Archive for November, 2005

Progress Towards What?

Posted by Ampersand | November 1st, 2005

Here’s a cartoon I did for SEHN, the Science and Environmental Health Network. I had to make it a bit smaller than I’d like to fit it on my blog; a slightly larger version, which shows off the art better, can be found on the Z Magazine website.

If you cantinyurl.com/cnomx instead’ />

For those of you unfamiliar with the precautionary principle, it has been summed up as:

“When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”

For more, here’s a good FAQ about the precautionary principle.

By the way, if you had to guess, what racial/ethnic backgrounds would you guess these two characters have? I’ve been having trouble getting the character on the left to register as non-white.

It’s Justice Kennedy’s Court Now

Posted by Ampersand | November 1st, 2005

Jack Balkin points out that if Alito gets confirmed, the person replacing O’Connor as the most frequent swing vote will be Justice Kennedy. So what will Justice Kennedy - the new most powerful Justice in the country - decide?

…To understand what Alito’s appointment means for constitutional doctrine, instead of focusing on Alito’s views (which one assumes are reliably conservative), one needs to focus on Kennedy’s. We know that the new median Justice supports abortion rights claims a little less than O’Connor (Kennedy voted to uphold restrictions on partial birth abortion), supports gay rights claims a bit more than O’Connor (Kennedy wrote the opinion in Lawrence), thinks affirmative action is largely unconstitutional (Kennedy dissented in Grutter), thinks most campaign finance regulation is unconstitutional (Kennedy dissented (in part) in McConnell) and has been more likely to permit government endorsements of religion and state financial support for religion than O’Connor (Kennedy dissented in Mccreary County v. ACLU and joined Mitchell v. Helms). On federalism, it’s a mixed bag: Kennedy joined Raich v. Ashcroft but dissented in the two most recent section five cases, Tennesee v. Lane and Hibbs.

Note that this will all probably be true even if Alito’s appointment is defeated and Bush needs to appoint someone else; there’s simply no way that Bush, with a Republican majority in the Senate, will nominate someone to Kennedy’s left.

Don’t get me wrong; I hope Democrats will do whatever they can to defeat the Alito nomination, for a few reasons:

* No one who thinks husband-notification laws are constitutional is fit for the Supreme Court;

* If the Democrats do defeat Alito, that would be another black eye for Bush, perhaps limiting how much damage he does in his three remaining years;

* And even if they can’t defeat Alito, the Democrats desperately need to begin having principles that they stand up for.

But no matter what happens to Alito, I think Jack is probably right about the immediate direction the Supreme Court will take. It’s Kennedy’s Court now.

Samuel Alito

Posted by Pseudo-Adrienne | November 1st, 2005

This post was removed by request of the author.