A very interesting, scary and eye-opening article in yesterday's NYT Magazine, focusing on an extreme little group that is sucking in conservatives to further their cause. This little group, really on the fringes of society, have the ears (and money) of influential people within our government. What is the cause they are championing? Changing how judges rule, which means stacking the courts with sympathetic judges that will rule by only what is specifically stated in the constitution. While this may sound good on it's face, ideally, everything from the New Deal forward should be scrapped, according to them.
But as Thomas's (ed. note: Clarance Thomas is a sympathizer to this fringe group) presence on the court suggests, it is perhaps just as likely that the next justice -- or chief justice -- will be sympathetic to the less well-known but increasingly active conservative judicial movement that Epstein represents. It is sometimes known as the Constitution in Exile movement, after a phrase introduced in 1995 by Douglas Ginsburg, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. (Ginsburg is probably best known as the Supreme Court nominee, put forward by Ronald Reagan, who withdrew after confessing to having smoked marijuana.) By ''Constitution in Exile,'' Ginsburg meant to identify legal doctrines that established firm limitations on state and federal power before the New Deal. Unlike many originalists, most adherents of the Constitution in Exile movement are not especially concerned about states' rights or judicial deference to legislatures; instead, they encourage judges to strike down laws on behalf of rights that don't appear explicitly in the Constitution. In addition to the scholars who articulate the movement's ideals and the judges who sympathize with them, the Constitution in Exile is defended by a litigation arm, consisting of dozens of self-styled ''freedom-based'' public-interest law firms that bring cases in state and federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
success, as the movement defines it, would mean that ''many decisions of the Federal Communications Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and possibly the National Labor Relations Board would be unconstitutional. It would mean that the Social Security Act would not only be under political but also constitutional stress. Many of the Constitution in Exile people think there can't be independent regulatory commissions, so the Security and Exchange Commission and maybe even the Federal Reserve would be in trouble. Some applications of the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act would be struck down as beyond Congress's commerce power.''
Deep in the article, three judges whose nominations were blocked during Bush's first term, and now renominated, are sympathizers/adherents to this fringe group. Those are William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and William G. Myers, III. Another reason they should not be confirmed.
Granted, they have some ideals that a lot of us would go for. Things like "eminent domain" is illegal, taxation is government coercion thus should not be happening. Now, I hate taxes just as much as the next person, but under ideal situations that monies should be used to better society. But, it's those issues that affect the most people that is used as the "con" to suck you in. The fact remains that this group feels that the only way to impose their views on the market and businesses is to change the face of our judiciary.
Do go read this article.