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
ha, ha. I thought that line was the best.
But, Hillary, its for the children.
Yep--she would have gotten the same reaction if she addressed the FRiva Las Vegas meeting. Do you think she would come if invited to give a speach against judicial activism?
No... what's disturbing is that she finds this disturbing...
Hillary, oh Hillary please pick me, please pick me
Hillary: "Yes sir"
Me: "Oh Queen, who picked all the supreme court justices since 1992??
Hillary: "Shut-up you FJB"
It would be contrary to what our forefathers established.
Tell us what the solution is Hillary??
Make them forefathers roll over in their graves!!
Sac
So did she and her husband.
As well they should Hillary. It's not activism to try to RETURN to a previous level of the general government's power. I would fathom to guess that a good 70% of the federal laws passed in the last 130 or so years have no Constitutional basis whatsoever
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
So states that actually want to follow the Constitution are bad and those powers should be held in check, but states that want to further your socialist agenda no matter what damage is done to the Constitution are good. Thanks for just coming right out in the open there Hillary. I can't talk much longer though. Her power grab partner Giddy Dolt will be in office soon and just like their husbands I imagine they'll just do everything together. Isn't that swell?!?!
Uh, Hillary? The "administration" of laws (enactment and enforcement) is conducted by the legislative and executive branches of the government. Not the judiciary. In the case of Bush v. Gore, SCOFLA was the body that "stripped" the powers of its coequals. SCOTUS rectified that.
Hillary indeed.
This trailor-trash twit has all the trappings one finds wound about the neck of a hillbilly marxist traitor!
Sac
Now, to exend that logic would mean that ALL Presidential Ballots must be consistent throughout the nation, but the Supremes in Dec. 2000 made it clear that their decision concerned only the current set of facts before them.
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!
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.