wrote in message@4ax.com...
> "Nathan A. Barclay" wrote:

> Martin Garbus, a First Amendment expert and lawyer who has appeared
> before the U. S Supreme Court, argues that, "... this U.S. Supreme Court
is
> seizing power, and in doing so it is radically changing the law and this
> country. The Rehnquist Court rejects much of the last sixty-five years of
> America's constitutional law; rejects the balance between Congress, the
> Court, and the President; and rejects the form of our democracy that these
> cases established. It does so to protect entrenched interests at the
> expense of unpopular minorities. It attempts to justify its new position
by
> discarding prior cases and by looking to resurrect and reinterpret the
> Constitution as no other court has ever done. Instead of a balance of
> power, we have an attempt at judicial exclusivity at the expense of the
> Congress and 'We the People.' "175

This is an interesting absurdity. The Supreme Court refuses to exercise
power to control the actions of states or of other branches of the federal
government, and Mr. Garbus accuses it of "seizing power"? It looks to me
like the only power the Court is "seizing" in these cases is the power to
stop meddling as much as previous courts did. Thus, what the Court is doing
is not really seizing power at all, but rather relinquishing some pieces of
previously siezed power.

Archived from group: alt>parenting>spanking