10 Apr 2012, 11:30 am
President Gore in 2000?
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7463
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
10 Apr 2012, 11:42 am
1984: Reagan criticises Roe v Wade in his State of the Union speech. OK, it was 11 years after the decision, but there we are.
As for sitting USSCs...
1988: Reagan criticises recent decision to ban school prayer in his State of the Union speech
1989-90: Bush 41 wasn't too happy about Texas v Johnson and the subsequent US v Eichman decision, which concerned flag burning. Neither were many members of Congress (who passed the law that was struck down in Eichman, after the Texas law was already struck down in Johnson)
And for slightly lower courts...
In 2004 Bush 43 was critical of State supreme courts who had laid down judgements in favour of same sex marriage, and talked about 'activist judges' in that year's State of the Union.
By definition, if a President backs a law and the USSC strikes it down (as has happened at various times), there is an open, definitive and strong disagreement between the two.
As for sitting USSCs...
1988: Reagan criticises recent decision to ban school prayer in his State of the Union speech
1989-90: Bush 41 wasn't too happy about Texas v Johnson and the subsequent US v Eichman decision, which concerned flag burning. Neither were many members of Congress (who passed the law that was struck down in Eichman, after the Texas law was already struck down in Johnson)
And for slightly lower courts...
In 2004 Bush 43 was critical of State supreme courts who had laid down judgements in favour of same sex marriage, and talked about 'activist judges' in that year's State of the Union.
By definition, if a President backs a law and the USSC strikes it down (as has happened at various times), there is an open, definitive and strong disagreement between the two.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
10 Apr 2012, 12:24 pm
danivon wrote:1984: Reagan criticises Roe v Wade in his State of the Union speech. OK, it was 11 years after the decision, but there we are.
As for sitting USSCs...
1988: Reagan criticises recent decision to ban school prayer in his State of the Union speech
1989-90: Bush 41 wasn't too happy about Texas v Johnson and the subsequent US v Eichman decision, which concerned flag burning. Neither were many members of Congress (who passed the law that was struck down in Eichman, after the Texas law was already struck down in Johnson)
And for slightly lower courts...
In 2004 Bush 43 was critical of State supreme courts who had laid down judgements in favour of same sex marriage, and talked about 'activist judges' in that year's State of the Union.
By definition, if a President backs a law and the USSC strikes it down (as has happened at various times), there is an open, definitive and strong disagreement between the two.
I don't think any of these examples are similar to Obama's response to the SC relating to Citizen's United and ACA, (whatever your view is on the actual legislation).
In the examples, the Presidents are criticizing lower courts or courts from many years ago. Here is a description of what Reagan said about school prayer in his state of the union:
"The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment."
And from this source (which is quite good in spite of it being Yahoo): http://voices.yahoo.com/president-obama ... 68191.html
Reagan's comments were markedly different from Obama's for two reasons. First, Reagan didn't identify the Supreme Court by name. While he was clearly discussing the fact that prayer in schools was considered illegal, a decision made by the Supreme Court, he didn't identify the Court as the decision-maker or overtly criticize the Supreme Court decision.
Second, Reagan wasn't criticizing a recent court decision and he wasn't directly addressing the Court that made the decision. The Engel V. Vitale decision to ban prayer in schools occurred in 1962, 28 years prior to Reagan's address. For almost three decades, the American people had enjoyed the opportunity to debate the status of prayer in schools and President Reagan was simply articulating his intent to support an amendment that would allow prayer in schools.
I probably agree with Obama on the harmfulness of Citizen's United, and I disagree with Reagan on School Prayer. Regardless, I do think that Obama is showing himself to be much more partisan, and much less respecting of the SC than his predecessors.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
10 Apr 2012, 12:44 pm
Umm, so while Reagan did not name the Supreme Court, it was pretty obvious to everyone which court he was talking about. I'm not sure that's really much of a get-out. Perhaps we can score one for Obama over Reagan for plain dealing?
I thought that the decision on prayer was more recent (so it belongs in the first category of my post not the second, and I was wrong).
I thought that the decision on prayer was more recent (so it belongs in the first category of my post not the second, and I was wrong).
