Posted on 07/24/2002 9:11:42 AM PDT by SpinyNorman
Hillary Clinton says presidential election case example of Supreme Court gone awry
Tue Jul 23,10:48 PM ET
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The 2000 presidential election case between George W. Bush and Al Gore ( news - web sites) is an example of a hypocritical Supreme Court majority that broadens the rights of states only when it serves conservative ends, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton ( news - web sites) said.
Clinton, a Democrat from New York, criticized the court's recent trend of 5-4 cases that have favored state power over federal control. The case that ended Florida ballot recounts in the disputed 2000 presidential election was also a 5-4 vote, but it stripped a state of power to administer its own laws, the former first lady said.
"Perhaps even more disturbing than the court's impulse to defend state and local prerogatives is the selectivity of that impulse," Clinton told an audience of law students, lawyers and judges at the liberal American Constitution Society Tuesday.
States win the power struggle when they want to claim immunity from civil rights lawsuits or get tough on criminals, but not when they want to limit cigarette ads, help fund legal help for poor people, or "follow their own election laws," Clinton said.
The Bush v. Gore case centered on whether a fair recount could be done under Florida election law and still give the state time to have its electors included in the Electoral College ( news - web sites).
Clinton called the court led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist "one of the most activist, if not the most activist, Supreme Court ever in American history."
Conservatives, including President George W. Bush ( news - web sites), have criticized "judicial activism," or the substitution of a judge's own views for established law. Conservatives have pointed to the civil rights-era decisions of the court under Chief Justice Warren Burger as examples of such activism.
Critics on the left have countered, as Clinton did Tuesday, that activism is often in the eye of the beholder.
While the court has the power to strike down federal laws, it has been historically reluctant to do so, Clinton noted.
The Warren court struck down federal laws in about 20 cases over 16 years, she said. The Rehnquist court, in the last eight terms alone, has done so in 32 cases. Eleven of those were states' rights cases in which the state prevailed, and many of those involved states trying to avoid "enforcement of civil rights guaranteed by federal law," Clinton said.
"In addition to installing an American president, the current Supreme Court has invalidated federal laws at the most astounding rate in our nation's history," Clinton said to applause and laughter.
http://www.americanconstitutionsociety.org/
Administer, not make up as you go along.
Her and her perverted, whatever she wishes to call him, have discrased this great country with their perverted, lying actions that it will be a long time to get rig of the foul smell.
She has done nothing for this great country except to cause it put up with 8 years of one pervision after another. She has stuck with her perverted husband, in name only, just to benifit herself. Their marrige is a joke and yet she exspects people to pity her and reap praise on her for sticking with pervert willie. I would call her stupid and a glutton for punishment.
The only relief we, the voters of the U.S.A., have to correct the abuses heaped upon us by our elected officials is to vote them out of office before they declare themselves elected for life.
In closing all I can say is:
"AMERICA, IT'S TIME TO TAKE OUT THE TRASH"
Is it not possible that the Congress has been enacting more unconstitutional federal laws than at any time in history?
Perhaps, just maybe, the problem lies with the Congress for a change, not with everyone else.
I guess the senator has never read the 10th Amendment. Too bad she feels the Constitution is unconstitutional. Thank God her husband did not appoint her to the Supreme Court! This woman is an imbecile!
I have an issue with the SCOTUS ruling, namely that I think applying equal protection was both unnecessary and left them open to charges of judicial activism. It would have been best to simply rely on McPherson and the U.S. Code and keep sending it back to ScoFla until they all got the hint (three of them did the second time around, including Chief Justice Wells) - and if they didn't get the hint in a timely matter, then let the Florida legislature handle things.
Which they failed to do,resulting in Katherine Harris following the law,algore bringing in David Boies,who was completely outclassed by a Superior Lawyer named James A. Baker the 3rd.The SCOTUS was correct.The fact that the SCoFLA. chose to make up their own interpretation of the law and extend the date and time of counting votes,while being publicly scolded by the SCOTUS,is frankly, really embarrassing.How they can live w/ themselves (and still go to work each day)is beyond me.The fact that a roomful of students had to listen to Shrillary spout her doctrine is also offensive to me.
James Baker completely outclassed Warren Christopher, but I don't think that he represented Bush in Bush v. Moron.
It's obvious to me that this is a weather balloon for 2004. She thinks that the gripes of hard-core Democrats about the 2000 Election might project her up the rankings past Daschle, Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman, and Kerry.
You would think that an organization named "American CONSTITUTION Society" would be wise enough to know that the Consititution EXPRESSLY protects state and local prerogatives. Excepting the LIMITED duties extended to the "federal" government (today it's a "national" government), the "federal" government has NO POWER over the states. The "federal" government has NO POWER to tell a state what it's smoking laws should be, what it's affirmative action laws should be (and that they should exist).
If all power were vested into a national government, what need would there be for state governments? And where would one go if one were opposed to the dictates of that government? The founders created a FEDERAL government for a reason, and we need to bring REAL FEDERALISM back to this country.
Dumb enough, certainly, but she can steal a lot more money as a Senator.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.