Posted on 07/24/2002 9:19:09 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
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.
___
On the Net:
American Constitution Society site: www.americanconstitutionsociety.org
Clinton, a Democrat from New York, criticized the court's recent trend of 5-4 cases that have favored state power over federal control.
I would suggest she needs to be sent THOUSANDS of copies of the Constitution! Deluge her with The Bill of Rights! Send letters urging her take some advanced studies on The Founders and American History.
Oh hell.....never mind. She IS the woman who described the Constitution as being OLD.......something that should be subject to periodic updates. Sigh.
The thought of Hillary as president again scares me.
No... what's disturbing is that she finds this disturbing...
I agree Chad. This statement stood out glaringly to me as well.
She understands all right; that's why she and her Democreep friends are waging this war on the electoral college. Her incessant whining about going to a popular vote combined with the policy of instant citizenship for all the illegals they let through points to a grand design against our Constitution.
Hillary wants to control America through the Third World States of America that her husband endeavored so hard to create. Load up the country with people who will vote Democrat in exchange for, err, economic incentives, put a popular vote into place, and to hell with the states. Especially the smaller ones.
I live in a state that is more populous than most (Pennsylvania), however, I wouldn't trade the Electoral College for Hillary's system, even if I thought it would bring some advantage to myself.
Hillary doesn't care about that, hence her never ending attacks on the individual states. She's not concerned in the least about the welfare of this country, about its' stability; all she cares about is Hillary, and how Hillary might gain more power. How Hillary can trash this great country and its ideals and its Constitution, if it amounts to some gain for Hillary.
The woman is a megalomaniac, an elitist pig who thinks the universe revolves around herself
Hillary knows exactly what she is doing. She is a threat to this country, our Constitution, our people, and our stability.
The only time the mention of the Hildebeast's name wouldn't imply a "barf alert" is if the word immediately following her name is "died."
Just for the hell of it, I like to see a bunch of Southern states prohibit black people from voting -- we'll see how enthusiastic she is about giving states the power to administer their own laws.
:-)
But of course...
They meant liberal Earl Warren, not conservative Warren Burger. The media makes this "mistake" all the time.
I'm sure you can find Hillary's vision for America in her college thesis. Unfortunately, her thesis has been sealed so that her own words can be kept from the public. Hmmm....I wonder what she had to say about America...
She continues to call our President selected instead of elected because she cannot believe that even the DNC's CHEATING did not allow them to WIN---even when the major networks joined in and called the Florida race while the POLLS WERE STILL OPEN in the western parts of the state (costing an estimated 37,000 conservative votes!). Had this not happened-Flordia's winner would not have even been contested!
Besides-HELLARY is using the old twisted DNC handbook practice of calling your OPPONENTS what you yourself are! ie-liberal judges are activists, conservative judges are known for adhering to the actual WORDS of the United States Constitution!
Another example-does anyone every think that Judge Starr was a man who was ever, for one second, out of control during his entire life? LOL. Of course not. But billy klinton? Now there is coward who has been out of control his ENTIRE LIFE without a doubt.
Hillary is depending on the katie colics (not known for ethical reporting), peter jennings, danny rathers and tommy brokaws (noses deep in the klinton's you know whats) to REPORT to america that conservative judges are activist judges...to TWIST the truth....in order to discredit innocent, honest, terrific people who are seeking bench positions in our Federal courts.
Shame on hellary.
It is difficult to imagine anyone going lower than this snake will slither to win. I am so sad she sits in our senate-a place already full of decadent men and women willing to keep an intern boinking, disgraced, perjured filthy pig in office when the house had impeached him, most honorably.
BTW, the Rush show I saw earlier this month was AWESOME!!!
Just wait 'til 2004. You ain't seen nuthin' yet.
We are going to have to go on the offensive. Big time. The sooner the better.
I would imagine some tribunal headed by her, Ira Magaziner, Noam Chomsky, Susan Thomases, etal. to prosecute us and send us to Pol Pot re-education camps for the "sin" (of course, that would not be the word used since it constitutes religion) of possessing conservative thoughts.
But I miss the poster who used to have the uncanny knack of posting all the DNC activities regarding the speaking engagements of creeps such as billy klinton, hillbilly klinton and other major domo lying anti-American nutcases. We used to manage to get some pretty well attended FReeps together to counter their lying messages.
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.