Supreme Court Balance
That_Annoying_Kid
Sire of Titles Join Date: 2003-03-01 Member: 14175Members, Constellation
Sire of Titles Join Date: 2003-03-01 Member: 14175Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Todays resignation discussed</div> man, I feel like a loser for being lazy enough to post without going to google and getting some links to satisfy the disc n4z1s who want links so <a href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=supreme+court&btnG=Search+News' target='_blank'>yeah</a>
Sandra O'Connor resigned, I saw the headline in a newspaper box and I *had* to make a discussion post
I honestly though William Rehnquist would kick the bucket or resign first.
That gives liberal hippies -1 on the floor, and give bush an appt that would naturally follow his ideals so Republicans now have control over the supreme court, along with the house, and the senate, and the whole executive branch
Republic --> NEWGALACTICEMPIRE anyone?
what are your thoughts on the resignation of Sandra? Assuming Rehnquist won't outlast Bush's 2nd term [which is most likely to be the case] that would really tip the balance in the supreme court. Also thoughts on William would go nice in this thread.
MY PERSONAL DEMOCRATIC VOTING OPPINION FOLLOWS:
****
I expect "attacks" on abortion rights, religion in govt/schools, privacy, etc, esp if bush get another appt in addition to this one. I think that we will feel the reprecusions from this a looong time down the road
Sandra O'Connor resigned, I saw the headline in a newspaper box and I *had* to make a discussion post
I honestly though William Rehnquist would kick the bucket or resign first.
That gives liberal hippies -1 on the floor, and give bush an appt that would naturally follow his ideals so Republicans now have control over the supreme court, along with the house, and the senate, and the whole executive branch
Republic --> NEWGALACTICEMPIRE anyone?
what are your thoughts on the resignation of Sandra? Assuming Rehnquist won't outlast Bush's 2nd term [which is most likely to be the case] that would really tip the balance in the supreme court. Also thoughts on William would go nice in this thread.
MY PERSONAL DEMOCRATIC VOTING OPPINION FOLLOWS:
****
I expect "attacks" on abortion rights, religion in govt/schools, privacy, etc, esp if bush get another appt in addition to this one. I think that we will feel the reprecusions from this a looong time down the road
Comments
Regardless of who is appointed, and make no mistake-this appointment will be a political bloodsport, justices on the Supreme Court essentially answer to no one. However, the next justice will have an originalist interpretation of the Constitution based on statements from Bush. During the last campaign, he made promises to Conservatives regarding Supreme Court appointees. If he doesn't keep them, he'll face more problems from the Right than the Left could ever hope to provide.
Over the last few years, the Supreme Court has been twisting our Constitution like a sponge and basically giving free reign to lower judges to define laws on their terms rather than basing decisions on the written language. This will either be put to rest, or, the silent majority won't be silent much longer.
Sandra usually was a key swing vote for the what democrats view as key issues. The star wars reference draws from the fact that George Lucas has inderctly stated that episode III is a commentary on the current administration.
Crisco, of course it's not the republican partys fault that they or others can't come up with a good solution, but it truly shouldn't be that way, honestly both parties should come together to find a good solution but this isn't a dream, and teamwork from politicians is obscenely laughable
Or at least that's the Republican spin, usually said without any idea what the underlying laws are or how judicial rulings work.
Who Bush nominates depends largely on what he wants.
1. Cut a deal and nominate a moderate to replace O'Connor if it means getting a staunch conservative through when Rehnquist leaves. I suspect that the Dems will waive through anybody who's pro-<i>Roe</i>. If they're against the 10 commandments in public buildings, that would just be icing.
2. Nominate a Scalia-like judge and hope that the political war that results comes out in his favor. Everybody's expecting a long, drawn out battle and the various lobbying groups are all geared up for months of fighting.
