Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Obama Needs to Do More Than Swap Liberal Justices

By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive. Posted May 29, 2009.


While America dissects Sotomayor's appointment, little attention is paid to a troubling Supreme Court ruling.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Abortion Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Matthew Rothschild

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

While everyone’s talking about how the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor may affect the Supreme Court, we need to keep our eye on the current court — and on Obama’s arguments in there.

For on the same day that Obama nominated Sotomayor, the Court came down with a horrendous decision on a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

By a 5 to 4 vote, the Court said that a defendant who has already been appointed counsel may be interrogated by police without that counsel present.

Amazingly, Obama’s Justice Department argued in favor of the decision that Justice Scalia handed down. It said the 23-year-old precedent, Michigan v. Jackson, "serves no purpose."

Distressed, Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the Michigan decision, took the unusual move of reading his heated dissent aloud from the bench.

"The police interrogation in this case clearly violated petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel," he said, adding that the court, by overturning a previous Supreme Court ruling, engaged in a "gross undervaluation" of precedent.

Stevens made the unassailable point that "if a defendant is entitled to protection from police-initiated interrogation under the Sixth Amendment when he merely requests a lawyer, he is even more obviously entitled to such protection when he has secured a lawyer."

Sotomayor won’t shift the balance on such issues, since David Souter, whom she’s replacing, was also in the minority here.

But Obama needs to do more than just swap one liberal justice for another. He needs to make sure that his Justice Department goes into the Supreme Court to uphold the Bill of Rights, not undermine it.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: rights, obama, supreme court, hispanic, sotomayor, judge

Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Break out the rubber hoses!
Posted by: LoveAlex59 on May 29, 2009 10:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's next? Is the court going to rule that torture is ok to secure confessions! That the right to an attorney isn't really a right at all! We've already seen the watering down of such rights as Miranda, habeas corpus, protection from warrantless searches, and a slew of others! We had better demand that Obama's justice department reverse this trend or else we will lose something precious and dear to us all: our freedom!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about the "packed religious court"?
Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson on Jun 5, 2009 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are already five RW Catholics on the Supreme Court. Sotomayor will make six.

With another RW Catholic (not necessarily abortion but borders, amnesty, diversity, etc.) on the court that would be six out of nine judges.

They have the majority and it could be used to create a religious agenda for one religious group. Not "diverse" court at all.

There are already five RW Catholics on the Supreme Court. They would have the majority and it could be used to create a religious agenda for one religious group. Not diverse at all.

A Afro-American women, graudated from a public university law school (not elite Obama crony Yale or Harvard), who is a Atheist or Protestant would give more balance and "empthay"...diversity.

What does it tell our children when they go to public university? Private ones such as Yale and Harvard get the cream jobs with their tax dollars? Many public university law schools have excellant ratings, etc.

Our nation does not have a Catholic majority. Non-religious groups have no representative on the court. We are supposed to be "secular" and not support any religious group...this violates our Constitutional concept of Separation.

Judge Scalia had much discussion about his extreme Catholic views why not Judge Sotomayor?

I don't want her appointed for this and the LaRaza aganda. She is claims to be a moderate (between left and right). That is wrong. She's a "Centrist" which is a globalist Clinton and Bush style. They pushed her ahead for this vary position on our highest court.

Guess the media and our Senate leaders ignore our Constitution on this subject also.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement