Tagged: formalist federal judges

“Speaking at the conservative National Review Institute’s ideas summit in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, [Jeb] Bush called Antonin Scalia ‘far and away the most interesting opinion writer’ on the court and praised the conservative justice for his textualist approach to the U.S. Constitution. Yet the justice he is ideologically closest to, Bush said, was Clarence Thomas. ‘There’s a quiet and consistency there I like and I generally agree with his views,’ Bush said, referring to Thomas’ famous habit of not asking any questions during oral arguments. The two justices belong to the conservative bloc that, along with swing vote Anthony Kennedy, has pushed the court to the right in recent years. The two other members of the bloc — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito — were appointed to the court by former President George W. Bush, Jeb’s brother.”

He’s a Bush, so there’s no question that Jeb’s also not in favor of racial equality, but these recent statements are very revealing because they give a glimpse into the type of person Jeb would appoint to serve as the next justice on the Supreme Court should Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retire in the near future. One thing is for certain: If Jeb Bush (or any Republican for that matter) is elected into office as the next president of the United States, there will be no social progress and race relations in America will not improve. Things will only worsen.

Source: Igor Bobic. “Jeb Bush Admires Clarence Thomas, Thinks Antonin Scalia Is The ‘Most Interesting Opinion Writer’.” Huffington Post. April 30, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/30/jeb-bush-supreme-court_n_7184774.html.

“[Chief Justice John] Roberts’s ‘colorblindness’ bears only a superficial resemblance to the concept as understood by past champions of equal rights, since as applied by the conservative majority on the court the approach has had dire consequences for racial minorities. Since Roberts became chief justice, the high court has struck down school desegregation plans, narrowed affirmative action, crippled the Voting Rights Act, limited the circumstances under which Americans can sue for racial discrimination, and enabled the denial of health insurance to millions of financially struggling people of color. Though the opportunity has not yet presented itself, the conservative movement from which Roberts sprung would see the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 destroyed as well.”

With regards to civil rights related cases, especially those involving the rights of African Americans, it is clear that our judicial system is completely rigged and set up in a way that would ensure that many of the gains made during the civil rights movement, would be eviscerated over time while racism continues to thrive. Smdh.

Source: Adam Serwer. “Sonia Sotomayor: Court’s Right Wing ‘Out Of Touch With Reality.’” msnbc. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sonia-sotomayor-slams-supreme-court-right-wing-race-matters.

almost near the 9,000 word limit for this petition for a writ of certiorari. off to a great start!! i know the republican appointed justices on the supreme court are not going to like it…and they comprise a 5-4 majority. *kanye shrug* lol.

“Beginning in the early 1980s and progressing through most of the first decade of the twenty-first century, judicial decisions relating to (1) the question whether a particular interlocutory arbitral decision was final or otherwise subject to immediate judicial review and (2) the effect functus officio principles had on those issues were highly divergent. With one recent exception, prior to the United States Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International, Corp., those decisions by lower federal courts were typically based on an assessment of the “finality” of the pertinent arbitral award or decision. The pre-Stolt-Nielsen decisions by lower federal courts nonetheless were marked by varying degrees of inconsistency and confusion, depending on the nature of the matter adjudicated in the interlocutory arbitral decision and, often, on which circuit — or which court within a particular circuit — was involved. The result for arbitrating parties and arbitrators was a lack of predictability following the issuance of interlocutory arbitral decisions, which sometimes were deemed final and subject to immediate judicial review and at other times were deemed preliminary in nature such that the arbitrators were not functus officio with respect to the matters decided.”

There was just something about the 80s and those three consecutive terms in which Republicans controlled the executive branch…

Source: James M. Gaitis. Finality, Ripeness, and Functus Officio: The Interlocutory Arbitral Award Conundrum. Journal of the ACCL. Vol. 7, No. 2. pg. 13. 2013.

“As Americans head to the polls this November, their values and basic beliefs are more polarized along partisan lines than at any point in the past 25 years. Unlike in 1987, when this series of surveys began, the values gap between Republicans and Democrats is now greater than gender, age, race or class divides.”

Source: “Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush, Obama Years: Trends in American Values: 1987-2012.” June 4, 2012. http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/partisan-polarization-surges-in-bush-obama-years/.