... news... opinion... bushgate... gorewatch... comedy... archives... site map... us... e-mail... chat...
taxes ... education... health... environment... housing... welfare... character ed... foreign policy... social security... executions...

That Pinko Commie Liberal Supreme Court

Things are pretty much in place at the Supreme Court for Bush to promise to select another far right conservative ideologue like his model, Scalia, if reelected, and the public will wonder why those DEMs are giving him such a hard time. After all, everyone knows the Supreme Court is leaning left. It's in all the newspapers. What do those liberals want? Another pinko commie Supreme Court judge? First, those Supremes voted for affirmative action, then they said that gays have the same rights as you and I. Thank God for Bush ! He'll get a solid conservative judge in that court to take back our government from the lunitic fringe !

What the media propaganda pushers don't stress is that our conservative military is all for affirmative action as a way of providing leadership models for the Black minority that makes up so much of our all-volunteer force. Without Black volunteers, we would have to privatize the military more than we do now in such places as Colombia. We tried to privatize the peacekeeping forces early on in Iraq, but decided not to expand that program for obvious political reasons, so U.S. troops are needed more than ever.

The media propaganda pushers also don't mention that for years most folks believed that anti-gay laws such as those in Texas and other conservative states couldn't pass the Constitutional smell test. As is often the case, hubris brought the Texas system of repression down. Those cops who arrested the gay couple weren't on the same page as most conservative Texans. In order for a law to be unconstitutional, it has to be challenged in a court of law, and that means someone must break the law. The law wasn't meant to have anyone arrested, it was meant to stand as an excuse to discriminate against gays in housing, in the work place, and in adoption courts. After all, under the law, gays were criminals.

These two decisions, the most far-reaching of the Supreme Court session, came at its very end in the glare of the media spotlight, throwing the Court's earlier, more typical conservative decisions into the shadows.

Before Bush was selected to be president by a conservative Supreme Court, the same court in power today, Senate leader Trent Lott was speaking out against gays as a way of stirring up the conservative troops that were needed to provide the Republican presidential nominee with the votes needed to have a chance in the election. Lott's attitude towards Blacks also has been documented, and his coded remarks were also geared to get out the troops. Although Bush had done neither Blacks nor gays any favors as Texas governor, speaking out against hate laws for Blacks and gay adoption, Karl Rove knew that a portion of the Black and Gay vote could be put in the Republican column, and went for it, believing that a significant portion of all Americans vote on the basis of photo-ops and what candidates say, rather than what they actually do.

Since the Supreme Court selection of Bush to be president, it has been no secret that numerous Court decisions are based on political ideology, rather than Constitutional considerations. That's why the Court clearly noted that the reasons for its choice of Bush could not be used as precedent in future Court decisions. That's why O'Connor made her curious comments in her Affirmative Action decision about her hope for the U.S. in 25 years. When a radio guy asked me at the time of the Bush selection if I thought Bush stole the election through the Supreme Court, I answered, "No." That's because what the Supreme Court did was legal, it made a decision on the basis of its political ideology. Happens all the time.

Conservatives want the public to believe that Bush needs to nominate a far right, Scalia-type judge to the Supreme Court when the time comes to balance out the "left-leaning" Court as it's presently being painted in the media. That, of course, is political nonsense, designed to propagandize those who believe whatever they read or hear in the mainstream media. Those who disagree with this reading are being called "conspiracy theorists," because that would assume, conservatives say, that Bush, the Supreme Court, and the media are somehow acting in cahoots. Bush wants to get his conservative troops to the polls in 2004 by exciting them with the threat of Black and gay "agendas," the Supreme Court did what Bush wanted with their recent "left-leaning" decisions, and the media is propagandizing the results for Bush's benefit.

Past history indicates that all of these events could have taken place without such a "conspiracy." Calling those who point to Bush's plans that have resulted from the politicized decisions of the Supreme Court "conspiracy theorists" is a red herring. What we have is business as usual in Bush World. As Dylan wrote, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." That goes for conservatives and liberals, alike. --Jerry Politex, www.bushwatch.com, 06.30.03

letters about our editorial...

also see...Bush Working To Firm Up Right Wing Troops For 2004 , nyt, 06.30.03

GOP Senate Leader Wants To Have Gay Marriage Ban In Constitution , wp, 06.30.03

TIM RUSSERT: Which Supreme Court justice do you really respect?
GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, that's -- Anthony [sic] Scalia is one.
TIM RUSSERT: He is someone who wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, he's a -- there's a lot of reasons why I like Judge Scalia.

NBC's Meet the Press, 11/21/99. Bush Judicial Extremism


That truly was an interesting exposition you stuck on your website today. Though I couldnt quite tell whether or not you were celebrating or lamenting the last two, and most public Supreme Court decisons handed down last week. On the one hand, they are models of Constitutionality - worthy of praise because they allegedly achieve the proper outcome. On the other hand, they are not - because they give Bush a political opprotunity to drum his opponents who've incessantly claimed that the Supreme Court is "too conservative."

