Justice Douglas, one of the greatest

[Valley Oak]

US Supreme Court justice Douglas was one of the greatest in the court's history. We need more jurists like him appointed to the nation's highest court in order to serve justice and the people, not the corporations.

Today's court is far too conservative, giving corporations near equality to human beings as legal entities and unlimited rights to donate endless amounts of money to corrupt our democratic process through campaign donations. Thanks to this horrible decision, the Republicans may very well enjoy a cloture senate this November.

Below is the definition of a truly great US Sup. Ct. justice, one who was appointed by a truly great American president, Franklin Roosevelt:

William O. Douglas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edward

[kit-kit]

Not well-versed in Douglas' writings but willing to consider good points of view. [Hope to not start a disagreement here, but was a fan of Justice Sandra Day...

In the Wikipedia entry, this stands out:
"Trees have standing"

In the landmark environmental law case, Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), Justice Douglas famously, and most colorfully argued that "inanimate objects" should have standing to sue in court:

The critical question of "standing" would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where injury is the subject of public outrage. Contemporary public concern for protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. This suit would therefore be more properly labeled as Mineral King v. Morton.

He continued:

"Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole - a creature of ecclesiastical law - is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its cases.... So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes - fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it."

"...Today's court is far too conservative, giving corporations near equality to human beings as legal entities..."
Edward

I am going to have to think about a concept that inanimate objects have standing to sue in court. Perhaps he was missing a tangential link. Makes more sense for an individual to appear on behalf of the natural object in a guardian capacity. [Good luck getting that 200 ft. tall redwood into court! Mine are staying put.]

I am not an advocate of destruction of environment -- nor extensive modification of environment -- for just about any reason.

During the destruction/construction of vineyards think of all the animals of the outdoors whose homes are simply removed. The animals have a right to shelter, water, and pursuits of happiness, as do people.

[Valley Oak]

Thank you, "kit-kit." I did not know that the great Justice Douglas was also an early environmental activist!

Edward

Not well-versed in Douglas' writings but willing to consider good points of view. [Hope to not start a disagreement here, but was a fan of Justice Sandra Day...

In the Wikipedia entry, this stands out:
"Trees have standing"

In the landmark environmental law case, Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), Justice Douglas famously, and most colorfully argued that "inanimate objects" should have standing to sue in court:

The critical question of "standing" would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where injury is the subject of public outrage. Contemporary public concern for protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. This suit would therefore be more properly labeled as Mineral King v. Morton.

He continued:

"Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole - a creature of ecclesiastical law - is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its cases.... So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes - fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it."

I am going to have to think about a concept that inanimate objects have standing to sue in court. Perhaps he was missing a tangential link. Makes more sense for an individual to appear on behalf of the natural object in a guardian capacity. [Good luck getting that 200 ft. tall redwood into court! Mine are staying put.]

I am not an advocate of destruction of environment -- nor extensive modification of environment -- for just about any reason.

During the destruction/construction of vineyards think of all the animals of the outdoors whose homes are simply removed. The animals have a right to shelter, water, and pursuits of happiness, as do people.

[kit-kit]

This is from Wikipedia on Justice Sandra Day O'Connor...

Response to being first woman on the Supreme Court

In response to an editorial in The New York Times which mentioned the "nine old men" of the Court, the self-styled FWOTSC (First Woman On The Supreme Court) sent a pithy letter to the editor:

“	I noticed the following ....: Is no Washington name exempt from shorthand? One, maybe. The Chief Magistrate responsible for executing the laws is sometimes called the POTUS [President Of The United States]. The nine men who interpret them are often the SCOTUS [Supreme Court Of The United States]. The people who enact them are still, for better or worse, Congress. According to the information available to me, and which I had assumed was generally available, for over two years now SCOTUS has not consisted of nine men. If you have any contradictory information, I would be grateful if you would forward it as I am sure the POTUS, the SCOTUS and the undersigned (the FWOTSC) would be most interested in seeing it.	”
—Sandra D. O'Connor, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, October 12, 1983, "High Court's '9 Men' Were a Surprise to One", The New York Times, October 5, 1983 re: (First Woman On The Supreme Court); William Safire, "On Language; Potus and Flotus", The New York Times, October 12, 1997. Retrieved December 7, 2007

[someguy]

Not well-versed in Douglas' writings but willing to consider good points of view. [Hope to not start a disagreement here, but was a fan of Justice Sandra Day...

In the Wikipedia entry, this stands out:
"Trees have standing"

In the landmark environmental law case, Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), Justice Douglas famously, and most colorfully argued that "inanimate objects" should have standing to sue in court:

The critical question of "standing" would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where injury is the subject of public outrage. Contemporary public concern for protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. This suit would therefore be more properly labeled as Mineral King v. Morton.

He continued:

"Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole - a creature of ecclesiastical law - is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its cases.... So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes - fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it."

I am going to have to think about a concept that inanimate objects have standing to sue in court. Perhaps he was missing a tangential link. Makes more sense for an individual to appear on behalf of the natural object in a guardian capacity. [Good luck getting that 200 ft. tall redwood into court! Mine are staying put.]

I am not an advocate of destruction of environment -- nor extensive modification of environment -- for just about any reason.

During the destruction/construction of vineyards think of all the animals of the outdoors whose homes are simply removed. The animals have a right to shelter, water, and pursuits of happiness, as do people.

Interesting that Douglas decided to give trees rights as individuals, but stripped the rights of the Japanese-Americans during WW2.

[someguy]

Good job. Your post is a huge improvement over your previous ones.

Edward

Thanks for the little stab at the end there...

[someguy]

My compliment was sincere. But I have deleted it and I apologize since you find it offensive.

Regarding my point on political and legal convenience, here is an article published in the SF Chronicle's website:
Obama elusive on about-face on same-sex marriage

Edward

A compliment that includes an insult is not a real compliment. But no worries man, I'm not seething with resentment. Its all good.

But as far as your article about Obama and same sex marriage, are you really cool with Obama saying that gays should be allowed to marry and then changing his position just for political convenience? Personally, I find it offensive that Obama would slack on giving gays basic human rights, especially when he was elected by a democratic base which mostly supports gay marriage. It makes me wonder what other values of his that he is willing to compromise. To me, compromising your values is a cowardly act, regardless of the reason. Do we really want a coward as our president? Do we really want to live in an unequal society where gay people are treated as second class citizens? I don't.