Monthly Archives May 2000

Was it law or poetry?

By John Leo

U.S. News & World Report, May 29, 2000

From press accounts, you might think that the Supreme Court did something amazingly reactionary in striking down part of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Justice David Souter filed a dissent saying the decision reminded him of the obstructionist court of

The arrogance of the Court

By Larry Kramer

The Washington Post, May 23, 2000

In 1994, after four years of very public debate, including testimony from hundreds of experts in dozens of hearings, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act. This month, a bare 5 to 4 majority of the Supreme Court brushed all that aside and

In whose best interest? Not the states’

By Peter M. Shane

The Washington Post, May 21, 2000

The right of rape and domestic violence victims to sue their attackers in federal court–a right that Congress enacted in 1994 and the Supreme Court took away last week in the name of state sovereignty–was “a particularly appropriate remedy for the harm

‘No winners’ in rape lawsuit

Two students forever changed by case that went to Supreme Court

By Brooke A. Masters

The Washington Post, May 19, 2000

At 23, Christy Brzonkala has had experiences few people could match in a lifetime: She’s been featured on national television, testified before Congress and fought a case all the way to the

High court ruling is not a ‘setback’ for women

By Cathy Young

The Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2000

On Monday, the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which allowed victims of “gender-motivated violence” to file federal civil-rights lawsuits against their attackers. This ruling, predictably deplored by some as a setback for

Violence against coherence

By Ann Coulter

Townhall.com, May 19, 2000

What can one say about The New York Times? Congress passes a law in 1994 giving women a federal cause of action for violent crimes and claims it is simply exercising its authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution because — I’m not making

High Court rejects U.S. law allowing civil suits in rapes

Ruling: Justices decide, 5 to 4, that Congress overstepped its authority in allowing victims to sue. Action appears to doom other federal hate-crime statutes.

By David G. Savage

The Los Angeles Times, May 16, 2000

The Supreme Court, rejecting the notion of national laws against “hate crimes,” struck down a federal measure Monday

Justices reject lawsuits for rape

Court again limits Congress’s power

By Joan Biskupic

The Washington Post, May 16, 2000

A sharply divided Supreme Court struck down part of a law crafted to help survivors of rape and domestic violence, ruling 5-4 yesterday that Congress overstepped its power when it gave women a right to sue their attackers.

The decision

Opponents of federalism are mired in a time warp

By Charles Fried

The Wall Street Journal, May 16, 2000

The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate commerce among the several states.” But that doesn’t mean Congress can give women who are the victims of “gender motivated violence” a federal cause of action against their assailants. For that reason, the Supreme