Bush's worst legacy? SCOTUS. Precedents Begin to Fall for Roberts Court

[dajoki]

Supreme Court Memo
Precedents Begin to Fall for Roberts Court
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 21, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/washington/21memo.html?ei=5088&en=b141051cc2bdc5da&ex=1340078400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1182448511-kwB52nyQI/mLWAJe0mBW8A


WASHINGTON, June 20 — No Supreme Court nominee could be confirmed these days without paying homage to the judicial doctrine of “stare decisis,” Latin for “to stand by things decided.” Yet experienced listeners have learned to take these professions of devotion to precedent “cum grano salis,” Latin for “with a grain of salt.”

Both Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. assured their Senate questioners at their confirmation hearings that they, too, respected precedent. So why were they on the majority side of a 5-to-4 decision last week declaring that a 45-year-old doctrine excusing people whose “unique circumstances” prevented them from meeting court filing deadlines was now “illegitimate”?

<<snip>>

So the question is not whether the Roberts court will overturn more precedents, but how often, by what standard and in what terms. As to which precedents will fall next, there are several plausible candidates as the court enters the final days of its term, including the 2003 decision that upheld advertising restrictions in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law; a 1968 decision that let taxpayers go to federal court to challenge government policies as violating the separation of church and state; and an antitrust price-fixing case from 1911. (In an 8-to-0 decision last term, the court overturned a pair of antitrust precedents from the 1940s that were noticeably at odds with modern antitrust analysis.)

Sometimes the court overrules cases without actually saying so. Some argue that this is what happened in April, when a 5-to-4 majority upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act without making much effort to reconcile that ruling with a decision in 2000 that found a nearly identical Nebraska law unconstitutional.

As a technical matter, the new decision, Gonzales v. Carhart, left the earlier ruling still on the books, doing its overruling “by stealth, without having the grace to admit that is what they were doing,” in the words of Ronald Dworkin, the legal philosopher, who wrote a highly critical appraisal of the new decision in The New York Review of Books last month. “Justices Roberts and Alito had both declared their intention to respect precedent in their confirmation hearings, and no doubt they were reluctant to admit so soon how little those declarations were worth,” Professor Dworkin said from London in an e-mail message.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the mess Bushco has made of everything they touched SCOTUS may be the worst and longest lasting. This Court will slowly and surely erode our legal rights, which may take generations to get back, if at all. Women, minorities, workers and all citizens will be left out in the cold with this court's rulings. Unless you have money, are an evangelical or some other conservative special interest, the constitution will not apply. Someday, hopefully soon, we will leave Iraq, and maybe we can get our standing in the world back, but we will have to live with this Court's decisions long after Bush is gone.

[Sapere aude]

1. I thought we don't want no judges legislating from the bench, dag nabbit!

[dajoki]

2. Justices Tighten Rules on Shareholder Suits

Justices Tighten Rules on Shareholder Suits
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: June 21, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/washington/21cnd-bizcourt.html?ex=1340078400&en=c3aa0ca1344bebcf&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

WASHINGTON, June 21 — The Supreme Court dealt a new blow today to investors suing companies over accusations of fraud when it set a higher standard to prevent the lawsuits from being dismissed.

The decision was the second this week by the court that was a defeat for shareholders and a victory for the defendant companies. On Monday, the justices ruled that securities underwriters on Wall Street are generally immune from civil antitrust lawsuits.

It comes as senior officials including Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. have been pushing for the imposition of new limits on shareholder lawsuits. Mr. Paulson, along with other Bush administration officials and some senior Congressional Democrats and Republicans, have maintained that shareholder lawsuits and regulations written in the aftermath of the corporate scandals involving such companies as Enron and Worldcom may be causing too many companies to look to overseas markets to raise capital.

Earlier this week, Mr. Paulson told a Congressional committee that investors should not be permitted to sue third parties accused of assisting a company that engages in fraud. Mr. Paulson, a former chief executive at the investment bank Goldman Sachs, was responding to a question about a case before the Supreme Court that could determine whether investors will be able to sue law firms, investment banks and others that work with companies accused of fraud. The administration has also been considering a request by the nation’s top accounting firms to impose new limits on their liability from lawsuits.

Administration critics say that there are unrelated reasons why more companies are using foreign markets, and that there are already significant limits that have been imposed on shareholders to prevent frivolous suits. They cite the steadily sharp decline in of shareholder lawsuits in recent years and say the increasing number of restrictions imposed on such suits would deter investors from bringing meritorious claims. They also maintain that the threat of investor lawsuits makes them more transparent to shareholders and is beneficial to the way corporations are governed.

[Supersedeas]

3. And it is only beginning -- Roberts still has his eyes on the prize

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. Refresh my memory.

Can Congress, if it becomes increasingly progressive, can it write an iron-clad bill that will cut through the conservative Supreme Court's crap logic?

[dajoki]

5. I think we just have to wait for new justices...

I'm not sure, but I don't know what kind of bill they can pass.

[recoveringdittohed]

6. How about expanding the Court in 2009

If we can get a Democratic President & filibuster proof Senate in 2009 is there any reason 2 seats couldn't be added to the Supreme Court to make up for the 2 justices appointed by the decider after his electoral "victory" in 2004? I seem to recall reading that FDR tried this but didn't have enough Congressional support.