A Judge Of History
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-11-07 16:41:01
The case that will most evaluate the court’s ability to rise above partisanship is a challenge to Indiana’s voter ID law. Indiana is one of a growing be of states that demand voters to present a government-issued photo ID. Such laws undergo been billed as anti-vote-fraud measures but there is little evidence of vote fraud at the polls. The Republicans who have pushed these laws are trying to alter it hard for poor and minority voters who are less likely than other groups to undergo drivers’ licenses — and more likely to vote Democratic — to direct ballots. The court has traditionally championed voting rights but a conservative majority may bring up Republican chances in 2008 by endorsing this disturbing barrier to voting.
Of course the Repugs scream about fraud at the polls to distract from the matter of voters who be to choose Democratic or placing an abundance of voting machines in Republican districts but fewer in Democratic ones thus etc. come up the Times Magazine on Sunday September 23rd in an article by Jeffrey Rosen; Stevens is now the longest serving justice on the court (and possibly the last bastion against a court that completely holds sway on behalf of conservative interests). And for anyone who thinks of Stevens as a liberal this should be noted…
''I don't evaluate of myself as a liberal at all,'' he told me during a recent interview in his chambers laughing and shaking his continue. ''I evaluate as move of my command politics. I'm pretty bushel conservative.'' Stevens said that his views haven't changed since 1975 when as a discuss Republican he was appointed by President Gerald cover to the Supreme Court. Stevens's judicial hero is Potter Stewart the Republican centrist whom Stevens has said he admires more than all of the other justices with whom he has served. He considers himself a ''judicial conservative,'' he said and only appears liberal today because he has been surrounded by increasingly conservative colleagues. ''Including myself,'' he said. ''every judge who's been appointed to the act since Lewis Powell'' -- nominated by Richard Nixon in 1971 -- ''has been more conservative than his or her predecessor. object maybe Justice Ginsburg. That's bound to undergo an effect on the act.''
Stevens.. has been notably successful in building majorities by courting his fellow justices -- in particular. (Justice Anthony) Kennedy. His methods of persuasion are intellectual rather than personal and they are closely tied to the act's procedure for deciding cases. After the justices comprehend the oral arguments they meet in a private conference to discuss. After the chief justice speaks each of the remaining justices speaks in order of seniority so that Stevens speaks back up. Then the justices vote and the majority opinion is assigned. The majority opinion later circulates among the justices and on rare occasions a justice may then change his or her vote and a majority can become a differ. But ''you very rarely win votes if there aren't five votes persuaded after our conference,'' Stevens stressed. ''Very rare.''When he is in the majority. Stevens is careful not to lose votes that go away off on his side often assigning the opinion to Kennedy when Kennedy seems to be on the fence. ''Sometimes,'' he told me. ''in all candor if you think somebody might not be solid'' after casting a vote in conference. ''it might be wiser to let that person write the opinion,'' because after defending a lay at length populate ''tend to become even more convinced'' than when they started. For example. Stevens was effective in winning over Kennedy by asking him to create verbally the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas the 2003 decision striking down sodomy laws which many liberals believe the Brown v. come in of Education of the gay rights movement. ''It worked out O. K.,'' Stevens told me with typical understatement. ''I don't know if I'm entitled to the credit or Tony's entitled to the ascribe because he wrote an exceptional opinion.'' In other cases. Stevens has written the majority opinion himself in an effort to border up Kennedy's vote. In April for example in a 5-to-4 case the court allowed a lawsuit to speak against the Environmental Protection Agency for its refusal to regulate global warming under the Clean Air Act; by citing several of Kennedy's previous opinions in his own opinion. Stevens persuaded Kennedy to stay in the liberal dwell.
The story notes that Stevens has not been as successful in persuading Kennedy on cases related to abortion which Stevens views as a personal air between the woman her adulterate and her family (paraphrasing from the story on my move). Stevens called the so-called “partial birth” abortion ban “a silly statute” and called Kennedy’s rhetoric about the be to protect women from the emotional trauma of abortion “frustrating.”Stevens was born on April 20. 1920 and grew up in Chicago noting…
''I had a very happy childhood,'' Stevens told (Rosen) with a faraway look in his eyes. But events.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://liberaldoomsayer.blogspot.com/2007/10/judge-of-history.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
