The U.S. Supreme Court threw out a law today that let rape victims sue their attackers in federal court, saying Congress wrongly trampled on an area of state authority. It's about time we had some common sense from the judiciary in this country. The 5-4 ruling in a Virginia case invalidated a key provision of the 1994 “Violence Against Women Act” and followed the court's recent trend of expanding states' rights at the expense of the federal government.
The key point here is that, as in so many recent cases, the decision was 5-4. That means that one appointment to the Supreme Court in the next few years could tip the balance the other way. If you follow the Court, you already know who voted which way. The liberals who want to amalgamate as much power as possible in the federal government, voted to let this woman sue the people she says attacked her. (There is still a lot of doubt as to her complicity in this college dorm rape, since she willingly admits that she was severely loaded at the time of the attack, and that she did go to the guy's room willingly.)
Regardless, here are the judges who always vote for more federal power: David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Here are the judges with some common sense and an ability to read the Constitution: Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.
Here is what Rehnquist had to say about the case: "Petitioner Brzonkala's complaint alleges that she was the victim of a brutal assault. If the allegations here are true, no civilized system of justice could fail to provide her a remedy. But under our federal system that remedy must be provided by the commonwealth of Virginia, and not by the United States."
God, it's good to hear someone with common sense. The justices rejected arguments by Brzonkala's lawyer and the Clinton administration (funny how they always get involved in these matters, eh?) that the law was needed because states are not doing enough to protect rape victims, and because gender-based violence restricts women's choices in jobs and travel. That’s how they try and fit it in with Amendment XIV. Obviously, quite a stretch, I’d say.
That argument "would allow Congress to regulate any crime as long as the nationwide, aggregated impact of that crime has substantial effects on employment, production, transit or consumption," Rehnquist said. "Indeed, if Congress may regulate gender-motivated violence, it would be able to regulate murder or any other type of violence."
The next President will probably appoint at least 2 new judges.