The Supreme Court - Possible Nominees and Analysis of Recent Decisions
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-04-22/supreme-court-possible-nominees-and-analysis-recent-decisions
President Obama meets with Senate leaders to discuss replacements for Justice Stevens. How the president hopes to reshape the court. Also, analysis of the Court’s decision about animal cruelty videos.
Guests
Jeffrey Rosen
professor of law at the George Washington University and legal affairs editor of "The New Republic." He's the author of "The Supreme Court," "The Most Democratic Branch," "The Naked Crowd," and "The Unwanted Gaze."
Joan Biskupic
Supreme Court reporter for "USA Today." She has written biographies on Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia.
Stuart Taylor
senior writer with National Journal magazine, contributing editor at Newsweek, and coauthor with KC Johnson of "Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case" (Thomas Dunne Books)
Wayne Pacelle
President and C.E.O. of the Humane Society of the United States
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Obama won the election with more votes than any president in history. That he owes anything to these right wingers is comical.
Bush got two EXTREME right-wing Supreme Court picks with barely a whimper from the Democrats.
Obama deserves the same deference from the opposition now.
When it comes to illegal actions vs. the depiction of illegal actions, does this mean the the distribution of child pornograpy is now legal?? Child pornography is illegal in most if not all states. How does the Supreme Court decison on animal cruelty depiction affect states laws on this other offesive and disgusting type of depiction?
Thank you for addressing this question.
While I certainly don't approve of or condone animal cruelty, why all the noise about this and so little noise about the way are children are being treated? Every day seems to bring a new cut in funding for education, funds for agencies working against child abuse, aid for children in need, etc. - does this not amount to child cruelty? How many children in our country are abused, hungry, and ignored while Fifi and Fido are being pampered and mice are being saved from crushing? It seems that our priorities are a bit skewed.
Some of the comments appear to be missing the point: the defendant Stevens was prosecuted and sent to jail under this statute for owning and/or distributing dog fighting videos--not the so-called "crush" fetish videos.
The Court's vigorous defense of the First Amendment--even in the face of obnoxious speech--should be applauded by everyone.
Protection of animals can be obtained under laws that do not denigrate the First Amendment.
Please do not conflate the obnoxious speech at issue in this statute with the power of the State to arrest, prosecute and jail individuals who express opinions that others (even the majority) find offensive, obnoxious or disturbing.
How appropos my sister, on her way to stanford law, just had me read Supreme Conflict. Perhaps, it was simply a nice "just so" story, but I think the insights were more likely solid inductive journalism.
And what I think was its greatest insight was the demonstration of just how important the dynamic between the justices is when it comes to marginal victories. The appointment of Thomas galvanized o'conore and Kennedy often to the left. A pick of a true blue liberal has the potential of galvanizing the pragmatistS ( Kennedy now and who knows who in the future) solidly on the right.
Typos courtesy of apple.
David
A writer touts Obama’s popular vote, “more votes than any president in history.” True, but don’t read too much into it ---
Presidents after 1899 who won with a greater percentage of the popular vote:
T. Roosevelt,
Harding,
Hoover,
FDR (first 3 times),
Eisenhower,
LBJ,
Nixon (1972) (Your favorite president, right?),
Reagan,
George H. W. Bush.
In absolute numbers, McCain received more popular votes in losing than any winner except Obama and Bush in 2004.
One of Obama’s biggest problems is that he mistakes a 53:46 % win in the popular vote as an election not just to the presidency but to godhood.
At the end of this program, Diane Rehm commented, and concluded, that "corporations" had far more power and resources to donate to political campaigns. It was mentioned (but Diane seemed unsatisfied) that unions and other left-leaning associations were as active, or more active, in political spending.
In fact, left-leaning organizations, like labor unions, liberal 527's, and the trial lawyers' associations, all are FAR more dominant political spenders than any corporations:
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php
Diane Rehm really ought to check her preconceived notions against the facts.
