Posted on 04/12/2010 5:56:36 AM PDT by rhema
Justice Stevens turned out to be one of those Republican appointees to the Court who “grew” during his tenure. That was nowhere more evident than in cases challenging the legality of racial preferences. Consider that in the landmark Bakke case (1978), Stevens wrote an opinion joined by three other justices finding that a medical school admissions quota violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Here is how he began that opinion:
Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, provides: "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
The University, through its special admissions policy, excluded Bakke from participation in its program of medical education because of his race. The University also acknowledges that it was, and still is, receiving federal financial assistance. . . . The plain language of the statute therefore requires affirmance of the judgment below. A different result cannot be justified unless that language misstates the actual intent of the Congress that enacted the statute or the statute is not enforceable in a private action.”
Justice Stevens went on to explain why “neither conclusion is warranted.” And in discussing the legislative history of Title VI, he noted “repeated assurances that the Act would be ‘colorblind’ in its application,” meaning that government may not say “yes” to one person, but “no” to another person, only because of the color of a person’s skin.
A year later in the Weber case the Court upheld a promotions quota challenged as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which forbids an employer from classifying employees on the basis of race. Justice Rehnquist filed a lengthy dissent making plain the statute’s meaning—namely that it is opposed to all discrimination “because of race.”
Stevens—for reasons unknown—didn’t participate in Weber. Maybe he had already started to grow. Eight years later in the Johnson case the Court upheld a public employer’s decision to hire on another ground forbidden by Title VII (sex). Concurring in the Court’s opinion, Stevens conceded that the Court had now interpreted the Civil Rights Act (meaning both Title VI and Title VII) “in a fundamentally different way” from the “absolute blanket prohibition against discrimination” that was its original meaning.
“The only problem for me is whether to adhere to an authoritative construction of the Act that is at odds with my understanding of the actual intent of the authors of the legislation. I conclude without hesitation that I must answer that question in the affirmative,” Stevens wrote. If you’re looking for a definition of judicial activism, there it is—the subordination of legislation intent to what the judges say.
Someone please answer why justices appointed by Republicans end up like this fool and Souter etc. but Democratic appointees are true to the core. Imagine what this country could look like today if Stevens, Souter, O’Conner, and Kennedy would have been real Conservatives.
Souter had a hidden agenda from the get-go. Stevens seemed to start out closer to the middle, but eventually succumbed to the Beltway mentality.
The only relatively recent SCOTUS justice I can recall who turned out to be more conservative than originally thought (on SOME issues) was Whizzer White.
Whizzer, who appointed by JFK, seems to have remained what he was when he was appointed: a liberal Democrat as defined in 1960.
No more Ersatz Krytocrats
An invading army could not do more damage to our society than a single tyrant on the Supreme Court.
Yup, he is the only one that history records. Liberalism is the easy decision, you don’t get marxists making fun of you when you join their team. People have to be made of stern stuff to remain true to conservatism; cowards “grow” in office.
Republicans nominate and vote for people with credentials. Democrats nominate and vote for people with long, public records of pro-abortion activism.
Howard Phillips warned Orrin Hatch that Souter was pro-abortion. Phillips also made the utterly reasonable observation that a pro-abortion person is a person of evil character, and thus was/is unqualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
Hatch rejected Phillips’s commonsense observation. Hatch took the position that “there are good people on both sides of this issue” of tearing babies to shreds.
As long as Republicans take the position that people who promote tearing babies to pieces are “good people,” they will continue to vote as they do—for nominees with public records of pro-abortion activism, and conservatives who “grow” on the Court.
Tyrant, no, Mr. Justice Stevens seems to think of himself as a modern Solomon.
“Dotty” is more like it.
Whizzer voted in opposition to Roe vs Wade. He was a terrific appointment.
He characterized the decision as a raw exercise in judicial power. Fact is that Black would have voted against it, and Blacks was on balance much more liberal than Blackmun.
The above is no longer the law of the land. Stevens and like minded fellows illegally removed it from our Bill of Rights.
What does such criminality have to do with Solomon?
Solomon was an oriental despot.
And even towards the end, he'd occasionally say or do something sane.
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.