Skip to main content

Look, I'm not a Constitutional Law Professor, I only play one on Monday nights at a local law school.  And I don't pretend to have any kind of neutral, non-baised take on what happens in those hallowed halls.  As far as I can tell, it's mostly a BYOB frat party.

I have two favorite stories from teaching Con Law to the poor pathetic souls who file in at 6 pm on Mondays to my class.  The first is about former Chief Justice William Rehnquist.  I don't hate the guy.  Granted, while Thurgood Marshall spent his pre-Supremes days arguing Brown v Bd of Education on behalf of the NCAAP, Billy Boy spent his pre-Supremes day with a bullhorn outside Arizona polling places trying to convince Latino votes that they'd all go to IRS hell if they voted, and, really, that's pretty much all you need to know about the difference between the two.

But one interesting fact about Chief Justice Bill (besides his decision to pimp himself to RMN in exchange for appointment) is his really interesting decision in the Virginia Pharmacy case on commercial speech for First Amendment rights.  On the one hand, you had the folks on the Supremes willing to give commercial (that is, business) speech some little amount of Constitutional protection.  On the other hand, you had Bill -- interestingly enough -- advocating for zero protection for commercial speech, especially for pharmacies.  His argument, and it wasn't a bad one, is that because pharmacies peddled drugs -- some of which were painkillers -- they didn't really need any extra protections and allowing them to advertise lower prices might actually encourage folks to abuse painkillers.  The rest of the Court seemed a little taken aback by that.  So what?  It's free speech babies -- everybody ought to have access to equal info.

Interesting thing was...turns out Chief Justice Bill Rehnquist had himself quite a little predilection for painkillers and knew damn well the dangers of letting folks know where you could get that stuff cheaper.  No one else on the Court really knew that.  Bill ended up in rehab, and if you want to read about it, check out Jeffrey Toobin's "The Nine" for some great Sup Ct gossip.  

I got nothing bad to say about Bill's perspective.  Sounds right to me.  From his perspective, commercial speech out not be provided any real protections at all -- as opposed to political speech -- which deserves full on protection b/c it's integral to the functioning of our democracy -- or at least our republic form of democracy.

God I miss those guys.  Say what you will about Bill and his bull horn outside Arizona polling places, or Sandra D and her role as a Goldwater Girl -- these folks actually gave a shit about the Constitution and wanted to make sure that the protections that were provided in that document remained true today.

Our fuckwads on the Court today could care less.  The recent decision on Title V of the Voting Rights Act is an abject disgrace.  Even Bill -- wacked out on Vicodin.  Even Sandra Dee -- from Stanford, Arizona and Barry G.  Even folks like Lewis Powell and Warren Burger.  None of them would have signed on to this shite.  

Conservatives used to complain about the kinds of judges who would simply overturn democratically elected decisions for their own ideological goals.  Fair enough.  Laws criminalizing birth control.  Struck down.  Lucks criminalizing abortion.  Stuck down.  Luck segregating schools and public places.  Struck down. Laws criminalizing inter-racial marriage.  Struck down.  All these laws -- passed by the representatives of the people -- in the ideal manner of republican for democracy -- all struck down by an "activist" court which purported to know better than the people.  I got it.  I get it.  There's  a principled basis for that criticism.

What happened today is a conservative court that crapped on that whole concept.  And I'm disgusted.  Not surprised.  Just disgusted.  And I think Sandra D, and (if he were alive) Bill R and Lewis P and Harry B (who, btw, voted agains the Pentagon Papers case), all would agree.  Let alone my judicial heroes -- William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren and William O Douglas.

Don't ever let anyone -- Rose Perot, Rand Paul, Ralph Nader.  Don't let anyone tell you that election's don't matter, that Democrats are the same as Republicans.  We saw the difference today..

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I blame Thomas & Nader & people who voted (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gffish, JSW from WA, edrie

    For Nader in FL.

    FUCK YOU!

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 05:09:29 PM PDT

  •  This is a day of terrible sadness for this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gffish, eztempo

    nation.  The gutting of the Voting Rights Act is a major burden placed on all of us and more so on Black, Hispanic and Asians and all those who will again be subjected to voter suppression, intimidation, and lies by duly elected officials of various governmental bodies with the motive being to stop us from voting.  How long will bigots and their allies be allowed to run over the Constitution like it is used toilet paper?  When will we stop persecuting Black people in particular and look for ways to shut them down from voting.  Chief Justice Thomas is now the Chief Bigot of the Supreme Court.  Keep up the good work Mr. Thomas, we had to fight a Civil War over these issues before, so hope, please hope, we can do better this time and forgive each other our errors and let Americans vote.

  •  Roberts branded "Repubs,the white people's Party" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    Of course, that's to say, "Republicans: the RACIST white people's Party."

    Chris Hayes just observed on MSNBC that the off-year election coming up in 2014 is going to be a test for people of color and the otherwise disenfranchised to get out the vote in their own defense.  The off-year electorate is going to have to look like the Presidential years of 2008 and 2012 in order for Congress to change its makeup from 2010's Tea Party to one more liable to correct the SCOTUS' overreach.

    In my opinion, it will take more than 15 months to get that vote mobilized to answer the Court's gutting of the Voting Rights Act.  But between Roberts hanging the albatross of this decision around the necks of all Republicans, combined with the the decades-long overt hostility of the Republican Party toward Hispanics...well, maybe 15 months will be enough, after all.

  •  may i quote you again? (0+ / 0-)

    Don't ever let anyone -- Rose Perot, Rand Paul, Ralph Nader.  Don't let anyone tell you that election's don't matter, that Democrats are the same as Republicans.  We saw the difference today..

    it can NOT be said often and loud enough!

    thank you for an excellent diary on the supremes - now i've got some digging to do on bill and the pill(s)

    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

    by edrie on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 11:40:20 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site