Sunday, July 27, 2014

It is time we accept judicial activism defines the Roberts Court and stop pretending otherwise.  You know what, you cannot reverse a pending botched execution?  The Cruel and Unusual Punishment suffered by the executed inmate during the process, is not subject to reversal.  What you can reverse after full review of the case is the order to stop the execution.
Another thing you cannot reverse is the emotional damage done to couples who are being told they have a constitutional right to marry, but then being told they have to wait up to two years for the Supreme Court to agree with all of the appellate and trial ruling in favor of equality in marriage.  You can reverse the marriages and void them.
What both of these cases show is the US Supreme Court for ideological reasons has abandon the irreparable injury rule needed before they will intervene in a case prior to a formal Petition for Writ of Certiorari [the actual formal appeal], in favor of ideology. 
The Arizona death penalty case is the most egregious and clearly shows how ideology now trumps well established law.
"(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday vacated a stay of execution for an Arizona inmate who had sued the state demanding more information about the drugs that will be used in the lethal injection procedure he faces."  This is dated July 22, 2012
"Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer ordered a review of the state's execution process after a convicted double murderer gasped and snorted for more than an hour and a half before his death Wednesday."
This is not about the death penalty.  It is clearly constitutional.  The issue is, the appellate court stopped the execution so this man's lawyers could develop the case that the drugs Arizona wanted to use were bad.  The evidence is now undisputed - the drugs were bad and all executions were halted.
Had the Supreme Court followed its own long held rule that without an irreparable injury it would not get involved in a case until the appeal formally reached the court, the torture this man suffered never would have happened.
The juridical methodology employed by the Court in Applications for Stay is well established.  The Court ignored their own rule in favor of an ideological result.  The Faux conservatives remain silent because the result serves their ideology.  There is nothing more dangerous to our liberties than a judicially active Supreme Court ignoring it long held rules in favor of an ideological result.  Nothing now stops this majority from doing anything it wants in an arbitrary and capricious way.
Judge after judge, even at  the appellate level has found marriage inequality is unconstitutional.  The ideologically driven Court has chosen without any irreparable injury finding for the States to reverse on an interim basis every trial and appellate decision on the issue.  To do this they used the rarely used Application for Stay Pending Appeal to the Court of Appeals or Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
These couples can never get back the time they lost waiting.  If the states win, all of the marriages are voided and the state suffers no injury.
In some ways the contempt for law and our liberties is even more egregious in the marriage equality cases.  We know we have the votes to win the issue at the Supreme Court level.  So why did the Supreme Court issue an order of stay to stop all gay marriages in the involved states? 
The answer is simple - deal making.  These scumbags who have nothing but contempt for our constitution - and this means all 9 justices [there's a joke lol].  In deference to Associate Justice Kennedy even the so called Liberals are remaining silent on this one.  Why?  Associate Justice Kennedy is using his swing vote power to satisfy the conservatives so he can get them to deal with him on close cases, and the liberals are remaining silent because they too need to accommodate Associate Justice Kennedy.  What a wonderful way to deal with human rights.  Both sides need Associate Justice Kennedy so both sides play his little power game to the detriment of our human  rights.
Every scholar of U.S. Supreme Court juridical methodology knows this is happening, but out of fear of being denied access to the Court they remain silent.  Fear of retaliation for their mythical free speech keeps them silent.

No comments: