We now have one new opening on the Supreme Court, with another possible one to come, and an extreme right wing President seeking to satisfy supporters who don’t believe in the separation of church and state and consider Roe v. Wade the work of “activist judges” which should be overurned.
I’m guessing the Democrats will be steamrolled over in the vetting process, which means we’ve got one hope: That Presidents who appointed extremely conservative judges to the SC have not always gotten what they bargained for.
PAD
• 
With all the talk of Rehnquist retiring, I was stunned to hear it was O’Connor, a moderate. This doesn’t bode well.
Oh, and I think Bush and crew are going to their homework, and make certain this is a dyed-in the wool right-winger. More than any other administration before them, they owe everything to the radical (especially religious) right, and they do not want to see that money dry up.
Yes, this is potentially a very scary time. As you say, we have to hope that open-minded candidates somehow make it in, as happened with David Souter. Souter, appointed by Bush Sr., has a reputation for thinking through cases and ruling based on what he truthfully thinks is prescribed by law in each case, regardless of his personal politcal beliefs or how the Republican Party would like him to rule. The Party wasn’t too pleased with Souter, which led to Clarence Thomas as the next H.W. Bush appointee, iirc.
I’m not optimistic. I’m betting the nominee will either be John “civil liberties are helping the terrorists” Ashcroft or Alberto “torture memo” Gonzales.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050701/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_short_list
this is a link to some of the possibles…and it don’t look good.
here isone says about the Warren court:
“The Warren Court “extravagantly assumed the power to dictate new ‘rights’ not expressly stated in the Constitution and in so doing foisted its philosophical vision on the United States with consequences far beyond the Court’s imagining,” EDITH HOLLAN JONES
We have one other hope – a hardline conservative who vows to overturn Roe v. Wade would have a real chance of sending Kennedy, who is, with O’Connor gone, the most moderate of the conservative judges, considerably more to the left.
I don’t believe that, in the wake of McConnell and Raich and Kelo that you still have the gall to be worried about “conservative judges”. Remind me when your “liberal judges” have bothered to uphold the Constitution as written?
Out of all those listed as possible replacements in that article…the most moderate appears to be Alberto Gonzales. I know I’m basing this on the very little that was written in that article. He’ll be attacked for the torture memo, and I’m shocked I’m saying this, but he might still be the best choice to find another swing justice. Out of those listed, there may be others not listed.
You all have nothing to worry about. Every Supreme Court justice ever put on the bench immediately starts moving to the left.
It’ll just be fun to see the hysteria on Capital Hill for any judge with a hint of “right wingedness” to him get compared to Hitler for the next two months or more. Ted Kennedy has already said that any judge sent up to the Senate will be subject to a thorough investigation that will dig up dirt on him or her eventually.
Yeah, that sounds like the Democrats are looking to play fair…
“Every Supreme Court justice ever put on the bench immediately starts moving to the left.”
Yeah, but from what I see, they have a long way to go before any of them are even middle of the road.
If Rehnquist, Scalia or Thomas have moved to the left, then they must have been to the right of Genghis Khan when they were nominated.
(OK, slight hyperbole there. But I didn’t use the H-word)
How do you define fair? Supreme Court justices are basically chosen for life..or until they decide to retire. How the constitution is interpreted can have a huge influence on the direction of our country. The background of every nominee should be heavily investigated.
For example, if we had a Democrat for President right now…I’d suspect some complaints if Sen Robert Byrd were a nominee. And they would be valid, even though they have nothing to do with his ability to be a justice, and he has long since disassociated himself from his actions as a youth.
You have to wonder if Reinquist and O’Conner talked about this ahead of time. While we tend to classify each judge along the lines of how liberal or conservative they are, I’d bet they get along a lot better than we suspect. Maybe we’re in for a string of retirements as the judges react to how the confirmation process goes and who wades through it to get the appointment.
Geesh, sounding a little conspiracy theory there… sorry.
John: You have to admit that the liberal hijinks of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have just been way over the top.
I mentioned this before in the “Misdirection” thread but it bears repeating:
This is a godsend to the Bush camp. If Renquist had stepped down, there wouldn’t have been as great a hullaballo since his (almost certainly hard-right) replacement would not have changed the balance of the SCOTUS. But with swing-vote moderate O’Connor being replaced, this becomes Karl Rove’s wet dream. Not only will the inevitable partisan bickering and posturing energize the theocon base that Bush and the GOP rely on, but it will also put the Iraq Conflict on the back burner, conveniently allowing the stench of it to lessen and giving Bush time to try and save his fast-dwindling political capital.
