Home / General / Law v. Partisan Hackdom

Law v. Partisan Hackdom

Comments
/
/
/
491 Views

In late 2003, the Colorado Supreme Court struck down the partisan redistricting passed by the Republican legislature, as this redistricting plainly violated the state constitution’s mandate that redistricting be performed only once per decade. This case–a state court interpreting the state constitution–did not raise the slightest federal issue, and on Tuesday the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

Three justices, however, wanted to hear this laughably frivolous case. Who were they? Why, of course, Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas. Reprising their risibly specious concurring opinion in the anti-landmarkBush v. Gore, their argument seems to be that if William Rehnquist disagrees with a state court’s reading of state law, then the state court is no longer engaged in jurisprudence. Needless to say, this newly minted standard is only applicable if the Republican Party is disadvantaged.

Again, to state the obvious, “states rights” is a meaningless phrase. The three most reactionary members of the Supreme Court are more than happy to intrude on even legitimate state perogatives should the state court reach substantive policy outcomes that conflict with the preferences of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. And keep in mind when you vote in 2004 that these radical conservative activists are George Bush’s model justices…

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
It is main inner container footer text