The new U.S. Supreme Court

[JustAGuy]

With the death on Saturday of Judge William Rehnquist, George Bush now has the opportunity to shape the future of America for decades beyond his eight year term in office. As bitterly disappointed as I'm sure Pat Robertson must be that his prayers for liberal Supreme Court judges to die weren't answered by his deity, when he thinks about it, I'm sure he'll be able to live with the realization that America is going to evolve (or devolve, depending upon your point of view) pretty much right along the lines he and other religious conservatives desire.

By appointing two relatively young and conservative judges, that mediocrity who holds the top elected job in the USA will be able to reinforce the two most extreme conservative judges already on the court (Antonin Scalia, age 69 and Clarence Thomas, age 57) and shape judicial rulings for a good long time to come.

For starters, the pressure to overturn Roe v Wade will be tremendous. But that's just the thin edge of the wedge. And if another conservative Republican (PLEASE say it won't be the even more mediocre Jeb Bush) wins the 2008 election, there's an excellent chance of further appointments to the highest court that could make America heaven on earth if you're a right wing conservative Christan and a pretty unliveable place if you're someone who doesn't fit that description.

 

[ghostie]

It's starting to look more and more unfortunate that Clinton was only able to appoint two USSC justices, whereas they seem to be dropping out at a faster rate now (but maybe that is just perception... if no one else dies or retires in the next three years then Clinton and Bush Jr. will appoint the name number - 2).

For Rehnquist to go isn't the big a deal in terms of the "balance", as Bush Jr. will get somebody with very similar views. If one of Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, or Stevens were to go, that would be a story (and seriously, how long can Stevens go for???) O'Conner's retirement was a bigger story as she is one of the two moderates or "swing" votes... and the fact that she is a woman is just HUGE on that court, where there have only ever been two women.

I don't know if the same pressure to replace women with women, and not let the number of woman fall until some kind of parity is reached, as occurs here in Canada, will play out down there. There are so many male white conservative nutcases in D.C. who must have been dreaming of being appointed to that court and overturning Roe v. Wade their whole adult lives. The campaigning behind the scenes must be bloodsport.

 

[dittman]

question for ghostie. would you define a nut case a justice that votes to take away our property rights as stated under the 5th amendment?

 

[luckydog71]

Over time the Supreme Court will reflect the will of the people.

Of the 3 branches of Gov't it has the slowest turn over and it should.

America is becoming more conservative and the Supreme Court will as well. It will just take longer.

To find the last real liberal president you would need to go back to Carter. Even Clinton was at least closer to the center.

The house and senate are GOP. Now I just wish the GOP was conservative.

Many people confuse Christian and conservative. The two are not synonymous.

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

I think (and hope) there will be quite a backlash against Republicans in the upcoming elections. The main problem is a lot of Republicans don't like Bush, but there is no democratic that is coming forward that they like either.

Dean turns off many folks, Kerry I liked (I like Gore the best) and Ms Clinton is a possibility as she hangs more to the central as a good political move.

Polls show about 67% of Americans are in favor of abortion availablity and Rowe v Wade.

My biggest concern is the right to sexsual privacy issue in the Lawrence vs Texas case where the Supreme Court said gays have the right to sexual privacy in their own homes. Many layers think the decision could be applied to other consenting adult sexuality even private sexwork. But was was a close 5-4 decision.

The Supreme Court also may hear other sex related cases such as challanging the Alabama law making the sale of sex toys like dildo's illegal. Or the new porn requrements for record keeping intended to drive porn out of business by the conservative Bush administration.

However, the public on these issues seems far more liberal. Even in Phoenix when our infamous Sheriff Joe did massive private sexwork bust of about 80, all cases were tossed and the public view was its a waste of police resources going after consenting private adults even paid sex! But the police will continue to harrass and courts convict all sexwork in the U.S. unless laws can be declared unconstitutional under the Lawrence vs Texas decision.

While the general public is more liberal, there are no law makers ready to stand up and get rid of these laws. While a minority the Christian religious right has a great deal of political power and money behind it.

Likewise the religious right got swing clubs made illegal first in Phoenix and now in many other cities. There was no widespread public support for the new law, in fact almost totaly opposition at public hearings except by the "church ladies" and heads of the religious right groups. But now swing clubs are illegal (even in remote locations literally by railroad tracks) and many have been forced closed by the Courts.

More related to Lawrence vs Texas see
http://www.libchrist.com/swing/lawconference.html

 

[dittman]

bush won by a majority of 51%-48% in the same election 11 states had the gay marriage thing on the ballot 10 of the 11 states voted in the affirmative and i beleave, could be wrong in this but the lowest winning margin was 67%

what i could never understand though is because the right to privacy is not in the constitution why doest one of the brilliant liberal lawmaker in the house or the senate offer an amendment to the constitution to the right of privacy. then the strict constructionist such as bork and scalia would be bound, because of their judicial philosophy to give liberals anything they want as far as abortion, gay marriage etc. a matter of fact moststrict constructioist would have to vote in the affirmative.

 

[HankQuinlan]

The house and senate are GOP. Now I just wish the GOP was conservative.

Many people confuse Christian and conservative. The two are not synonymous.

Your general beliefs as posted seem to be libertarian, yet you support the GOP as if they represented those beliefs. They do not. The GOP includes as a major part of their coalition the religious right, and depends on their leaders to get them votes. (Their other constituency is big business, on whom they depend for their advertising money at elections.) This means that the Republicans and "Christian" values are completely one and the same. No wonder people confuse the two.

