The Washington Post and the Christian Science Monitor have published three articles that show the constitutional contortions and misinterpretations of the courts and the Bush administration. In the articles, no mention was made of these contortions and misinterpretations.
From the Washington Post:
The March 8 article, Supreme Recusal, reports that Judges Samuel Alito and John Roberts recused themselves from cases in which the judges had a financial interest by owning stock in companies presenting their case to the court.
It's well and good that the judges recused themselves from a case where they could have a biased financial interest, but what about the much more important issue of having an ideological bias? Roberts and Alito are conservative Republicans, appointed by George Bush. Why shouldn't they recuse themselves from a case that hinges on Republican ideological bias?
The most infamous case of Republican ideological bias being used by the Supreme Court to support right-wing, conservative, Republican ideology was the 2000 election case about the voting in Florida. The court proved that the Republicans on the court cannot decide in favor of justice when a fellow Republican needs some help to pervert an election. The court split exactly on Republicans versus Democrats by voting for the Republican cause, stopping the counting of the ballots while George Bush had a supposed miniscule lead, insuring that he became President. The Democrats on the court didn't vote for Al Gore to become President, they voted to continue counting all of the ballots to see who had won the election. In other words, the Democrats pursued justice.
After that Supreme Court vote, the court showed that as long as there are Republicans on the court, they will vote for their ideological bias in favor of Republicans. That court decision was the end of any hope of getting justice from a Republican dominated Supreme Court.
If the Republicans on the court were as concerned about ideological bias as they are about financial bias, they would recuse themselves from any case where a Republican is a party to the case.
From the Washington Post:
A March 9 article, Democrats Criticize Bush's CIA-Bill Veto, quotes the Democrats objections to Bush vetoing a bill that would have prevented his administration from torturing people. Neither the Democrats nor the article from the Associated Press mentioned that torture is unconstitutional.
The Fifth Amendment: "No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"
What Bush wants to do is torture people to make them give evidence against themselves, whether true or not, that will then be used to convict and execute them. That's against the law as set forth in the provisions of the Constitution. The provision doesn't give Bush an exemption for his self-designated "enemy combatants." It says, "No person." That's all inclusive. It protects you and me from George Bush doing the same thing to us. But, without a Congress willing to do their duty and uphold the law, Bush just might get away with torturing you and me to reveal the horrifying fact that we are not Republicans. And, believe you me, he'll do it if he can. He just proved that by vetoing a bill that prevents him from doing it.
From the Christian Science Monitor:
The March 10 article reports that Justice H. Walter Croskey said that parents "do not have a constitutional right" to home-school their children.
I've looked through the Constitution and, he's right, it doesn't mention a right to home-school. But, more importantly, the constitutional fallacy that lies behind Croskey's unconstitutional foundation for what he said is that the Constitution also does not give me the right to breathe, but I have that right. It does not give me the right to drink water, but I have that right. It does not give me the right to eat, but I have that right. According to Croskey, if it is not a right spelled out in the Constitution, you can't do it. Which means that Croskey would immediately have to stop breathing.
What Croskey is ignorant of is that not all the rights we have are Constitutionally derived. Had he actually been familiar with the Constitution, he would have known that the Ninth Amendment addresses that very fact: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Like home-schooling. Or breathing.
