These comments by a legal scholar with whom I am acquainted I found very enlightening:
I am very impressed by Justice Stevens' dissent. Justice Breyer's argument, in comparison, is light weight and easily dismissed. Even if one does not agree with Stevens, his opinion a very well reasoned and accurate legislative history of the 1790's.
The court could have easily adopted Stevens' opinion as the majority. I have always been in favor of giving the constitution's ex post facto clause more weight, but the court has not agreed with me. Evidently, Justice Stevens does.
King George was very fond of ex post facto laws, laws which change a contract or make an action a crime after the fact. Early court ruling from James Madision (Gibbons v. Ogden) make it clear that the court well remembered the abuses of their former king. However, over the past 225 years, we have had a collective memory loss about the abuses of the King. (Now that George is back in power, we would do well to remember it.) Ex post facto prohibitions are still alive and well in criminal cases - One cannot be convicted of something which was not a crime at the time it was committed. However, the civil side of ex post facto has nearly faded away.
During the Earl Warren court of the late 1960's and early 1970's, I think it is likely that Stevens' argument would have been persuasive. However, since Rhenquist's appointment by Richard Nixon, this court has had thirty years of conservative, conservative, and even reactionary rulings. This is just one more safe but conservative ruling for them. Where is William O. Douglas when we need him?
No matter what one thinks of Al Gore or even Bill Clinton, it just pains me no end to think that George W. may get to appoint up to six supreme court justices during his term. If not the presidency, the democrats really need to take back the senate in two years. It is they who confirm supreme court appointments.
Otherwise, can you imagine Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft?
Slashdot Mirror
These comments by a legal scholar with whom I am acquainted I found very enlightening:
I am very impressed by Justice Stevens' dissent. Justice Breyer's
argument, in comparison, is light weight and easily dismissed. Even if one
does not agree with Stevens, his opinion a very well reasoned and accurate
legislative history of the 1790's.
The court could have easily adopted Stevens' opinion as the majority. I
have always been in favor of giving the constitution's ex post facto clause
more weight, but the court has not agreed with me. Evidently, Justice
Stevens does.
King George was very fond of ex post facto laws, laws which change a
contract or make an action a crime after the fact. Early court ruling from
James Madision (Gibbons v. Ogden) make it clear that the court well
remembered the abuses of their former king. However, over the past 225
years, we have had a collective memory loss about the abuses of the
King. (Now that George is back in power, we would do well to remember
it.) Ex post facto prohibitions are still alive and well in criminal cases
- One cannot be convicted of something which was not a crime at the time it
was committed. However, the civil side of ex post facto has nearly faded away.
During the Earl Warren court of the late 1960's and early 1970's, I think
it is likely that Stevens' argument would have been persuasive. However,
since Rhenquist's appointment by Richard Nixon, this court has had thirty
years of conservative, conservative, and even reactionary rulings. This is
just one more safe but conservative ruling for them. Where is William O.
Douglas when we need him?
No matter what one thinks of Al Gore or even Bill Clinton, it just pains me
no end to think that George W. may get to appoint up to six supreme court
justices during his term. If not the presidency, the democrats really need
to take back the senate in two years. It is they who confirm supreme court
appointments.
Otherwise, can you imagine Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft?
OK, now I am really depressed.