In addition, I understood that Diane Rehm was aghast at the Supreme Court's ruling in the Stevens case on the federal law attempting to ban animal cruelty films. I heard no mention of the fact that NPR actually sided with the defendant on free-speech grounds, and joined in the filing of an amicus brief. I was amused that someone thought that it might be possible to convince Diane Rehm that the decision was a good one, because the liberals Sotomayor, Breyer, Stephens and Ginsburg all joined in the majority. Sadly, I too expected that it would be an effective argument for the benefit of someone whose mind is as non-legal as is Diane Rehm. Nevermind the merits -- just trust in the fact that it wasn't only Scalia Roberts and Thomas who made the majority. As long as is wasn't "those conservatives," it might actually be an okay opinion. I think that's how the argument was intended.
And so it goes, in the liberal echo-chamber that is NPR.
To begin with, I would like to thank you for your show segment today on the Supreme Courts animal cruelty decision.
I am completely agast that any human being would find orginized animal animal fighting, or "smash" videos a form of entertainment. I had no idea that the video taping of smashing animals was even happening. I am completely shocked. Anyone that would participate in these barbaric acts for entertainment or for profit, for whatever reason, should be seperated from society indefinately. That behavior is NEVER acceptable for ANY reason.
I do have to commend the Supreme Court for their decision, and my reasons are this. I don't believe that using the 1st Amendent offers the proper basis for banning such behavior. One thing that we all seem to forget is that we all have the right of free speech, but with that right we also have the moral and obligitory responsibility for expressing those rights, and we must be willing to accept the consequences of such.
If someone is video taping an illegal act, and not reporting it to the proper authorities, wouldn't that person/persons be just as responsible for the crimes. If these actions are banned, then the persons participating in these behaviours will take them further underground. Wouldn't that make it that much harder to catch an prosecute them? Our penalties for committing such audtrocities must be severe. A reason for not banning such activities might be, so that we can bring this out unto the general public, so that we may act in order to stop them.
Case in point the movie, "The Cove." If the audtrocities uncovered in this movie had been banned, no one would ever know that this crime is being committed.
Thank you again for your show today.
Take care
ewilly
Diane, What was the Supreme court thinking on the issue of cruelty to animals. It is so disturbing to even think of any human being finding pleasure in this. Is this what free speech is meant to be? I think not. This is sadistic, criminal behavior and we have laws to protect them. These Justices ought to be ashamed of themselves and rethink what they are there for. Too bad we can't vote them out of office because I would be waiting at the polls. You are a beautiful woman with a heart to match. Thank you for your show. KarenR.
It was troubling to hear Diane's guests giggling and joking about what they saw on the crush videos and how it was too horrible to describe to listeners. I understood the laughing to indicate the panelists' discomfort at seeing such horrible cruelty, but that kind of reaction is part of the problem. What is so funny about animal torture? A free and independent media should be informing listeners about the truth of what is going on, not protecting them from it at the same time expounding on free speech from a theoretical standpoint. The law that was overturned was not about restricting free speech, but about protecting animals. Wayne Pacelle from the Humane Society made an important point when he said that the Supreme Court's decision has real world implications right now for the animals victimized by the sale and distribution of portrayals of uniformly illegal and cruel practices such as crushing small animals and dogfighting. And that's not very funny.
ewilly3 -
It would be helpful to learn more about the statute that overturned, since some aspects weren't covered by show or perhaps by the Justices' opinion, both of which seemed to focus on theoretical free speech scenarios that wouldn't have been targeted by the law (hunting, bullfighting). The statute exempted depictions of a "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value." It seems to me that the type of programming you describe would fit that exemption. As I understand it, the law outlawed depictions of ILLEGAL animal cruelty that were being sold for profit and had no redeeming value as described in the exemptions listed.
To the subject of campaign contributions:
Charles' link was to the top campaign contributors in 2010. But the overall breakdown in 2010 can be found here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php
Business Interests: $540,068,928
Labor Unions: $30,350,890
Ideological Organizations $42,637,089
Other: $70,383,745
The site does say that labor and ideological groups get grouped in with businesses, which can skew the numbers somewhat.
But you can't say that Diane is off-base with her statement that labor and business are not on the same level when it comes to spending - corporate interests DO spend more.