First off, I find it difficult to see how you would claim that the Court was acting out of political expediency when it "selected" Bush, and that it was acting out of "Constitutional considerations" when it enshrined a Constitutional right to engage in homosexual sex or defied a over century-old body of Equal Protection jurisprudence to uphold the Constitutionality of state based race preferences. It seems to me that you are just as interested in a result-oriented court than your ideological counterparts. Why not just admit it and go from there?

Secondly, it seems to be that your theory that the presentation of these cases in the media is somehow "orchestrated" (let's avoid the "conspiracy theory" moniker) to give Bush a tactical advantage is somewhat inconsistent. The media doesnt decide when the cases are to be published by the Court - the Court does. It turns out that the affirmative action and gay sex decisions came out at the close of the Court's term. It also turns out that those were the most publicized because affirmative action and homosexual sodomy are factual matters that are both divisive and very much within the general public's ken (even if the legal issues are not). Furthermore, it seems to me that if there was any legitimacy to your theory, the time to exploit the alleged anti-black, anti-gay sentiment so pervasive in the Republican party would be at the end of NEXT YEARS term - when the issues would be much more ripe for the upcoming elections. As it stands, there isn't even an advantage for a confirmation battle - as none of the justices even intend to retire next year. --John Smith, 06.30.03


Sorry I didn't make things clearer, John. I hope this will help:

I favor both the Court's support of affirmative action and its support of gay sex, but I think its support of affirmative action was political, not constitutional, and I think its support of gay sex is constitutional, not political. I see no contradiction in the two decisions, since I've never believed the myth that the Supreme Court made its decisions solely on constitutional grounds. I also think the Supreme Court selected Bush for political, not constitutional, reasons, but that doesn't mean that all of its decisions are political. (I plan to write an essay on this point, so I'll not go any deeper into this subject at this time.)

I don't think the relationship between the Supreme Court decisions, the media propaganda painting the Supreme Court as "left-leaning," and Bush's acrions to gather his conservative troops for his 2004 campaign is a "conspiracy" nor is it "orchestrated." Bush is doing what Bush always does, and part of that is to plant his political propaganda in the mainstream media, as he always has done. Most citizens appear to have no idea of the financial and political strength and speed of the Bush political propaganda machine, and the media is not particularly interested in dwelling upon the serious pressure placed upon it by the Bush machine on a daily basis. That's not even counting the manipulation of the media by the Bush government, itself, through press conferences and doctored reports, such as the latest EPA report. These varied forms of media manipulation have been spelled out by critics, reporters, and members of the Bush government since Bush took office, so it shouldn't come as news to anyone, but most citizens appear disinterested.

Finally, I've never suggested that the Supreme Court addresses cases when they fit its political agenda, nor have I stated that what is happening has anything to do with a retirement of a Justice between now and the election. Both ideas come from you as an extrapolation of a theory that I don't hold, and never have. --Jerry Politex, 06.30.03

How Bush Would Seriously Change Your Life Style...
For Better Or For Worse.

"Appointments to the Supreme Court "is one of the most important issues in the campaign. The next president will appoint three, perhaps four, justices of the Supreme Court, probably. Governor Bush has said his favorite justice is Antonin Scalia. Mine would be Thurgood Marshall. I think that the appointments by the president will surely determine the way our Constitution is interpreted for the next 30 to 40 years, not only concerning a woman's right to choose but also on issues like privacy, more broadly defined, civil rights, federalism, individual rights, environmental rights. The violence against women act was just struck down on a 5-to-4 vote with all the usual suspects lined up on both sides.... What would the difference be between my appointments and those of my opponent? I think it's very, very clear. I'm not in favor of specific, narrow litmus tests, but we all know that there are ways to ascertain with high confidence the general approach that potential justices will take to the Constitution. I believe it's a living and breathing document, and I don't think it should be narrowly constrained to the meaning of words 200 years ago... as Justice Scalia and, apparently, Governor Bush would." --Al Gore, 6/13/00 (Scalia and Bush)

George W. Bush "has ended idiocy as we know it. His is an altogether new idiocy. A militant, proud, smarmy, arrogant, grating, sunburnt, craggy-faced, twangy-voiced idiocy that yammers and babbles and juts out its jaw and aspires to the level of platitudes. No matter how many people capable of thought he surrounds his tiny cranium with when reading speeches, as I scan the podium, I can still, like the old Monty Python sketch, "Spot The Looney."...Strict constructionist is a term currently being spat out by W. for what constitutes his ideal [Supreme Court] nominee. The term strict constructionist refers to any jurist who prefers precedent to justice....Republicans...try to select judges who embody their party's core values. Namely, young, vigorous idealogues (Clarence Thomas) or lunatics with hearts full of hate (Robert Bork)...[Bush's ideal judge,] Antonin Scalia...defines judicial activism as anything that's occurred since Draco ruled Athens." --Jerry Long, Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/11/00

"Scalia's impact has been on the way the court approaches constitutional law itself. By adhering to methods he calls "originalism" and "textualism."... Scalia has prompted the justices to be more self-conscious about how they interpret law. Rather than following judicial interpretation of law, originalists go directly to the source - to the language of the Constitution of 1791, or to the post-Civil War 14th Amendment in 1868 that forbade discrimination....Before the mid-1980s, the justices did not often hang their decisions on a theoretical legal framework. "Before Scalia, until the late '80s, the justices would issue a ruling and say, 'Here is why our opinion makes sense,' and then support it with some law and history," says Mark Tushnet of the Georgetown University Law School and a former clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall. "But now everyone is much more conscious about looking at what the text [of the Constitution] says - and quite often less conscious about how that might fit into a social or practical context."...

