My first thread in the politics forum...

[Shwuz]

I didn't want to clog up the surfing forum.

This is one of the first things I've seen happening in our government in as long as I can remember that gives me some hope.


Senate Judiciary Committee To Examine
Supreme Court Decisions On Corporate Misconduct



WASHINGTON (Tuesday, July 15, 2008) – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) today announced a Committee hearing scheduled for July 23 to look at how recent decisions by the Supreme Court have shielded corporations engaged in misconduct. The hearing follows an examination by the Senate panel last month of how the Supreme Court’s recently concluded term favored big business over protecting the rights of individuals relating to health care, retirement, financial services and employment issues.



Recent Supreme Court decisions, including last month’s decision in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, have highlighted a shift on the Court shielding corporations from accountability for their actions. Such decisions have hindered the rights of Americans to receive damages for harm done at the hands of large corporations. The decisions have not only allowed some corporations to evade justice but have provided pro-business shields to some of the nation’s largest corporations, thereby stripping meaningful incentives for good business practices in all corporations.



In June, the Judiciary panel examined recent Supreme Court decisions that have preempted several state laws established to protect Americans, including laws to shield Americans from illegal hiring practices, medical liability, and predatory lending practices. The July 23 hearing is expected to feature a witness who will testify about the lasting effects of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska on the livelihoods of hundreds of fishermen and sailors, as well as witnesses who will testify about how the January Supreme Court ruling in Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. impacts senior citizens, and the widespread effects of Supreme Court rulings in the area of binding mandatory arbitration.



The hearing, “Courting Big Business: The Supreme Court’s Recent Decisions on Corporate Misconduct and Laws Regulating Corporations,” will be held Wednesday, July 23, at 10:00 a.m. in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The hearing will be webcast live online.

 

[Shwuz]

Well, for a body which isn't supposed to make laws... The supreme court sure does a lot of common lawmaking.

Also, there is 75 instances of the senate overturning supreme court decisions in the past, so it is far from unheard of. Fact is, when you have 9 people interpreting the law... 9 people who are appointed to their position rather than elected by the people... You have opportunity for political ideology to be expressed in their interpretation of the law. If there is a perception that their opinions aren't in the best interest of the citizens, isn't that something that should be probed?

Or should we view them as infallible masters of all that is constitutional, and accept them unquestionably?

 

[swegin]

The current congress has the lowest approval rating of any congress ever.

..

Gallup's latest monthly update of public approval of Congress leads to several observations:

As economic conditions in the country are worsening, Congress is taking the brunt of it. Since the start of the year, public approval of Congress has fallen from 23% to 14%, while approval of President George W. Bush has been more stable: 32% approved of the job he was doing in early January versus 31% today, with a range of just 28% to 34%.
One reason for the growing congressional/Bush approval gap is that Bush benefits from a core group of Republicans nationally who continue to stick by him (67% of whom approve in the latest poll), and who, at this point, are likely to remain supportive of him through the close of his term. This contrasts with the paltry 11% of Democrats who currently approve of the job Congress is doing. By its nature, Congress may simply be less able to engender this kind of political loyalty -- it typically trails the sitting president in approval -- and thus, the current Democratic Congress lacks a reliable pool of Democratic support to keep its approval ratings afloat.
Still, the Democratic Congress has received much less intra-party support for its leadership of the kind that the Republican Congress enjoyed from Republicans in 2006. The mild honeymoon the current Congress enjoyed with its own party at the start of last year quickly faded as Democrats grew upset with congressional inaction on Iraq and immigration reform.
Finally, 2008 now looks an awful lot like 1979, and for some of the same reasons: mounting inflation, record-high gas prices, and a looming recession. Public approval of President Jimmy Carter in mid-July 1979 was 29%, very similar to Bush's current 31%. And approval of Congress was also comparable: 19% in June 1979 vs. 14% today.

Bottom Line - Current Congress with low approval ratings - means they suck, right?

Current president (Bush) with low approval ratings - means he sucks, right?