Majority rule can "sorely hamper"

. . . the interests of the minority. Or it can give us renewed hope in our nation's future.

Is it a coincidence that the stock market took the biggest jump in years yesterday? It was reported that the rally was related to the small rise in interest rates, but I think it might also be due to the Supreme Court's ruling against Our Current President. To quote from briefing.com at MyWay:

16:20 ET Dow +217.24 Nasdaq +62.64 S&P +26.87. Stocks soared Thursday as investors rallied around the idea that the Fed may finally take a breather after two years of interest rate increases. As expected, the Fed raised rates another 1/4% to 5.25%, representing the seventeenth consecutive rate hike since its first bump in June 2004. While higher rates obviously aren't good news for stocks and the language of the policy statement was essentially the same, the Fed reiterating that "inflation expectations remained contained" and saying that "the moderation in the growth of aggregate demand should help to limit inflation pressures over time" helped assuage concerns related to the hawkish Fed commentary that had acted as an overhang since the May 10 meeting.

Yesterday's majority ruling by the Supreme Court in favor of constitutional separation of powers was wonderful news for many of us in the Democratic minority. But it was bad news for the SCOTUS minority. Justice Clarence Thomas, in the minority with this decision, dissented from yesterday's Supreme Court ruling blocking the "Gitmo Tribunals." To quote CBS news,

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent, saying the court's decision would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy." The court's willingness, Thomas said, "to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be
brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous." Justices Antonin Scalia
and Samuel Alito also filed dissents.

The Supreme Court's decision to reject our current president's 'unitary presidency' philosophy surprised OCP. It is my hope that the decision sorely hampers the President's imperious stance. In a Washington Post analysis, by Peter Baker and Michael Abramowitz, it seems that the decision may have been a surprise. To quote,

The administration's allies, however, were disturbed that Bush's hands now may be tied by the ruling, written by Justice John Paul Stevens. "Stevens's opinion was quite shocking in its lack of discussion of the president's independent authority," said Andrew McBride, a former Justice Department official who wrote a brief supporting the administration on behalf of former attorneys general and military lawyers.
Bush made no such protest himself yesterday, caught by surprise at the decision. . .
The administration relied on the same expansive view of its power in detaining U.S. citizens indefinitely as enemy combatants, denying prisoners access to lawyers or courts, rejecting the applicability of the Geneva Conventions in some instances, employing harsh interrogation techniques and establishing secret CIA prisons for terrorism suspects in foreign countries. Only its telephone and e-mail surveillance program, which is operated by the National Security Agency, stirred much protest in Congress.

A momentous decision by the majority more often sets the minority back on its heels. Look at these examples of 21st century (majority rule) events:

• The Iraq elections put Sunni representatives in the minority, sorely hampering that segment of the population's hopes for a stake in the nation's future.
• The 2000 U.S. presidential election SCOTUS ruling in favor of Republicans has sorely hampered Democrats ever since.
• A majority of votes in the Electoral College for Bush in 2004 continued imperial rule of OCP (our current president), sorely hampering the rule of law.
• The recent election of a Hamas government in Palestine sorely hampered the chances of a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, now boiling out of control.
• The recent SCOTUS redistricting decision to let most of Tom DeLay's Texas' U.S. House gerrymandering maneuvers remain in place; Texas Democrats remain sorely hampered. The state must now find its way out of the mess.
• Tuesday's flag-burning constitutional amendment loss (by one vote in the Senate) sorely hampers the religious right's plans to distract the nation from its real problems with a pseudo-issue.

Majority rule is a principle of democracy. Sometimes it works to my advantage and sometimes to my disadvantage. I remain grateful to live in this democracy, though sometimes my hopes flag. Today my hopes for the future of our nation under the rule of law are unflagging! I feel somewhat less "sorely hampered."
Tags: Bush administration Supreme Court majority rule politics Justice Clarence Thomas unitary presidency