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
10 Apr 2012, 12:49 pm
Yes, I agree that the 2nd paragraph of my yahoo quote is much more relevant.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
10 Apr 2012, 12:52 pm
Agreed.
However, you were wrong about one of my examples. Bush 41's criticism and opposition on flag burning was to recent USSC decisions. And not just a handful of Congress members objected, enough did to pass a Federal Law after the Texas case that was then struck down.
However, you were wrong about one of my examples. Bush 41's criticism and opposition on flag burning was to recent USSC decisions. And not just a handful of Congress members objected, enough did to pass a Federal Law after the Texas case that was then struck down.
-
- Statesman
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
10 Apr 2012, 1:08 pm
ray
One is a stronger description then the other.
I couldn't find a poll with my description. But I found one that indicates generally Americans view the Supreme Court as "politicized". (infliuenced by politics".)
In return you have your belief.
Ricky, can you see the difference between the phrase "influenced by policits" with "seems to have become just another politicized instrument strung between two competing ideologies"?
One is a stronger description then the other.
I couldn't find a poll with my description. But I found one that indicates generally Americans view the Supreme Court as "politicized". (infliuenced by politics".)
In return you have your belief.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
10 Apr 2012, 1:43 pm
Ricky, yes, no doubt an insult here is the best course to convince everyone that you are right. My point is that although the SC is somewhat politicized, it is not nearly as politicized as Congress or the Presidency. Nor is it "just another politicized instrument". This extreme language (hyperbola) is used by the polarized left and right, but the center of the country (for whom Obama should be fighting) is more capable of nuance.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
10 Apr 2012, 1:47 pm
danivon wrote:Agreed.
However, you were wrong about one of my examples. Bush 41's criticism and opposition on flag burning was to recent USSC decisions. And not just a handful of Congress members objected, enough did to pass a Federal Law after the Texas case that was then struck down.
Do you have a reference ... I can't seem to find one.
-
- Statesman
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
10 Apr 2012, 1:58 pm
I'm not insulting you Ray.
I'm simply pointing out that I offered evidence for my contention. and you said this
:
You haven't shown any evidence.
I "believe" that if I polled Americans with the question "Has the SCOTUS become a politicized institution strung between two competing ideologies, especially if I conduct the poll after the June announcement on the Health Care law, that I'd get a majority agreeing with me. " But that would be my belief.
All the evidence I have is that 3/4 say SCOTUS is influenced by politics...
.
I'm simply pointing out that I offered evidence for my contention. and you said this
:
I believe the majority of the US electorate sees it differently than this
You haven't shown any evidence.
I "believe" that if I polled Americans with the question "Has the SCOTUS become a politicized institution strung between two competing ideologies, especially if I conduct the poll after the June announcement on the Health Care law, that I'd get a majority agreeing with me. " But that would be my belief.
All the evidence I have is that 3/4 say SCOTUS is influenced by politics...
.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
10 Apr 2012, 2:11 pm
"just another politicized ..."
Ricky, you spent your career in polling where the way a question is asked is incredibly determinant of the results. How can that count as "evidence"? It's tangential. Any (non-politicized) court would view it as irrelevant. You haven't made your case.
Ricky, you spent your career in polling where the way a question is asked is incredibly determinant of the results. How can that count as "evidence"? It's tangential. Any (non-politicized) court would view it as irrelevant. You haven't made your case.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
10 Apr 2012, 2:13 pm
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2010/02/constructive-criticism-presidential.phpRay Jay wrote:danivon wrote:Agreed.
However, you were wrong about one of my examples. Bush 41's criticism and opposition on flag burning was to recent USSC decisions. And not just a handful of Congress members objected, enough did to pass a Federal Law after the Texas case that was then struck down.
Do you have a reference ... I can't seem to find one.
Finally, complaints about Obama’s criticism of Citizens United are misplaced to the extent that they underestimate the extent to which previous presidents have criticized the Court and its decisions. Although presidents usually have been circumspect about making public comments concerning Supreme Court decisions, presidential criticism of such decisions has been far from unknown. In 1989, for example, President George Bush advocated a constitutional amendment to overturn the Court’s decision in Texas v. Johnson, which nullified a state statute that criminalized flag burning. Although Bush signed a federal statute to criminalize flag burning, he continued to express preference for a constitutional amendment. When the Court two years later invalidated a similar federal law in United States v. Eichman, Bush immediately advocated another constitutional amendment.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
10 Apr 2012, 2:33 pm
And from "Flag Burning: Moral Panic and the Criminalization of Protest" (Welch) p128
...
Having seen the decision go the 'wrong' way, Bush helped the push for an Amendment, which is about all he could do.
On June 22 1989, Bush shared his thoughts with the audience: "If I may make a very special personal observation before addressing myself to the subject at hand, I want to comment on the Supreme Court decision about our flag. ... I have to given you my personal, emotional response. Flag burning is wrong - dead wrong"
...
In 1990, Bush injected his plea to protect the flag while speaking at a Republican fundraising banquet for North Carolina Senator Jesse HelmsAnd here too, I need Jesse Helm's help to keep standing for what's right. ... Forty-eight States had laws protecting the flag against desecration. Forty-eight States. And those laws were effectively struck down when the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is protected by the Constitution. I can't honestly believe that they [the founding fathers] would condone burning it under the cover of free speech
Having seen the decision go the 'wrong' way, Bush helped the push for an Amendment, which is about all he could do.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
11 Apr 2012, 4:18 am
There certainly is nothing wrong with a President pushing for a constitutional amendment, but I do agree with you that Bush 41 was demagoguing the issue ;)
-
- Statesman
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
11 Apr 2012, 6:14 am
ray
I think this indcates a misapprehension about the science of polling... The way a question is asked can change the way a respondent reacts to a poll question. But there is nothing in the way this question acts that leads the respondent. Unless you suspect that the respondents would not consider the political nature of the SCOTUS unless asked about it..... Is that what you think?
The Washington Post leads todays headlines with
So they seeem to be drawing the same conclusions about this attitudinal research.... I'm still wondering why you believe what you believe? And if I may paraphrase, "That Americans don't feel their legal system, at the very top, is politicized".... Other than your assertion you've offered nothing.
How can you feel this way when for several decades politicians have thundered about "legislating from the bench", and "activist judges". Surely that indicates that anyone making these assertions feels that the political viewpoint of the judge dominates over the point of law?
Moreover, isn't the nomination and confirmation process of supreme court and other justices a wholly political act essentially to try and cull ideologues? Indeed, in many US jurisdictions don't judges stand for election?
The poll reflects the attitudes of Americans. Without something indicating that somehow, after all the political language and public debate focussed on ideology in the courts, Americans beleive their justices can rise above everything ...I'll take the evidence at hand as indicative.
Ricky, you spent your career in polling where the way a question is asked is incredibly determinant of the results.
I think this indcates a misapprehension about the science of polling... The way a question is asked can change the way a respondent reacts to a poll question. But there is nothing in the way this question acts that leads the respondent. Unless you suspect that the respondents would not consider the political nature of the SCOTUS unless asked about it..... Is that what you think?
The Washington Post leads todays headlines with
Half of the public expects the Supreme Court justices to rule mainly based on their “partisan political views,” a Post-ABC News poll reveals.
So they seeem to be drawing the same conclusions about this attitudinal research.... I'm still wondering why you believe what you believe? And if I may paraphrase, "That Americans don't feel their legal system, at the very top, is politicized".... Other than your assertion you've offered nothing.
How can you feel this way when for several decades politicians have thundered about "legislating from the bench", and "activist judges". Surely that indicates that anyone making these assertions feels that the political viewpoint of the judge dominates over the point of law?
Moreover, isn't the nomination and confirmation process of supreme court and other justices a wholly political act essentially to try and cull ideologues? Indeed, in many US jurisdictions don't judges stand for election?
The poll reflects the attitudes of Americans. Without something indicating that somehow, after all the political language and public debate focussed on ideology in the courts, Americans beleive their justices can rise above everything ...I'll take the evidence at hand as indicative.
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