Bear in mind, O’Connor isn’t stepping down until her replacement is named. The retirement announcement was a gift to the president she helped put in office, cynically timed to take attention away from… fill in the blanks yourself…
I strongly suspect that Scalia turned out to be a major disappointment to the Republican Right. Turns out he’s a staunch Constitutionalist in many of his decisions….and although I don’t always agree with him I’ve found him to be a MUCH better Justice than I’d feared. I can always agree with, or at least put up with, a strict constitutionalist….
Bork, bork bork.
Seriously, I expect the Democrats to be every bit as respectful to a jurist who may be politically on the other side as the republicans were to Ruth Bader Ginsberg (confirmed by a 97-3 vote. So much for Republicans having a litmus test on abortion. I’m sure the Democrats will be equally…ok, ok, I’m still not being serious).
This should be a good fight. Bush is perceived as having slipped in the polls (so have the Democrats according to their own polling). Could be an opportunity for both sides. Ginzales would cause the Democrats trouble–can they afford to pìšš øff the hispanic vote? Can they afford to roll over and pìšš øff the base?
Have we all forgotten how terrible the left was when Thomas was nominated? They accused him of every thing short of murder. It is going to be a hard road for anyone that Bush nominates.
Don’t count on Alberto Gonzalez being named – if he is named and confirmed, he will have to recuse himself on any number of issues that will come up in the next few years, simply because he will have worked on them for the Justice Department. Same for Ashcroft. Of course, appointments are for life, and sooner or later that effect will wear off. But it will greatly lessen their effectiveness for the first few years,at least.
With the way the Democrats and liberal/moderate Republicans have stalled Bush’s other judicial nominees, you can bet there will be resistance to anyone Bush nominates, regardless of substance.
Peter, Peter, Peter, the answer is obvious:
Rehnquist will retire, leaving TWO slots for Bush to satisfy both major political parties with:
A conservative and an ARCH-conservative.
See? Simple. What could be more fair and balanced?
— Ken from Chicago
P.S. Peter, take solace in the words of two wise men (or maybe they are wise guys): “The only thing protecting us from their evil is their incompetence.”–Penn and Teller (okay, they were not talking about politicians, merely the TSA’s “efforts” in securing the nation against terrorists, or at least slowing them down, or make them pause on the way to catch their breath).
With the way the Democrats and liberal/moderate Republicans have stalled Bush’s other judicial nominees, you can bet there will be resistance to anyone Bush nominates, regardless of substance.
If Democrat and liberal/moderate Republicans have stalled some nominees (at a rate that’s far lower than some previous presidents), then it raisies the question: why should they be confirmed if they’re generating such broad opposition?
Yeah, that sounds like the Democrats are looking to play fair…
Does anybody play fair in politics?
I don’t remember the Republicans telling the Swift Boat Veterans to cut their campaign to dig up dirt during the last election…
How the constitution is interpreted can have a huge influence on the direction of our country.
Yep. They say that about the most important thing a president can do while in office is to appoint federal judges.
And, iirc, something like 80% of all current federal judges are Republican-appointes… including all those dámņëd ‘activist’ ones.
Which means, I can only hope that maybe, just maybe, a more traditional conservative gets appointed, and then the Republicans & neocons can be disappointed by the results later.
But Bush will go for a true neocon, and once that happens, the ‘nuclear option’ won’t be far behind.
Ginzales would cause the Democrats trouble–can they afford to pìšš øff the hispanic vote? Can they afford to roll over and pìšš øff the base?
I remember that as soon as Condi Rice was nominated, and the comments about her started, the race card was issued… quietly, for the most part, but it was still there.
I remember that as soon as Condi Rice was nominated, and the comments about her started, the race card was issued… quietly, for the most part, but it was still there.
I don’t think many republicans think that the Black vote is much up for grabs…black Republicans can be demonized by Democrats with little fear of political cost.
Hispanics are a whole other matter. Imagine a pro-life Hispanic going down in flames because of a position that most Hispanics have…could be costly to a party that can ill afford the loss of the fastest growing segment of America.
The thing is, there is absolutely no way to avoid a fight. groups on both sides have been raising money for a fight and a fight is what they will have. Now if Bush were clever he would do what was done with Scalia–nominate someone who is shot down over some minor thing–hired a nanny without a green card, smoked pot, whatever–and then, after his opponents are clapping each other on the back for their “victory”, nominate someone waaaaaay to the right and watch him sail through a congress that is too exhausted from the last fight to do it again.
(Note–I’m not saying that the Scalia chain of events was deliberate…but if I were in charge I’d sure try to see if I could nudge events in a favorable direction. At the very least, nominate someone who is is really no great ideologue so that when the inevitable demonizing begins it will begin to look like partisan bullying and the next guy, who may well be more deserving of such abuse, will be facing an opposition that is well spent and has probably earned the contempt of the vast majority of voters who are sick to death of the whole thing.
Not that anyone has asked me to run any countries lately, but I’m just saying….
Dubya could just draw a pentagram on the floor of the Oval Office and conjure up a replacement
Scotus Demon….
Hispanics are a whole other matter.
Well, obviously – at one point, Bush was considering that general amnesty for all the illegals.
Yeah, that would win him a few million votes he wouldn’t otherwise have. 🙁
Btw, I saw this link posted elsewhere earlier: a
Flash file about the Bush Administration lies on WMD in Iraq.
It’s in their own words, btw.
“Not that anyone has asked me to run any countries lately, but I’m just saying….”
And with a Machiavellian mind like that, I hope they don’t.
the problem with your idea though, is that the Senate might well be able to pull together to fight the second, insanely conservative choice.
what I would do is hit em with two CRAZY, wild-eyed nutjobs (Think Jerry Falwell, but a LOT more conservative.) and one very conservative guy, but not as crazy-go-nuts. Also, they would have some dirt in the past, while Curtai….I mean Canidate #3 would be squeaky clean. So here you got two nut-jobs, who routinely get stalked by squirrels, and who have some “issue.” Then you have some, nice, soft spoken
gentleman who is Mr. Clean. Who do you choose?
It is all a matter of perspective.
“The retirement announcement was a gift to the president she helped put in office, cynically timed to take attention away from… fill in the blanks yourself…”
I must be dense. What does this draw attention away from? And why was it timed for the beginning of a holiday weekend news cycle if it had some nefarious, distracting intent? Oh, and if it’s a “gift” as you say, wouldn’t it have made more sense to give it during Bush’s first term? And isn’t it just maybe possibly possible that a 75-year-old judge is stepping down primarily because she’s 75?
What does this draw attention away from?
Iraq?
Oh, and if it’s a “gift” as you say, wouldn’t it have made more sense to give it during Bush’s first term?
No, because the Republicans weren’t threatening the ‘nuclear option’ in the first term.
No, if she wanted to “give a gift” to Bush, she’d have retired right away, rather than delay her resignation until her successor is not only named, but confirmed. What she’s actually done is to give his opponents some breathing room – no danger of SCOTUS shutting down during debate over the next Justice…
I guess I have to object to PAD’s characterization of Bush as an extreme right-wing president. I am politically conservative and don’t regard Bush or the Republican party in general as being nearly as conservative as I would like. Bush is certainly not fiscally conservative. Anyway, exciting times ahead.
Dennis
I am politically conservative and don’t regard Bush or the Republican party in general as being nearly as conservative as I would like.
This is why bush is considered extreme – he goes beyond the traditional conservative.
Whether this actually still makes him a conservative is something that other conservatives & Republicans would have to answer, because Republican votes gave Bush a 2nd term.
But then, this is why Bush gets the term ‘neocon’ – a whackjob of a conservative who ignores the traditional values, yet manages to somehow keep the support of his party.
“I am politically conservative and don’t regard Bush or the Republican party in general as being nearly as conservative as I would like. Bush is certainly not fiscally conservative.”
I’d read that, actually. That there are many within the conservative party who are VERY unhappy with Bush because they believe his extremist views are a betrayal of conservatism. Then again, they should have been tipped off the moment he and his pals went running to the Supreme Court, asking them to interfere in the 2000 election when the Florida SC was handling it. True conservatives, so I understand, favor the states handling such matters, not the judiciary on the Federal level.
PAD
Frankly, after the liberal side of the judges just ruled in favor of local governments seizing private property for the use of private companies, I can’t see a primarily conservative Court doing a much worse job.
True conservatives, so I understand, favor the states handling such matters, not the judiciary on the Federal level.
And true liberals – who don’t mind federal intervention on that scale – would accept the ruling rather than bring it up again and again. 🙂
Seriously, my layman’s view of the legal issues at the time was the the Florida Supreme Court made a bad decision that was based more on gut feeling than law (and the CJ said as much in his dissent), and the US Supreme Court made an equally bad decision that was too much of a stretch of the equal protection arguments. What I really expected from the SCOTUS was to send the case back to the Florida SC and instruct them how to rule. Instead two bad decisions gave the result that should have happened to begin with.
As far as this nomination goes, I expect that Bush will appoint someone a bit further to the right than O’Connor, but not the 100% strict constructionist type.
“And true liberals – who don’t mind federal intervention on that scale – would accept the ruling rather than bring it up again and again.”
Right, right…because conservatives have an unstinting record of accepting SC rulings they disagree with rather than bringing it up again and again *koff* Roe v. Wade *koff*.
“Seriously, my layman’s view of the legal issues at the time was the the Florida Supreme Court made a bad decision that was based more on gut feeling than law”
There was a fascinating article written by an attorney at the time the ruling came out which dissected the court’s ruling. The ruling was so self-contradictory that what it came down to was that the Florida SC was screwed no matter what. There was literally no decision the Florida SC could have made that would have been acceptable under the Fed SC ruling. It was constructed, not to make the most proper ruling under law or to determine the will of the people, but to put Bush in office, period.
PAD
Vincent Bugliosi’s The Betrayal of America nicely debunked the SC ruling, and showed how the Florida ruling was the correct one.
One pretty funny comment in the July 8th issue of The Week regarding the recent rulings of religious symbols in courtrooms: “[The rulings are] proof that President Bush needs to fill future Supreme Court vacancies with true coservatives, said The Washington Times in an editorial. The current court, dominated by liberal secularists, has taken yet another step “toward the banishing of relgion from the public square.”
The current court is dominated by LIBERAL SECULARISTS?????????? LOL.
I have a question right before I go on vacation for a week: Could Bush nominate a slate of say three judges and just see who made it through the appproval process? I don’t remember my Constitutional details enough to know if he can essentially run a three-pronged front or not to shock and awe those who have try and research each nominee’s background. It’d be like judicial three-card monty. I’ll try and check back to see the answer, but since the cousins I’m staying with think I’ve been tainted by my social service coworkers and am a left-wing nutjob because I don’t listen to Rush every single dámņ day, I imagine reading this site might cause a familial implosion.
I hope everyone has a great holiday. Following this site and the variety of views that are represented here makes me realize how lucky we all really are. See you in a week or so.
I personally don’t care if the next Supreme Court Justice is Liberal or Conservative as long as they actually uphold the constitution. I mean O’Connor was a moderate Conservastive. Having an extremist on either side can be dangerous as long as the nominee realizes that in their position they have a duty to uphold the constitution and not enforce their “party’s” views. Of course as a gay man I don’t a Falwellesque nominee who will take away my rights either…
Scotus. I always used to laugh when I saw Scotus in my associated press editing assignments. Looks like the name of a particularly virulent disease, huh?
Aww, he’s got Scotus.
Jason,
I don’t believe your “Shock and Awe” scenario would be legal for President Bush to do. He can announce to Senate (or the world) that he’s got a Short List with whatever number of people that he feels appropriate, but my memory tells me that the Constitution says that he appoints a Judge and the the Senate goes through “advice and consent.” He can’t send three canidates through, because only one can get the job and more than one might get the Senate’s consent. I can imagine a scenario where the President would float various names by members of the Senate to see how they’d fly, but once a the President formally submits the name to the Senate, I’m not sure even the President can stop the process. Justices of the Supreme Court are not part of the Executive Branch, afterall. At some point the President loses his control over them. And thank God for that.
P.S. I thank God that ALL Presidents lose former power over the Supreme Court, not just George W. Bush.
“And true liberals – who don’t mind federal intervention on that scale – would accept the ruling rather than bring it up again and again.”
Right, right…because conservatives have an unstinting record of accepting SC rulings they disagree with rather than bringing it up again and again *koff* Roe v. Wade *koff*.
Thank God for those, on any side of the political divide, who are willing to keep fighting for what they believe is right, even if the Supreme Court has rulled otherwise. Dred Scott anyone? Plessy vs Ferguson? Godzilla vs Biollante?
As opposed to, say, Nancy Pelosi on the awful Kelo decision, making one of the dumbest statements any politician has said in the last few days:
It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It’s an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.
Almost as if God…yow.
PAD,
Nice to know not much has changed here while I was out of the country.
I can remember the “hype” when Clinton was President. He did nominate a very liberal candidate, Ruth B. Gingsberg (sorry, didn’t look up the spelling). Somehow she made it onto the court. As did other Clinton nominees for Supreme Court Justices. But guess it is not fair when a Republican is elected that he can exercise his constitutionally appointed duty to choose the candidate, especially when the evil Republicans have a majority in both houses.
The court should not have this much power. They should uphold and protect the consitutuion, not be writing laws out of nothing (which is what happened with Roe v. Wade. Yes, that is my opinion of what happened, just as you think otherwise. That is the whole point in electing a president — to have the ability to appoint the judges who should know how to correctly interpret — not write — the law and the constitution.
to satisfy supporters who don’t believe in the separation of church and state
I do believe in the separation of church and state, but that never meant the two could not coexist or have an impact on the other. The problem is, when you get to morality, it transcends both religion and philosophy. You can’t write a law out of nothing. Morality has roots in religion, and that does not make a given law wrong (or right). The fact that the Bible (as one of many religious sources) says murder and false witness and homosexuality are all wrong does not mean we cannot also have a law that upholds these valuses, nor does it mean we are wrong if we do not. All 3 can be argued for other reasons and do not solely lie in the practice of a religion. Keeping the Sabbath, for example, falls much more under the label of an act of worship of a specific “god” (though clearly the lines are never as cut and dry as we would like).
Bottom line, the country will survive Bush being president. I guarantee that women will not be forced next year to return to back alley abortions, and no one will be forced to convert to any given religion. I am sure some of you won’t believe me, but the end of the world has not arrived quite yet (at least not from Bush appointing at leas one Supreme Court Justice).
Iowa Jim
Since the election decision was brought up, there’s a detail about that decision that I’ve always felt has been underexposed. Namely, there were two major components to that decision, and only one of them was 5-4.
The first question the Court addressed was whether Florida’s multiple standards for recounting votes violated the Equal Protection Clause (as TheOtherBlogger mentioned above). This is what the news talked a lot about at the time, since a ballot that was acceptable in one county could be deemed unacceptable in another.
The Court declared that this did violate Equal Protection, and they did so on a 7-2 vote. Only Stevens and Ginsburg dissented on that.
The 5-4 vote dealt with the deadline for Florida to finish its recount. The majority cited a statute that put the deadline at December 12. The dissent said that since that was just hours after the Court released its decision, then the Court was effectively ending the recount, and said that Florida should be extended a few extra days before the electors met on December 18.
Here’s more about the decision.
Luigi, you know you’re quoting an editorial from a paper that was owned by the Moonies, right?
With the way the Democrats and liberal/moderate Republicans have stalled Bush’s other judicial nominees, you can bet there will be resistance to anyone Bush nominates, regardless of substance.
Yeah, those bášŧárdš in Congress, what were they thinking, only letting 90% of Bush’s nominees get confirmed? Don’t they know that questioning Bush’s choices hurts our troops?
Then again, the GOP didn’t have to filibuster Clinton’s nominees. They just refused to vote on them.
Actually, Ginsberg (and Breyer) were compromise candidates. Kevin Drum has reprinted a couple of paragraphs of Orrin Hatch’s autobiography on his blog, in which Hatch says that Clinton was leaning toward Bruce Babbit, and Hatch suggested Ginsberg and Breyer to avaoid a house fight.
Drum closes his post by saying: “If George Bush calls up Patrick Leahy and agrees to nominate the candidate that Leahy recommends, Democrats will guarantee a quick and painless confirmation.”
Seems fair to me.
// Morality has roots in religion, //
Morality does not have it “roots” in religion. (This is one of the greatest lies the religious right has spread over the years). It’s possible to be moral without being religious, conversly it’s possible to be religious without being moral. The two really have nothing to do with one another. From a historical perspective, there are parts of the world that did not have what we would now call religion way back when, yet somehow the people living in those parts of the world came up with some of the same basic rules that many would have you belive did not exist till Moses came off the mountain with his commandments. Rules such as Don’t kill, don’t steal, be nice to others, etc. Morality existed before mordern religion, (or at least before it came to certain parts of the globe).