"Scalia's critics are diverse and numerous. Their basic complaint is that his originalist ideas tend to freeze the Constitution in time rather than allow it to speak to contemporary needs. Scalia himself has referred to the founding document as "a statue."... "Scalia seems to feel that original interpretation is everything," says Georgetown University's Dr. Tushnet. "He exalts text and history above practical issues, like how a ruling affects the machinery of government in the real world. That's a concern he doesn't seem to have."

Some Scalia critics also see inconsistencies in the justice's application of originalism. When it comes to abortion, which he opposes, Scalia is among the first to note that there's nothing in the Constitution explicitly supporting that right. Yet when it comes to states' rights, which he has sought to broaden, Scalia treats the 10th Amendment as if it gives states power to ignore congressional requests to comply with federal regulations - even though the Constitution gives no affirmative rights to states, critics say...."States' rights, executive privilege, qualified immunity, all the things Scalia seems to support, are part and parcel of the judge-made law he says he doesn't agree with," gripes a constitutional lawyer who has a case before the court." --Christian Science Monitor, 3/3/98

"Generally, the justices align like this: Thomas and Scalia anchor the conservative wing and are often joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer typically vote together as the liberal-moderate bloc, and are frequently joined by Justice David H. Souter. The centrist conservatives who tend to tip the balance are Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy...because three of the nine are 70 or older (John Paul Stevens is 80) and none has retired for six years, the odds are high that either Al Gore or George W. Bush will have the opportunity to appoint one or more justices and reshape the court for years to come....

"[Bush] has told Republicans that they can rest assured he will appoint justices who 'will strictly interpret the Constitution' and model themselves after conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.... ''If we get another Scalia or Thomas, we are courting disaster,'' said Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, a liberal civil rights group that will hold debates and town meetings this fall to raise awareness of the Supreme Court. ''We are just one election away, and one or two new justices away, from the civil and constitutional rights we take for granted being eroded or eliminated overnight.'" --Boston Globe, 6/11/00

Obviously, Bush would want to use Scalia as his Theocratic point-man to support his religious agenda. (see here and here) As Robert Marquand delicately put it in the CSM story quoted above, "Scalia is a devout Roman Catholic, which some court observers say informs, at least in part, some of his views. [Perhaps Scalia's strong religious convictions account for his use of the Constitution in the same way that Christian literalists use the Bible, although he has yet to declare that the Constitution is the word of God. At the same time, Scalia wants to conveniently consider the Constitution fallible when he needs to contradict its "teachings" for his own political purposes. --Politex] The Scalias worship at a suburban Virginia church known for its orthodox-minded congregation, one that recently erected a monument to unborn children. In 1996, when the high court had accepted two important "right to die" cases dealing with the practice of euthanasia, Scalia came under fire for giving a speech - while the case was still before the court - in which he said there is "no constitutional right to die." A year earlier, in a speech at the Mississippi College of Law, Scalia waded into the conservative side of the culture wars over religion in the public arena, coming out for a greater presence of religion and infuriating church-state separationists. He attacked "elites" and others whom he sees as hostile to faith, stating, "We must pray for the courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world." (see further)

When Bush referred to Scalia during one of the nationally-televised debates as his favorite Supreme Court judge and the kind he would nominate during his presidential tenure, he sent a message loud and clear to his Theocratic backers of vouchers for religious schools, government-supported religious chartered schools, and government-supported welfare through religious "faith-based institutions that he had a plan to join with them in their Theocratic quest. Like Scalia, he is prefectly willing to erect a philosophic Trojan horse to push his religious beliefs into a nation that has, rightfully, tried to keep Church and State separated since its beginnings. Unlike those who believe Bush is just being naive, we're afraid he knows exactly what he's doing. During a visit to a "faith-based" welfare institution in 1999, "Bush suggested that a program's roots in a church, synagogue or mosque should not disqualify it from public money, even if religious obligations are imposed on those it helps." (AAS, 8/28/99) Somehow we think Scalia would be inclined to agree, although it inconveniently is contradicted by his supposed philosophy of "originalism." --Politex, 6/11/00

Bush Watch is a daily political internet magazine, a non-advocacy site paid for and edited by Politex, a non-affiliated U.S. citizen.
Based in Austin, Tx., publication began on February 1, 1998, prior to any other official or unofficial G. W. Bush site.
(c) 1998-2000
Politex. Permission of author required for reprinting. The duration of the working links is not under our control.
Bush Watch has not reviewed all of the sites linked to our site and is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages
or any other sites linked to our site. Your linking to any other off-site pages or other sites from our site is at your own risk.

Send all e-mail to Politex.

Click Here!