I suspect that Bush will go with #2. A war in the Senate would take a lot of focus off of Iraq and would let the boondoggle he calls Social Security reform die quietly all the while letting him balk about how Democrats hate "people of faith" and other assorted buzzwords. Bush could make this whole thing easy by nominating a judge that won't burn <i>Roe</i> and related cases to the ground.
There's also the interesting wrinkle of Justice Kennedy. He's a bit more conservative than O'Connor, but if a conservative judge is appointed, it could drive Kennedy to the middle and allow him to hold an O'Connor-like position as the swing vote in a lot of cases.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Over the last few years, the Supreme Court has been twisting our Constitution like a sponge and basically giving free reign to lower judges to define laws on their terms rather than basing decisions on the written language. This will either be put to rest, or, the silent majority won't be silent much longer.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's amusing how much Republicans carp about the Supreme Court justices.
Rehnquist - Reagan
Scalia - Reagan
O'Connor - Reagan
Kennedy - Reagan
Stevens - Ford
Souter - Bush Sr.
Thomas - Bush Sr.
Ginsburg - Clinton
Breyer - Clinton
Of the 9 justices, only two have been appointed by a Democrat. It's funny how buzzwords like "judical activism" only apply if a court doesn't rule the way the Bush administration wants it to, don't you think?
If you want to describe the makeup of the court, you don't look at the presidents who appointed them, you look at the way they have ruled. For example, the recent ruling allowing the government to seize private property if they think they can get more tax revenue by selling it to someone else.
I agree with spooge... the constitution is in shambles. It reads more like Green Eggs and Ham now than a document of fair laws.
I'm moving to Australia.
You mean there everyone makes up their minds before deciding on something, and there's no one who actually weighs both sides of an issue and "swings" in the direction that they find has the most validity?
Back to the topic, I can see Bush trying to convince Rehnquist to retire, so that he can appoint both a Moderate (maybe Gonzales) and a Conservative. That would keep the balance of the court about the same as it is now (which is a good balance, actually; 4 liberals, 3 conservatives, and 2 right-leaning moderates), so as not to waste all of his "political capital."
Of course he needs political capital. The more he pisses off the Democrats, the harder he'll find it to pass his policies through Congress. If he's nice to them and builds up political capital, then they'll be more likely to let him do what he wants.
In fact, really the only thing left for Bush to worry about in terms of political capital is how much he can impact the 2006 congressional elections. His 06-08 policies will go through a little easier with a bigger republican margin in congress, and won't go anywhere at all with a democratic majority.
But I don't think your plans going to work, Clam. The dems in washington think they <i>deserve</i> nothing less than a good moderate to replace the outgoing moderate, so nominating a moderate wouldn't win Bush any points with them. It would just make the confirmation fight a little easier. Emphasis on "little".
But I don't think your plans going to work, Clam. The dems in washington think they <i>deserve</i> nothing less than a good moderate to replace the outgoing moderate, so nominating a moderate wouldn't win Bush any points with them. It would just make the confirmation fight a little easier. Emphasis on "little". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Republicans have the majority, so the only way the Dems can shoot down a nominee would be to filibuster. I don't think they'd filibuster a moderate, since it would look pretty bad politically for them to do that (if Bush gives them what they want and they still complain, they'll get hammered in the polls because every conservative in the media would be screaming about it and they'd be right).
What next? That doesn't mean they're automatically going to rubberstamp Bush's next proposal in gratitude. They'll still fight whatever he does.
What next? That doesn't mean they're automatically going to rubberstamp Bush's next proposal in gratitude. They'll still fight whatever he does. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well of course the Dems wouldn't rubberstamp Bush's next major policy, just because he appointed a moderate, but I would say that it would cause Congress to retreat from considering things like the nuclear option and move towards more compromises.
If Bush makes concessions than the Democrats are more likely to make concessions, and vice versa.
If Bush takes a hard line on an issue and refuses to compromise, then the Democrats are more likely to be obstructionist, and vice versa.
I think that's because, in Washington, people compromise extremely rarely. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->