November 12, 2004

Antonin Scalia Is an Enemy of the State!

So says John Ashcroft. Jeffrey Dubner reports:

TAPPED: November 2004 Archives: GET YOUR ROBES OUT OF OUR PRISONS! I just watched John Ashcroft's address to the Federalist Society. It's a gripping speech, and quite frightening. He devotes the greatest portion of it to challenging the Supreme Court's decisions in Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and the other "enemy combatant" cases. A taste:<

...intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas of treaties can put at risk the very security of our nation at a time of war.

It's very much in the vein of "the ability to set aside the laws is inherent in the president." There's no transcript available just yet, and I expect there'll be analyses and critiques up by more qualified legal folks than I by the time we get back from the weekend. But I wonder how confined this constitutional theory is to Ashcroft, and whether it will in any way leave office with him. I highly doubt it.

I do think that this is, in part, fallout from Bush v. Gore. Everybody knows that Scalia and company don't believe the equal protection rationale they set forward for their decision. And if what the Supremes are doing is expressing their political preferences rather than setting forth judicial principles--well, why should their will get to override Bush's and Ashcroft's? Just because Scalia, Rehnquist, and company ruled in favor of Bush in 2000 doesn't mean that Bush and company respect them for it.

Posted by DeLong at November 12, 2004 03:22 PM | TrackBack
Comments

I thought your SOTUS was the top of the legal system, I think that the Holy Ghost at a bare minimum could come along and overturn their decisions,
PS Do the evangelicals believe in the HG, it was thought up by those pesky europeans.

Posted by: Big Al at November 12, 2004 03:48 PM

Speaking of "judicial principles" and the Federalist Society. Forget reproductive rights, church/state, capital punishment and ALL the rest of that politically 'wedgy' stuff. "Strict constructionism" and checks and balances and seperation of powers too. It's ALL about money, honey...

----------------------------

The Federalist Society: The Conservative Cabal That's Transforming American Law

By Jerry Landay

March 2000

"...They are also active in shaping the law.

Perhaps the network¹s most far-reaching victory in recent years was a 1999 decision by a Federal appellate panel of DC Circuit judges in a case called American Trucking v. EPA , which stunned clean-air advocates by rolling back EPA standards covering smog and soot. The decision was based on the principle of "non-delegation," a rigid and archaic reading of the Constitution, which holds that Congress retains all legislative authority, but not the power to delegate regulatory power to executive agencies. C. Boyden Gray, a member of the Federalist Society¹s Board of Trustees, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in American Trucking. Gray was also good enough to share his insights on non-delegation with the Federalist convention in November when he moderated a panel discussion entitled: "The Non-Delegation Doctrine Lives!"

One extraordinary thing about the American Trucking decision was just how well it served private industry at the expense of the public interest. A commentator writing in a Federalist Society newsletter crowed that American Trucking will save industry "in the neighborhood of $45 billion per year." Perhaps that is true--and perhaps industry would save even more money if the courts decide to eliminate, for example, the Food and Drug Administration¹s jurisdiction over food and drugs. But the social costs would be enormous....

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html

----------------------------

Posted by: Mike at November 12, 2004 04:05 PM

Can we now drop the wholw "Scalia is an originalist" argument and call him what he is, a monarchist?

Posted by: Rob at November 12, 2004 04:21 PM

Bush v. Gore was political, but to be kind to the majority, the court is not always political in the way people interpret them.

The majority in Bush might have excused their poor reasoning with the knowledge that 1. the election was basically a tie, 2. the unstability of not having a winner, and 3. any other decision would bring up a number of serious issues that the Supreme Court would not be capable of applying available standards to resolve (say, the recount cannot be finished before the electors meet).

The court knows that the decisions they make are not just favors to be handed out to a (conservative) political party, but they are trying to make lasting conservative principals placed in their case law.

Posted by: mrkmyr at November 12, 2004 04:44 PM

Actually, isn't Scalia Buttiglione's cousin?

