Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Gore & The Supreme Court

US Supreme Court, 2000

In the Election of 2000, Al Gore won the “Popular Vote” 50,999,897 to 50,456,002, 48.38% to 47.87%, by a margin of 543,895, or 0.51% of the vote. However, he lost Florida by 547 votes. Consequently Florida’s 25 Electoral College votes were awarded to Bush and Gore lost the election in the Electoral College 271 to 266 – by five votes. Had he won Florida votes he would also have won the Electoral College Vote, but the Supreme Court intervened, ruled that there was no time for a recount, (see wikipedia entry, here) therefore George W. Bush had won in Florida, and that Mr. Bush, therefore, was elected President by the Electoral College. But what if Gore had won a decisive majority in the Electoral College? What if our elections were determined by the popular vote? What if the election of 2000 had been called for Gore?  (Source: Federal Election Commission, FEC, Presidential Election, 2000, Official Results.

What kind of jurists would a President Gore have appointed to the Supreme Court?

Presidents tend to appoint justices who agree with them on political philosophy. Notable exceptions were Warren Burger, appointed by President Eisenhower, and David Souter, appointed by President G. H. W. Bush.

George W Bush appointed Samuel Alito and John Roberts, to the Supreme Court. These men typically join with Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas, and they typically find in favor of corporations and the government rather than individual citizens.

Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. They typically find in favor over individuals rather than corporations or the government. Barack Obama appointed Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who typically agree with Breyer and Ginsburg. Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor have occasionally forged majorities with Kennedy and Roberts.

As President, Al Gore would have probably have appointed jurists like Kagan and Sotomayor who tend to find in agreement with Ginsburg and Breyer. He might have appointed Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court. He probably would have appointed justices with a comprehensive understanding of environmental law and the reasons why we need tough protections on the environment.

We saw these patterns in the decisions on Citizens United and Florence v Burlington, described by me as “Landmark Mistakes of the Supreme Court” (here). These were decided by Chief Justice Roberts, and Associate Justices Alito, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas in the majority and Associate Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor in the minority.  The decision on the Affordable Care Act, aka “Obamacare,” was made by Chief Justice Roberts, with Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor.

Justices appointed by a President Gore would probably have found in favor of Albert Florence, in Florence v Burlington, that the Fourth Amendment should be understood to bar strip-searches of people arrested for minor offenses not involving drugs or violence, unless officials had a reasonable suspicion that they were carrying contraband. In Citizens United, they probably would have found that citizens and groups may not spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcome of elections.

The practical implications those rulings – that police, after reading an apprehended suspect his or her rights in accord with the Miranda decision, can strip-search him or her, and that anyone and corporations can spend unlimited amounts to influence the outcome of elections, suggest that the (human) Citizens of the Republic would be better served with one or two more Justices who would tend to rule in favor of the rights and liberties of (human) citizens rather than the powers of corporations and the state.

In the recent decision on the Affordable Care Act, aka, “ObamaCare” judges appointed by a President Gore might have found, like Chief Justice Roberts, the law Constitutional under the taxing provision of the Constitution. On the other hand, they might have ruled that the laws establishing Medicare for Seniors, Medicaid for the poor, and the Veterans Health Administration must be expanded, because they are discriminatory against non-veterans who do not qualify for Medicare and Medicaid, and that these programs must be combined to create a “Citizens Health Administration” or “Medicare for All,” which would guarantee all Americans access to basic medical care.

Neither Presidents Clinton, Bush, or Obama, or any of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court were reached in the preparation of this post.  Observations by current or former Presidents, Justices of the Supreme Court or justices in other courts would be welcome.

As an analyst with Popular Logistics, I am available for research and analysis on a per project or a per diem basis. I can be reached at ‘L Furman 97” @ G Mail . com.

Justice Scalia on the Second Amendment

US Supreme Court Justice Antonin ScaliaJustice Antonin Scalia, interviewed on Fox News, talking about the July 20, 2012, massacre Aurora, Colorado, said,

Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand carried. It’s to ‘keep and bear’ so it doesn’t apply to cannons but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be decided…. My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that society had at the time.

The segment can be watched here, on YouTube. Continue reading

Landmark Mistakes of the Supreme Court, Part 2

Fred Korematsu as a young man

If Dred Scott, Citizen’s United, and Florence v Burlington are the three worst decisions by the United States Supreme Court, (post here) then Korematsu v United States, Dec. 18, 1944, Plessy v Ferguson, May 18, 1896 are next in line.

In Korematsu v United States, decided Dec. 18, 1944, the Supreme Court upheld Executive Order 9066, authorizing the internment of all Americans of Japanese ancestry. Mr. Korematsu is biographed here.

Plessy v Ferguson, decided on May 18, 1896, enabled segregation. This was overruled by Brown v Bd. of Education, May 17, 1954, with the now famous observation that “separate but equal is inherently unequal.”

Landmark Mistakes by the US Supreme Court

Dred Scott

Dred Scott

Worst Three Decisions by the US Supreme Court: Dred Scott, Citizen’s United, and Florence v Burlington.  Dred Scott reinforced slavery – and led to the Civil War. Citizen’s United puts really, really big money in politics – think Mr. Gingrich’s sugar daddy with his $10 million in PAC-Gingrich, and leads to what we have today. Florence allows the police to strip search anyone they arrest.

The good news and is that these decisions force us to recognize that the Justices of the Supreme Court are fallible men and women who sometimes make decisions emotionally and or based on their perceived financial interest, as the five members of the Taney court whos families owned slaves and who voted for slavery.  This is also the bad news. The really bad news is that two out of three of these landmark mistakes occurred since January, 2010.

Looking with a long term perspective, the Dred Scott decision was overturned by the 14th Amendment.  Roger B. Taney and the other six justices who voted for slavery and against freedom are history. Their names are generally not remembered.  Similarly, Citizen’s United and Florence can, should, and someday will be overturned. Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas will someday join Roger B. Taney in the history books.

I am not a lawyer. But the Constitution is written for the citizens, not the citizens who are also lawyers.

Continue reading

Alternative fuels safer, and the law

In April of 2007, the Supreme Court ruled the federal Environmental Protection Agency must regulate carbon emissions unless it presents scientific proof that greenhouse gases do not contribute to global climate change. On Nov. 13, the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board ruled it would do so. We need alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear power, if for no other reason than to obey the law.

Traditional hydroelectric plants harness the energy in waterfalls. New designs harness the energy in tides, waves and ocean currents. Wind farms harness wind energy. Solar energy systems harness sunlight. Geothermal systems use heat from within the earth.

The sun will shine and the wind will blow regardless of the presence of solar panels and wind turbines. By harnessing a process rather than consuming a resource, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and other clean, renewable, sustainable technologies generate power without fuels, and without greenhouse gases, mercury, radioactive wastes, other pollutants and without the cost of fuel.

Saving the shore from global warming will help the economy. And it’s the law.

This was published as a letter to the editor in the Asbury Park Press, Friday, 12/5/2008.