.

Thankfully, the schools just have to rewrite their policy to divide people based on geography and economics to achieve their desired diversity and all will be ok- but I can almost guarantee you that such a move will result in a greater shuffling of the schools and more inconvenience to more people (and with no recourse in the courts as it's all nice and legal with a minimal constitutional standard rather than strict scrutiny- these people who brought the suit should be careful what they wish for).

Posted by: Michael | June 29, 2007 08:46 PM

I can never understand how people who championed civil rights in the 50s and 60s and fought for the right of Linda Brown to attend the school closest to her house are now in support of laws that categorize people by their race, ethnicity, and color and would not blink over laws that once again preclude Linda Brown from attending school closest to her home. I'm Jewish and quite cognizant of regimes that took "race" into account. What "civil right" has the Court taken away from Hispanics and Blacks (I wish people would quit talking about aggrieved "minorities"; for the most part, the only minorities who are granted special status are the politically active Hispanics and Blacks and, in some instance Pacific Asians--rarely are Jews, Arabs or Indians/Pakistanis the beneficiaries of "affirmative action" or "racial balance")?

As far as "puzzled by the facts," of course you are, esp. since you have the facts wrong. First, Kennedy appointee White was replaced by Ginsburg. Johnson appointee Marshall was replaced by Thomas. Eisenhower appointee Brennan was replaced by Souter. All more recent than either Burger or Powell. Additionally, although Stevens and Souter were appointed by Republican Presidents (as were Brennan and Blackmun), they are not in any sense "conservative" or advocates of judicial restraint.

Posted by: Noyellowstarforme | June 29, 2007 11:50 PM

I served with the U.S. Commission on Civil rights for 34 years, retiring as regional director in Denver two months ago. To this day, I am proud to have served under Commission Chairman Arthur S. Flemming, a Republican who understood the necessity for desegregating our public schools, and the consequences that would result from the failure to achieve integration. This is not a good day for our nation.

Posted by: John F. Dulles | June 30, 2007 02:17 AM

Uncle Dann, you have it right when you talk about the court serving the "Haves" vs. the "Have-nots." I find it easier to analyse by calling it what it is: fascism. The Supreme Court and the Cheney Administration are serving the interests of rich people and corporate power. It's not just authoritarian. Many decisions do not support government authority. They support the right of businesses to do whatever they want to, no matter what the authority of anti-pollution regs, labour laws and other official pronouncements say.

All you commenters who are reveling in the "Nyah Nyah, you liberals lost" rhetoric: you're going to be crying when your house is taken because some corporation wants your land, as in the New London, Conn. case, or when you get your hand chopped off at your job and have no recourse because there's no right to sue, or you're coughing your lungs out as you die from the toxic chemicals spewed into your air by some fume-belching refinery. You side with the people who will screw you into the ground. Remember your words of today when you're weeping in the future.

Posted by: Bukko in Australia | June 30, 2007 04:34 AM

The national and local processes for selecting and appointing judges is clearly "broken" and has "stepped outside" the democratic process all across this land, from local judges to the Supreme court. I am disgusted by the number of times in local elections, that I find judges on the local ballots running unapposed; clearly we as voters are systematically being "left out of the loop". Transparency and accountability of all candidates for judgeships, directly to the voters is long overdue. It is time to return the critical third branch of governance, the judiciary, back into the democratic processes and require all candidates for judgeships, at any level, to go before the public in the "forum" of the democratic process and openly "compete" for the public's vote of confidence. What we currently have has become a mockery of the democratic process, we all know it, the judges themselves know it and so does the world at large!

Posted by: Frank in Alexandria | June 30, 2007 12:38 PM

Mr. Cohen,

Since Roberts and Alito obviously lied during their confirmation hearings about their intentions to uphold the rulings of previous courts, did they commit perjury? Are they in contempt of Congress? Just wondering if Roberts and Alito could be held accountable for their lies since, perhaps, they wouldn't have been confirmed had they been honest. Is there any precedent of cases like this? This topic would be a great article. Thanks.

Posted by: tim mitchum | July 1, 2007 08:53 AM

Tim, don't know what AC's opinion is, but I don't see how Alito and Robert's would prosecutable for perjury. Their testimony was related to what their approach was likely to be towards future decisions.

Even if they were lying at the time, it would be almost impossible to prove that their testimony was untruthful. After all, opinions change over time, and it's unlikely that anyone will come forward with airtight evidence indicating that either Robert's or Alito went before the Senate Judiciary committee during their nomination hearings intending to make misrepresentations.

On the other hand, the Senate judiciary committee will likely have a much stronger case with former White House aide and now D.C. appelate judge Brett Kavanaugh about statements that he made during his confirmation hearing relating to his past actions.

Opinions change, facts regarding past actions do not.

Posted by: JP2 | July 1, 2007 04:01 PM

Perjury still might be tough, but hopefully he'll be disbarred.