Posted by: El Hombre at November 12, 2004 06:25 PM

I don't see what the big deal is. If the president doesn't like the court's ruling, he can just set it aside, that being inherint in his powers and all.

Posted by: Kuas at November 12, 2004 06:47 PM

Kuas: righto, but it *looks* so much better if the courts just shut the hell up and let the president get on with it.

This administration is going to give judges a lot of opportunities to demonstrate the value of lifetime tenure. Let them look to Coke.

Posted by: Altoid at November 12, 2004 08:09 PM

"Just because Scalia, Rehnquist, and company ruled in favor of Bush in 2000 doesn't mean that Bush and company respect them for it."

"Just because you're on their side..."

Posted by: Randolph Fritz at November 13, 2004 12:02 AM

"... the girl friend of the one with the most cigarettes."

Posted by: Bottomfeeder at November 13, 2004 05:10 AM

A sour address by a sour Attorney General. Strict Constitutionalism does not mean rewriting the Constitution. There is supposed to be Separation of Powers. The President does not now, or has he ever been allowed, the right and power to overturn the Court. lgl

Posted by: lgl at November 13, 2004 09:08 AM

Strict constitutionalism is what separates honest people who might be "conservatives" from the ones who just want power. In this administration, honesty has been in short supply. No one can expect these people to adhere to constitutional ideas and practices. It's on the record--

Posted by: Altoid at November 13, 2004 09:15 AM

CNN ( http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/12/ashcroft.judges/index.html ) describes him as getting "a long and roaring standing ovation by the lawyers of the Federalist Society" on his arrival at the podium. (It doesn't, however, describe their reaction to the speech itself, and it also says that he did not specify any particular judicial decisions and was apparently aiming at Judge Robertson's recent decision.) At any rate, we have further confirmation that this crew will bear watching (in every sense of the word) over the next four years.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at November 13, 2004 09:17 AM

I for one am tired of giving up civil liberties to their Chicken Little act.

Posted by: bakho at November 13, 2004 05:02 PM

"Perhaps that is true--and perhaps industry would save even more money if the courts decide to eliminate, for example, the Food and Drug Administration¹s jurisdiction over food and drugs."

Sounds good to me. If Congress and the state legislatures think the Food and Drug Administration is necessary, they can pass a Consitutional amendment to authorize it.

Imagine that! Congress actually following The Law!

Posted by: Mark Bahner at November 15, 2004 04:06 PM

5572 Kona Coffee Starbucks Coffee Jamaica Blue Mountain
Coffee
coffee maker gourmet coffee green mountain coffee kenya coffee organic coffee specialty coffee folgers coffee coffee brewers costa rica coffee Tullys Coffee Millstone Coffee coffee grinder
http://www.coffee-delivered.com

You only get one set of teeth. Take care of them with a good
dental plan.
Dental
insurance is
money well spent. I sleep better since I signed up for my new dental insurance
plan.
Get yours at: http://dental-insurance-plan.freeservers.com/

individual
dental
plans
You only get one set of teeth. Take care of them with a good
dental plan.
Dental
insurance is
money well spent. I sleep better since I signed up for my new
dental insurance
plan.
Get yours at:
http://www.dental-plan-source.com
individual dental
plans
You only get one set of teeth. Take care of them with a good
dental plan.
Dental
insurance is
money well spent. I sleep better since I signed up for my new
dental insurance
plan. Get yours at:
http://www.e-dental-insurance-plans.com/
individual dental
plans

Posted by: dental plans at November 24, 2004 05:17 AM

The wine urges me on, the bewitching wine, which sets even a wise man to singing and to laughing gently and rouses him up to dance and brings forth words wh

Posted by: fx contact lenses at November 24, 2004 06:45 AM

You ar the the one I love honey where are you now just come back we will live very happily

Posted by: Upskirts Mania at November 27, 2004 11:05 AM

8763 Very well said chappy.

Posted by: debt consolidation at November 27, 2004 08:56 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?