Randy Davis
New member
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Scalia-Thomas twins would multiply in Bush presidency
By Gregory Stanford
July 9, 2000
George Bush the younger can't get enough of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, ideological twins on the nation's top court. The would-be prez wants quintuplets.
Zounds. A court of Scalias and Thomases. What a difference to our freedoms a few justices would make.
Were the dissents of the twins the will of the court's majority, cops could trash the Miranda warning, government could host prayers, public employees could face dismissal for belonging to the wrong political party and, of course, virtually all abortions would break the law.
The requiem played some time ago for liberals on the Supreme Court. Today's justices can be sorted out as moderate, conservative, more conservative and most conservative. That last category comprises the twins, whom Bush admires. The Texas governor has said he would like to appoint more jurists like Scalia and Thomas to the top court.
The twins have been pulling the court rightward the hardest. They don't always dissent. Sometimes enough judges go along with the viewpoints of Scalia and Thomas so as to put them in the majority, as when the court has whittled away at affirmative action.
Their backers have defended the pair as "strict constructionists," who abide by the plain meaning of the law. That mumbo jumbo, however, masks their judicial activism in behalf of right-wing ideology, as notes a report put out recently by People for the American Way, a D.C.-based organization that TV producer Norman Lear founded to promote civil liberties and to keep tabs on the religious right.
Like all justices, the twins interpret the law, but in a far-right light, observes the report, titled "Courting Disaster: How a Scalia-Thomas Supreme Court Would Endanger Our Rights and Freedoms."
A sampling of legal life were the twins quintuplets:
Police would no longer be required to read suspects their rights before grilling them. The pair were the lone naysayers in the recent ruling upholding the Miranda mandate. They prefer the good old, pre-Miranda days, which gave rise to such expressions as the "third degree" for questioning that got physical.
The church-state wall would come crashing down. Remember last month's Supreme Court ruling that outlawed what was really government-sponsored prayer at high school football games?
Scalia and Thomas dissented, of course. This time, Chief Justice William Rehnquist joined them.
The trio also expressed bitter disappointment at the majority's decision not to review a lower court ruling striking down an anti-evolution disclaimer that teachers were required to read to students in a Louisiana school district.
Protections for racial minorities would weaken. For instance, states would no longer have to abide by the Voting Rights Act in electing judges. The report notes that fellow justices termed the twins' position on the federal statute as so "radical" that it would overturn at least 28 Supreme Court decisions.
Sex bias in the selection of juries would be OK.
The feds would lack the power to stop the destruction of endangered species on private land.
Any hope for limiting campaign financing would vanish.
Of course, for the far right, these changes are reasons to vote for a presidential candidate who wants to fill the Supreme Court with Scalias and Thomases. Yet that sector of the political spectrum seems to squeal the loudest, shouting such slurs as "jackbooted thugs" when the authorities are goring the personal liberties of a right-wing ox, as when federal agents raid the hangouts of armed militia groups or the homes of Cuban expatriates.
But for Americans who value fairness, liberty and justice, more Scalias and Thomases on the top court would amount to a nightmare.
Gregory Stanford is a Journal Sentinel editorial writer and columnist. His e-mail address is gstanfor@onwis.com
------
Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on July 9, 2000.
Scalia-Thomas twins would multiply in Bush presidency
By Gregory Stanford
July 9, 2000
George Bush the younger can't get enough of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, ideological twins on the nation's top court. The would-be prez wants quintuplets.
Zounds. A court of Scalias and Thomases. What a difference to our freedoms a few justices would make.
Were the dissents of the twins the will of the court's majority, cops could trash the Miranda warning, government could host prayers, public employees could face dismissal for belonging to the wrong political party and, of course, virtually all abortions would break the law.
The requiem played some time ago for liberals on the Supreme Court. Today's justices can be sorted out as moderate, conservative, more conservative and most conservative. That last category comprises the twins, whom Bush admires. The Texas governor has said he would like to appoint more jurists like Scalia and Thomas to the top court.
The twins have been pulling the court rightward the hardest. They don't always dissent. Sometimes enough judges go along with the viewpoints of Scalia and Thomas so as to put them in the majority, as when the court has whittled away at affirmative action.
Their backers have defended the pair as "strict constructionists," who abide by the plain meaning of the law. That mumbo jumbo, however, masks their judicial activism in behalf of right-wing ideology, as notes a report put out recently by People for the American Way, a D.C.-based organization that TV producer Norman Lear founded to promote civil liberties and to keep tabs on the religious right.
Like all justices, the twins interpret the law, but in a far-right light, observes the report, titled "Courting Disaster: How a Scalia-Thomas Supreme Court Would Endanger Our Rights and Freedoms."
A sampling of legal life were the twins quintuplets:
Police would no longer be required to read suspects their rights before grilling them. The pair were the lone naysayers in the recent ruling upholding the Miranda mandate. They prefer the good old, pre-Miranda days, which gave rise to such expressions as the "third degree" for questioning that got physical.
The church-state wall would come crashing down. Remember last month's Supreme Court ruling that outlawed what was really government-sponsored prayer at high school football games?
Scalia and Thomas dissented, of course. This time, Chief Justice William Rehnquist joined them.
The trio also expressed bitter disappointment at the majority's decision not to review a lower court ruling striking down an anti-evolution disclaimer that teachers were required to read to students in a Louisiana school district.
Protections for racial minorities would weaken. For instance, states would no longer have to abide by the Voting Rights Act in electing judges. The report notes that fellow justices termed the twins' position on the federal statute as so "radical" that it would overturn at least 28 Supreme Court decisions.
Sex bias in the selection of juries would be OK.
The feds would lack the power to stop the destruction of endangered species on private land.
Any hope for limiting campaign financing would vanish.
Of course, for the far right, these changes are reasons to vote for a presidential candidate who wants to fill the Supreme Court with Scalias and Thomases. Yet that sector of the political spectrum seems to squeal the loudest, shouting such slurs as "jackbooted thugs" when the authorities are goring the personal liberties of a right-wing ox, as when federal agents raid the hangouts of armed militia groups or the homes of Cuban expatriates.
But for Americans who value fairness, liberty and justice, more Scalias and Thomases on the top court would amount to a nightmare.
Gregory Stanford is a Journal Sentinel editorial writer and columnist. His e-mail address is gstanfor@onwis.com
------
Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on July 9, 2000.