Posted by: Michael | July 1, 2007 04:12 PM

Just read most of the comments and it appears to me we are all confused by the word have's and have not's, and who appointed whom. Do you not realize of the problems we face today our major problem is not whether some Judge is an appointee of Democrat or Republican but whether that Judge has enough back bone to help our Judicial System rid this Country of Islamic Terrorists, yes Islamic Terrorist, and you better believe they are here. Way I see it the Terrorists are much more dangerous than who appointed whom. If you have doubts visit islamburgnewyork on your web site and view some of the offerings.

I suppose though in the end all these problems including the Islamic Terrorist problem is Bush's fault, he's blamed for everything else. Can you imagine our predicament if Hillary or Osama Obama had been sitting in Bush's seat when Katrina or 911 happened or some of the other major catastrophic happenings?

We are still far better off Judicially than the Brit's because I understand they protect these varmints (terrorists) because their system does not allow them to deport one to a Country that has laws allowing their execution.

Posted by: kumbaya | July 1, 2007 09:03 PM

In trying to determine for whom I should vote, I am reading these documentations hoping that I can attain some knowledge thereby having a better understanding of the political arena. This means that during the election year I should be well qualified to choose the right person with God's direction.

Posted by: Mary Johnson | July 1, 2007 09:55 PM

Kumbaya, I don't think anyone has any problems imprisoning, or getting rid of Islamic terrorists. Most Americans who value their liberties would at least want to make sure that those Islamic terrorists are in fact terrorists. That's why we have a system of due process embedded in our Constitution. If we yield on that principle, then tomorrow it becomes much easier to imprison innocent people from all walks of life for completely arbitrary reasons.

As far as the Islamic Terrorist threat goes, it's also important to keep things in perspective. The probability of your dying in a car accident remains a much stronger likelihood--even if you live in a metropolitan area. Even more troubling is the fact that 50 million Americans--one in five people in this country--lack health insurance. It stands to reason that a lot of people in this country are going to be dying preventable deaths, simply because they can't afford preventative treatments.

The challenges facing the Brits are real enough, but things have to be kept in perspective there as well. The problems that they are facing have very little to do with their judicial system. And, in the big scheme of things, the main threat there is also on the margins. You'd never know it by watching TV news though. Terrorist attacks and threatened terrorist attacks make for sexy, salacious coverage. Other higher probability risks (like car accidents or health care risks) don't make for good television--although as an ordinary American they pose significantly greater threats.

Mary, as far as God's direction goes, I wouldn't look to politics or politicians for an answer. The most corrupt and corruptible politicians usually tend to be the ones who place the greatest emphasis on public morality during the election cycle. If you're looking for a moral man (or woman) you will know him or her by works, not words. If the person cites "Jesus" as his favorite philosopher, watch out!

Posted by: JP2 | July 2, 2007 12:27 AM

You're full of it, kumbaya, and seems like there is a lot to be said for the aspects of the British system you state esp. when there are people here so quick to term Moslems (how do you differentiate on sight which Moslem is a terrorist)"varmints" (i.e. not even people)

Posted by: Theodore Smith III | July 2, 2007 11:25 AM

Mary of all of them, my research convinces me Edwards is the clear best choice (Ron Paul or Kucinich unfortunately have no chance as far as their poll ratings).

Posted by: Joseph A | July 2, 2007 11:57 AM

Yup on all counts to what Noyellowstar said , yet I don't encounter that viewpoint much . The 60's seemed so much more sane and well-intentioned, and then opportunists used laws meant in different purposes or thoughtlessly given away in or the heat of the moment or rhapsodic drunken euphoria at the time (Johnson's giving away unasked for treats as a momentary attempt to get support for his war; the same people who backed out of his war now vociferously held onto what he gave away gratis, now demanded as an entitlement which they were given away gratis without having asked for it)basically to cheat. But somehow we're stuck with the false pretenses for 35 years after that (aggrandizement of lawyers to get rich during that time and make an economy for themselves, one possible reason?), with plenty of unnecessary social consequences . What Happened to the class of '65 is one illuminating book written at the time I know.

Posted by: Marty | July 2, 2007 12:15 PM

Just not to give you a totally empty promotion, Mary, but all the information I've seen of the candidates, leads me to clearly trust Edwards (good lawyer, but I think his instincts and causes are good,responsible, and more level-headed than the others)

Posted by: Joseph | July 2, 2007 12:18 PM

To uncle dann, maybe on some things, but authoritarian (it didn't apply much to justices before the 70's)does describe some of the attitudes on the Supreme Court.

Posted by: | July 2, 2007 12:20 PM

Actually JP2 on rereading what I wrote and your clarification, I might have misread that small part, and your point in clarification is taken

Posted by: Millar | July 2, 2007 12:24 PM

I can't believe all the people that have commented here that "liberals" should stop whining. This is a Constitutional issue and we should ALL be upset that these justices are NOT reading the Constitution before making their decisions. I am not a democrat or a republican. In fact, I do not align myself with any party. I prefer to think of myself as a Constitutionalist. With all the recent unjustice served up to the American people, I believe that we the people must take back control of OUR country.

Posted by: Denise | July 6, 2007 11:09 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2007 The Washington Post Company