The Supreme Court's Fall 2010 Session
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-10-04/supreme-courts-fall-2010-session
Chief Justice John Roberts, right, and the court's newest Justice Elena Kagan stand for photographs after a formal investiture ceremony for Kagan at the Supreme Court in Washington, Friday, Oct. 1, 2010.
AP Photo/Evan Vucci
For the first time, the U-S Supreme Court has three women on the bench. As the court opens session on Monday: a preview of the new term and how Justice Elena Kagan could affect the Court’s dynamics.
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."
Stuart Taylor
contributing editor, Newsweek and National Journal
Susan Bloch
professor of law at Georgetown University.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
RECUSAL- That will be the operant word in the Fall session concerning Justice Kagan. She is excluding herself from cases originating in the Obama Administration where she has been Solicitor General. I do not believe this action was necessary. The 8 member panel will tend to curb our Constitutional rights and protections further without her vote. The Court is far too pro-corporate business already. There is even a chance she could make this imbalance worse once she becomes active. Please tell me my fears are unfounded.
How is trashing gays any different from going to a funeral and trashing Blacks or Jews? There are not there some double standards showing up here.
How is trashing gays any different from going to a funeral and trashing Blacks or Jews? There are not there some double standards showing up here.
Diane;
WELCOME BACK! Please do not remain silent today. Having you back is such a treat. We/I will listen to your voice in any condition.
Your program is my lifeline to unbiased information on a myriad of topics.
Again Welcome back!
Blessings on your recovery;
Nora T. Newman
Excellent episode!
I agree partially with Diane's comment about placing a non-lawyer on the Supreme Court. However, instead, I think we should replace all elections in the House of Representatives with a random lottery for interested and eligible citizens.
This would give Congress true representation from the People, versus the current climate of candidates needing to sell out to special interests before we even reach primaries.
This action would help eliminate the bipartisan fighting, encourage debate, bring minorities and fringe elements back into the fold, encourage trust, and a host of other benefits.
Please comment about my favorite movie, THE PAINTED VEIL. Such a passionate performance and a great film.
I am not convinced that Corporations deserve the same rights as individuals. Are they citizens? Do they represent American interests or their own multiple-national interests? Do they even represent the interests of their stockholders or just the board and directors? I own a few shares in various Corporations but am dismayed to find they are willing to spend millions to attempt to avoid regulation. They have proven many times they place profit before all else. I am all for profit, but willing to forgo a little for the good of society and the environment.
Several non-attorneys on the Supreme Court would be a positive step. That's a great idea. We have to look at lawyers as a vested interest and break up the monopoly. Diane Rehm and Andrew Bacevich come to mind as ideal candidates for a desegregated (others besides legal profession) tribunal.
I have to disagree with those who wish to have non judges and non attorneys serve on the Surpreme Court. I would argue that only those that have a long resume as an appellate court judge should even be considered as Surpreme Court justices
The job of the Surpreme Court is to interpet the law. A layman, no matter how well intentioned, would not have the base of knowledge and the experience necesary to apply the law to the complex cases that come before the court.
Using this logic, should we just have random citizens rotate as NPR talk show hosts (Dianes profession)and landscape designers (my profession)?
Concerning the First Amendment cases: the commentators all had a false hidden assumption in their argument - that the only option is either allow the speech in question, or ban it altogether. In fact there is a third option none of them considered.
It is well known First Amendment law that reasonable, limited, content neutral restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech are permitted. You cannot falsely cry fire in a crowded theater, thereby creating a panic. You won't escape prosecution for extortion or blackmail, even though these crimes employ speech. And, you can't make a political speech using a bullhorn in a residential neighborhood at 2 AM! I see nothing wrong with regulating the speech in question in those two cases.
We can declare that a funeral (an essentially private function, even if conducted in an open air cemetery) is no place for harassment, or even "political" speech. Certainly not when the deceased isn't a "public figure", or is unconnected to the politics involved. By way of example, picketing the funeral of a judge who ruled in favor (or against) gay rights because of the ruling might be protected speech. But picketing the funeral of a dead soldier who had nothing to do with the issue clearly is not.
As for violent video games, even if it can be called "speech", the First Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to make a profit from speech, neither does it guarantee a "free market". I see nothing wrong with saying such games cannot be purchased by minors. (Provided, of course, that if their parents are idiotic enough to do so, the "grownups" can always purchase it for their kids.)
In short, it's not an either/or situation!
ndelaney47 on October 4, 2010 @ 10:30 am wrote: "How is trashing gays any different from going to a funeral and trashing Blacks or Jews? There are not there some double standards showing up here."
No, there is no double standard, only a false assumption on your part. The issue is not whether picketing gays is protected speech, but whether picketing a funeral is protected speech. The issue would be the same were the lunatics at the Westboro Baptist Church protesting Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Women, or left-handed Lithuanian banjo players!
The constitutional solution I've suggested (reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are allowed) will only work if the restriction is content neutral. That means all political protests at funerals are prohibited, whether "trashing gays" or praising them.
Oh yeah, non-lawyers on the Court, what a great idea. But why stop there?
The Constitution doesn't require that only those trained in medicine can be doctors. Why not let your local car mechanic perform surgery - replacing a heart valve, replacing an engine valve, they both involve taking things apart and putting them back together.
Understanding the law is a discipline that requires training and experience, just like any other. While I agree there should be a more diverse background on the Court, and am concerned that for too long its makeup has been restricted to appellate judges, there's a difference between choosing trial attorneys, legal scholars, and law professors for the bench (a good idea), and saying the average "man on the street" can do the job. They can't. (And with all due respect, neither can Ms. Rehm.)
As for doing away with elections and filling the Congress by lottery - just how will that produce a government which "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed"? Actually, we fought a war to get away from that kind of system, in which a king was appointed by winning the "lottery" of birth!
I find these women to have enormous empathy. Their parents are to be admired. I presented my reasons in my blog:
http://www.lifeshineson.com/dr-dawn-higgins-blog
I hope you enjoy!