Hamilton, Madison, and Jay

This blog is devoted to a variety of topics including politics, current events, legal issues, and we even take the time to have some occasional fun. After all, blogging is about having a little fun, right?

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

Helen Thomas: Still brain dead, still irrelevant, and still throwing misguided bombs

God bless Helen thomas. the old moonbat still shows us that the Left is not without it's jesters. Today, she threw some rocks at the Supreme Court because she disagreed with some of their rulings this past session. In essence, she's accusing the court of taking a conservative turn rather than looking at the jurisprudence involved in the cases she invokes:

The new Supreme Court is more conservative than it has been in decades. It's also meaner.

It is a dream come true for Republican presidencies dating back to the "strict constructionist" court aspirations of President Nixon and now made possible by the conservative George W. Bush.

Before closing down for the summer last month, the high court tossed out a flurry of decisions that overturned or reinterpreted long-standing liberal precedents.

The court under Chief Justice John Roberts seems intent on rolling back advances in race and gender relations that have helped America achieve a more equal and humane society.

The 5-4 decisions of the conservative court dealt with race, abortion, free speech, church-state relations and a host of other issues. They also showed a pro-business and anti-consumer slant.

The majority justices are running counter to the current trend against right-wing ideologues and a power-grabbing unilateral presidency.

On race, the court apparently has decided to return to the "good old days" when separate was considered equal when it came to racial segregation, a concept that the high court discarded in the 1954 landmark decision of Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kan., which desegregated the nation's schools.

Last week, the Supreme Court junked the Brown rule when it struck down the use of race in school admissions in Seattle and Louisville. Officials had used race as a factor in school assignments in order to build diversity.

The historic Brown ruling paved the way for the banning of segregated public facilities, hotels, restaurants and theaters.

The Roberts court also upheld an unconditional ban on the procedure that opponents dub "partial birth abortion." Supporters of abortion rights see this decision as a harbinger of doom for the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling that legalized abortion.

What she thinks is a hard right turn is actually a balancing of sorts. After years of judicial activism, some of the more loony decisions are starting to be rolled back. I can only assume by her mock outrage over the partial-birth abortion decision that she thinks that it should have been upheld despite the fact that it is a heinous procedure. Likewise, the reversal on aspects of Brown aren't nearly as bad as she makes it out to be. We're not going to return to any sort of segregated society. (Helen might want to try referencing a document called the Constitution, which does guarantee every citizen equal rights and equal protections under the law.) The recent decision takes nothing away from that simple fact.

Likewise, she laments the recent decision involving the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner that school officials were notably upset with. She claims that this strips away a student's right to speak their mind freely. Incorrect. The student may still speak their mind, but they're not going to present any sort of promotion on the campus for something that is:

-- Contrary to school policy, and

-- Urging illegal activity.

Would Helen support the student if the banner had read "Jesus Encourages rape"? I sincerely doubt she would.

What's even mnore irritating about her piece is this paragraph:

The conservative jurists who have won the day in most cases included the usual suspects -- Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy. So much for the hope that Kennedy would be as moderate as former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in pivotal cases.

Um, Kennedy is still a moderate. He's not the liberal moderate that O'Connor was (an alienation that is explained, in part, in Jan Crawford Greenburg's fantastic book "Supreme Conflict"), and he has always been thoughtful regarding his moderate tendencies. To accuse him of suddenly taking a "right turn" is disingenuous, and is an allegation that is unfounded. The problem with the moonbats int he media is that they aren't lawyers, and rarely do they pay attention to the details in a Supreme Court decision. There's a lot involved in those decisions, and the gravity of these cases is not light in any way.

She can toss the bombs all she wants, but this "conservative turn," one she states is "meaner" than ever, is more along the lines of resetting the balance from hard-left activism to a more moderate, textualist stance. See, Helen misses the fact that the high court is supposed to interpret the Constitution as it's written, and not rewrite it from the bench. That's not their job. If she thinks that then maybe she should be lobbying Congress to make some new amendments to the Constitution instead of relying on nine unelected people to make those decisions.

Publius II


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home