Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Justice Ginsburg’s Terrifying Assessment of the Roberts SCOTUS

Posted 10 years ago on Aug. 27, 2013, 4:17 a.m. EST by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Justice Ginsburg’s Terrifying Assessment Of Her Own Court

By Ian Millhiser on August 26, 2013 at 9:00 am

[Another reason to Vote this midterm 2014 ~ 2010 never again!]

In an interview with the New York Times’ Adam Liptak, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg offered a grim assessment of the Court where she so often finds herself leading a four justice dissent — the Roberts Court is “one of the most activist courts in history.”

As an historic matter, this is a pretty staggering claim. The Supreme Court in 1905 handed down a decision called Lochner v. New York that is now widely taught in American law schools as an example of how judges should never, ever behave. Lochner treated any law improving workplace conditions or helping workers to obtain an adequate wage as constitutionally suspect. And Lochner was hardly an anomalous moment in the Court’s history.

Thirteen years after Lochner the Supreme Court struck down federal child labor laws in a decision that is also widely taught as an example of inexcusable judicial activism. In 1895, the Supreme Court rendered the country virtually powerless against monopolies and other powerful combinations of corporate power, and then it held an income tax on the wealthiest Americans unconstitutional just a few months later. The Supreme Court has, with rare exception, been a largely malign force in American history.

There is, however, one important way in which the Roberts Court is distinguishable from the Courts that decided cases such as Lochner. Laws such as the Sherman Antitrust Act and the first federal ban on child labor arose as lawmakers were struggling with many of the negative side effects of the Industrial Revolution. The birth of the railroad and the dawn of mass production massively improved the American standard of living, but they also enabled monopolists to thrive and they resulted in mass exploitation of the working class. The Supreme Court in this era did not so much tear down established rights as it stood for a status quo that favored capital over labor and the rich over the rest of the nation.

The Roberts Court, by contrast, has actively rolled back existing laws protecting workers, women and people of color. The Nineteenth Century Supreme Court blocked America’s first meaningful efforts at racial equality, but the Roberts Court stole from minority voters rights that they had enjoyed for decades. The Lochner Court strangled basic protections for workers in their crib, but the Roberts Court takes fully matured protections for workers and carves them up a piece at a time. And, while Lochner Era courts acted out in the open, undermining human rights in published opinions. the Roberts Court pushes an alternative, corporate-run arbitration system that operates largely in secret.

None of this is to say that the world we live in now is worse than the world our great-grandparents lived in under the Lochner Court — if the Roberts Court’s goal is to bring us back to this era, they are currently shy at least one vote. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court is unusually willing to take from ordinary Americans rights they have enjoyed for a very long time. The Supreme Court has a long history of standing athwart history yelling stop. This Supreme Court, however, wants to shift history into reverse.

12 Comments

12 Comments


Read the Rules

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 10 years ago

And whatever truth they proclaim, the opposite is TRUE!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

the opposition to support the other party is all that matters

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 10 years ago

As long as we learn the consequences of elections!

Bush-Cheney: Worst Presidency ever.

Roberts SCOTUS: Worst SCOTUS ever.

Consequences: Greatest robbery of life and treasure in human history. Citezens United, Gutting of the Voters Rights Act, Anti-Labor decisions like Knox v. SEIU Local 1000 & much much more.

2010 never again.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

In an interview with the New York Times’ Adam Liptak, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg offered a grim assessment of the Court where she so often finds herself leading a four justice dissent — the Roberts Court is “one of the most activist courts in history.”

Be "that" as it may - activism is not necessarily a bad thing - it is the reasoning behind the activism and the intent and the goals achieved that make the difference.

So saying - her statement stopped far short of where it should have continued to:

The Roberts Court is “one of the most activist courts in history.” Activist in supporting the wealthy and the corporate over the general population. and the overall health and "well"fare well-being of this country and in extension THE WORLD.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 10 years ago

Insidious Conservatitus. Wouldn't be prudent to venture into such "scornful criticism." It's unheard of and wonderful she said anything remotely critical at all. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, tell a friend.

Elections having consequences rears its ugly fucking head yet again!

2010 Never EVER Again!

"Equi donati dentes non inspiciuntur." -S66

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Might not be prudent - but it would be brave as well as true.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 10 years ago

Jeez, how much more bravery do you want from a very old Supreme Court Justice? I'd like her to tie the Royal Five's shoelaces together, but it ain't gonna happen. Up until she came out, this was not a story with legs.

Let's learn the real lesson here: VOTE in all elections, even midterms!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Jeez, how much more bravery do you want from a very old Supreme Court Justice?

Well - ummm - I am not sure you have considered your perspective in that comment.

What I mean to say - is - she has lived a long life - she has made many achievements - what does she have to lose at this point in her life? - yes all life is precious and no one wants to give it up. But don't you think that as one nears the end of their life - that it should be easier to be brave in the things one does? That it is not a bad time to make a monumental attempt at something good? Something to really make a difference - for good. Don't ya?

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 10 years ago

Thank Darwin she didn't plead the 5th or claim she "Had no recollection," and revealed the filthy RW agenda of the Roberts Court, from the inside. You act like she hasn't had a long career of doing good things that make a difference and help progress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg