The Next 25 Years: The New Supreme Court and What It Means for Americans

Tonight I heard an extraordinary interview on The Peter B. Collins Show with Martin Garbus, one of the best trial lawyers in the country, called America’s “most prominent First Amendment lawyer” by Newsweek, the National Law Journal and other media. Garbus discussed his new book, The Next 25 Years: The New Supreme Court and What It Means for Americans (at BuzzFlash Premium). Just this week we have seen how this US Supreme Court has already placed ideology over medical science. This interview scared the crap out of me, looking forward to how this court will affect our society over a generation or more.

Garbus believes this court will move right in future litigation, as a "means an end to integrated education.... an extraordinary amount of money going into the churches via the federal government... environmental protection... expansion of the rights of the states against the federal government... serious inroads into other decisions of the Warren Court and the Roosevelt Court. It also means an extraordinary limitation on the one-man, one-vote principle, which was articulated by the Supreme Court back in 1962."

From Roe v. Wade to Brown v. Board of Education to gwb's "Faith-Based Initiatives", Garbus paints a picture of a hard-right Supreme Court that may affect our legal system and society for a generation or more, citing the youngest three being 51, 56 & 57 years old.

Here's an interview at BuzzFlash covering most of the same topics:
Famed Attorney Martin Garbus Reveals the Horrors Ahead from a Winger Supreme Court
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Sat, 03/31/2007

~a short snip~
The idea of the faith-based initiative is that a religious organization agrees to do something that federal or state organizations generally do, like taking care of the homeless, or taking care of children. The law had always been that religious organizations getting federal or state monies could not use the funds to proselytize their religion. If they were giving the same services as the federal or state government, the church or the synagogue or the mosque could get those monies. They were doing a state service.

But the faith-based initiative now permits the churches to take the money and then proselytize. If the Salvation Army has a program for the homeless, they can make as a condition of the person getting a home that they be exposed to X number of hours of prayer meetings. It permits the Salvation Army or any other faith the right to, let’s say, put up crosses or Stars of David throughout their building. Buildings, which have been secular, or non-denominational, now become church organizations. The amount of money that is going into these organizations is absolutely extraordinary.

Garbus indicated he now has a case in front of the Supreme Court against the Salvation Army's proselytizing and job hiring under the "Faith-Based Initiative", which he predicts will LOSE, based on the composition of the SCOTUS now. Those of you who see the Military Commissions Act, the illegal NSA wire-tapping or any number of "Unitary Executive" decisions making it to the Supremes to be shot down there may be in for a reality check.

Here's an interview on DEMOCRACY NOW!
Attorney Martin Garbus on “The New Supreme Court and What It Means for Americans”
Monday, February 12th, 2007

AMY GOODMAN: Your first chapter, Martin Garbus, “The President Against the People.” How?

MARTIN GARBUS: I think ultimately what the court is also going to do is they're going to extend the whole question of the unitary presidency. They're going to give Bush, or whatever president follows, a great deal of power. Roberts and Alito, again, and Scalia and Thomas believe that the president has sole control over foreign affairs, that the president, as commander-in-chief, gets all kind of powers, and with respect to the past decisions that we've had, with Guantanamo, etc., you had O'Connor there, who was basically a ballast, and I think you're going to find the court making very, very different decisions now with respect to Iraq-related issues.

Here's a item penned by Martin Garbus on the Huffington Post:
The Roberts Court's Dramatic Rightward Shift
July 10, 2006

The first year of the Roberts Court saw Kennedy help push a sharp right shift, not only in the cases the Court decided but also in the cases the Court decided to hear in the 2006-2007 term. Abortion and affirmative action cases were put on the calendar for Roberts' second year. There is little doubt about the outcome in each of the cases previously decided on these issues.

During the PBC interview Garbus also talks about "activist" judges, what constitutes "standing" in the "Roberts Court", previous judicial "precedent" and more.

Remember, the vote to confirm Roberts was 78-22 and the vote to confirm Alito was 58-42. Plenty of Dems voted YEA on both. And with their votes our society will be affected by the "Roberts Court" for a generation or more. Ginsburg is 74 and Stevens is 87 so it's possible gwb will have the opportunity to appoint more conservatives to the SCOTUS.

As Garbus explains in the BuzzFlash interview, "Most of the twelve circuit courts are solidly in the hands of the conservatives. The only two circuit courts that are not yet solidly conservative are the federal court in Manhattan -- the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals -- and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in California. The Bush Congress had threatened to break up the 9th Circuit, thus isolating liberal judges and making them less meaningful. The other thing is that the Supreme Court is taking fewer and fewer cases. They’ve already dropped to about 130 a year, and this year they’ll probably take only sixty. That means the basic laws of the land will be in large part interpreted by the circuit court judges."

Listen to the PBC interview with Martin Garbus at the White Rose Society - mp3 audio 0:33 into the show.

Garbus concludes, "I don't know that we're going to regain (our Constitutional rights) in the next 25 years."

Have I mentioned yet just how much I HATE those people?

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
--Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Shoot me now.