The same 5 conservative Justices who may strike down the imperfect but only hope for healthcare reform that we are likedly to have, decided that the long arm of the law can check the anus and under the genitals of anyone who is arrested for anything. Their interpretation of the Constitution is clearly based on partisan bias as it is the same 4 Republican serving Justices and the same 4 Democratic serving Justices that vote together consistently, with the coservative-bent Kennedy on rare occasion switching to the Democratic side as it gives him more impact to do so.
Kennedy’s not dependably conservative. He’s the swing vote.
It seems to me you’re misreading the decision. The government has the power to do a full-body search of any person it’s going to keep in jail. The relevant part of the Constitution is a limitation of searches and seizures. Searches shall not be unreasonable. The five justices find it reasonable to search anyone who’s going to take up space in a jail cell.
That doesn’t seem like an outrageous decision to me unless you’re correct that anyone arrested for any reason may be so searched. I don’t think you’re correct.
Supporting law enforcement, to the extreme, over individual liberties is a conservative Republican agenda.
If your interpretation of the decision is correct then I’ll agree it’s an extreme decision. Otherwise I’d hope for an alternative example.
Striking down Obamacare is a Republican agenda.
It’s more than that. About 60 percent of the general public thinks the individual mandate is unconstitutional. I’m not saying that we should follow the wisdom of crowds. I’m just saying that opposition to the bill is much broader than allegiance to the Republican Party.
Oh, well. I was off by 12 percent (the correct figure is 72 percent):
But as I noted in my original post, the Justices have the dilemna of striking down an essentially conservatively designed healthcare bill. It was designed by the Republican Presidential Nominee. It supports the interests of the private insurance companies. Thru the mandate, it requires some minimal level of individual responsibility for one’s potential health care needs. The masses of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans may not see this, as they are brainwashed by simplistic Republican talking points, that basically anything to do with Obama is a socialist catastrophe.
Oh, great. Now I know why I think the way I do.
RomneyCare’s never going to have the problem ObamaCare has because Massachusetts does not rely on the Commerce Clause for its power to enforce an individual mandate. Nor does RomneyCare place unwanted unfunded mandates on the several states.
The Justices however are not that stupid. They are faced with justifying their particular partisan bias, but in the healthcare case, which conservative agenda will they support? Ideologically they could support a basically conservative healthcare bill or politically they could strike down the healthcare bill because in the current Republican world, everything that is opposed to anything that Obama is trying to do, is good.
Well, at least we know it’s absolutely impossible that they have sincere concerns about the expanded federal power implied in this application of the Commerce Clause.
You might be interested to know that the President is scheduled to sign a bipartisan jobs bill on Thursday.
If it were about interpreting the Constitution in some sort of unbiased fashion, then the same Justices would not be coming down for or against issues that are politically partisan. Conservative Justices made George W. Bush our President.
No, that’s not correct. Seven justices ruled that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision for Gore was unacceptable in terms of equal protection (counting only undervotes). A 5-4 majority cut short any subsequent attempt to come up with a different remedy because of the safe harbor concerns. It was the Florida Supreme Court that acted in a most partisan fashion. Post-election evaluations of the most likely outcome of the 2000 Florida election made Bush the likely winner (more votes were probably cast for Gore, counting those of felons, but the count done as the Florida court stipulated would have led to a Bush victory).
Conservative Justices decided that corporations are people.
They obviously are. Take away all the people and you’ll find no corporations left. Corporations are people acting corporately. They can’t not be people. If they weren’t people then you couldn’t sue them for liability. Non-persons have no culpability under the law. With respect to elections it is empowering for groups of like-minded people to act corporately to advance their political interests. OWS is an example.
Coservative Justices decided that money is free speech and wiped out years of legislation that attempted election reform.
To be precise, setting limits on the political use of money (discounting bribery) is tantamount to limiting political speech. Outrage is all well and good, but how do you get around the First Amendment problems with limiting spending on political messages? And why do the newspapers get a pass as they did with McCain-Feingold? Is it because reading the candidate recommendations of liberals is good for us?
Another conservative Justice or two and abortion may become illegal.
That’s doubtful, but it’s probably a good way to fearmonger people into voting for Democrats. Roe v. Wade is just plain bad law, and it was recognized as such when the decision was made even by notable liberal critics of the Court (one of Bill Clinton’s federal court nominees was also a critic of Roe v. Wade, iirc). Reversing Roe v. Wade would certainly make it easier to outlaw abortion, but any such law would have to come from Congress, and that’s not happening without a filibuster-proof majority in support. Do you see that happening? Seriously? If Roe v. Wade was reversed the likely outcome is that more laws restricting abortion would go into effect. Things such as tighter time constraints and the like. Abortion, as ugly as it is, is probably legal until a substantial majority of the public comes to oppose it.
Perhaps separate but equal schools will again be the order of the day.
Huh? For whom? If you’re talking about charter schools then I’m all for it.
Maybe states will be allowed to gerrymander their voting districts at will to exclude the impact of minorities voting.
Ironically, the most ludicrously gerrymandered districts tend to be those carved out to ensure the election of minorities. Wouldn’t it be terrible if redistricting was colorblind?
But even as the Court currently stands, if the coming Presidential election is so close as to come down to one state with contested election results, then Romney will undoubtedly be selected. What the Supreme Court has been doing is not impartial interpretation of the Constitution. It is interpretation of the Constitution in whatever way that serves their particular political bias.
Could you conclusion perhaps be colored by your political bias?
Conservatives have robust, reasonable arguments on all of these issues. You should talk to a conservative from time to time and keep an open mind.