The Republicans do play up those "conservative values" which do not conflict with their other interests: right to bear arms, "law and order" (which always refers to street crime rather than economic crime), national pride, etc.

Meanwhile, they cater to the Christian constituency with their polices on abortion, homosexual rights, drugs, and generally anything which represents personal freedom of choice (a core value of actual conservatives). As I understand it, conservatives believe each person has the right to live his or her own life (so long as you do not interfere with the same rights of others) with minimal interference from government.

Many traditional conservatives believe in an economy where small business thrives -- where an enterprising person can fulfill the dream of owning a hardware store or a successful farm, whatever. Not in the world of either the Democrats or Republicans. Both represent big business, where all the profits flow to the shareholders.

Many traditional conservatives just want to hold decent-paying jobs, so they can pay their mortgages and feed their families and put something away for retirement. Ditto. Decent-paying jobs are consistently being exported (under the Dem and GOP administrations), and falling in number year by year.

If you are a fiscal conservative, you must believe in sound fiscal management and that budgets should not be spent entirely on servicing debts. How can you expect that the GOP will ever represent you in other than token ways? They do not serve your own economic interests if they conflict with those of their partners.

The only conservative value that the Democrats represent any better than the GOP is that of some elements of personal choice and freedom --- only because they are less beholden to religious interests. They are not going to legalize marijuana or prostitution either (unless it becomes clear that it would win them elections!).

The Libertarians are far closer to your views. Why not stand with others who actually share your beliefs than with an administration who only pretends to? Your voice is not being heard in either of the two "acceptable" parties --- what have you got to lose?

 

[HankQuinlan]

bush won by a majority of 51%-48% in the same election 11 states had the gay marriage thing on the ballot 10 of the 11 states voted in the affirmative and i beleave, could be wrong in this but the lowest winning margin was 67%

what i could never understand though is because the right to privacy is not in the constitution why doest one of the brilliant liberal lawmaker in the house or the senate offer an amendment to the constitution to the right of privacy. then the strict constructionist such as bork and scalia would be bound, because of their judicial philosophy to give liberals anything they want as far as abortion, gay marriage etc. a matter of fact moststrict constructioist would have to vote in the affirmative.

So you don't believe in the right to privacy? It is a "looney left" idea? I thought it was a conservative ideal that everyone had to right to go about their own business as long as they don't harm others?

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

what i could never understand though is because the right to privacy is not in the constitution why doest one of the brilliant liberal lawmaker in the house or the senate offer an amendment to the constitution to the right of privacy.

Because of the huge political power and money of the religious right that its too risky to propose privacy rights. Our hope was in the Courts, as a constitutional issue vs the lawmakers.

Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness!
Lawrence vs. Texas Supreme Court Case Surprise Result

It was widely expected that under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, that the sodomy law that ONLY applied to gays and not to heterosexual couples would be struck down. The decision was 7-2 on that issue with as usual the very conservative Justices Scalia and Thomas dissenting.

But the next part was a shocker - The Human Rights decision. With the addition of O'Connor and (forget who) dissenting the majority of the Court by a close 5-4 decision said it was a human rights issue to be able to have individual liberty to seek enjoyment in what ever way someone pleased that didn't hurt others or the State. Also used the right to privacy argument which in the opinion the wording was taken directly from the Roe vs Wade abortion rights case. And then the decision went even further to say that laws based on MORALITY were unconstitutional !!!! That is a 180 degree shift from many previous lower court decisions. (In fact "protecting the morality" is written in as part of the Phoenix law outlawing swing clubs.)

U.S. Supreme Court Justices say in Lawrence v. Texas:
"Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct." [Kennedy, writing for the majority, 02-102, June 2003]
Or:
"A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the State's moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review." [O'Connor, concurring in part, 02-102, June 2003

Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, wrote, "..that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights. ... That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I believe that sexuality falls under pursuit of happiness !

 

[luckydog71]

Your general beliefs as posted seem to be libertarian, yet you support the GOP as if they represented those beliefs. They do not. The GOP includes as a major part of their coalition the religious right, and depends on their leaders to get them votes. (Their other constituency is big business, on whom they depend for their advertising money at elections.) This means that the Republicans and "Christian" values are completely one and the same. No wonder people confuse the two.

......

The only conservative value that the Democrats represent any better than the GOP is that of some elements of personal choice and freedom --- only because they are less beholden to religious interests. They are not going to legalize marijuana or prostitution either (unless it becomes clear that it would win them elections!).

The Libertarians are far closer to your views. Why not stand with others who actually share your beliefs than with an administration who only pretends to? Your voice is not being heard in either of the two "acceptable" parties --- what have you got to lose?

Hank....you have described my position very accurately. The US has become polarized and there are the fringes on both sides that actively promote that polarization. It is in their best interest to make that division as deep and as wide as possible.

My thought process to this point for presidential votes has been I need to pick the least worst of the 2 viable candidates, either GOP or DEM. There was an opportunity an in 1992 to pick a 3rd party. The guy was a little odd but he what he said made sense to me. In the end he drew votes from the GOP and very few from the DEMS and Clinton won.

In the last 2 elections there have only been two choices and W is closer to my thinking than either Gore or Kerry. The more I hear the left and particularly those I consider to be the far left wail against Bush and make overstated charges against him, the more I am convinced he is the better choice for me. I am sure during the Clinton years when the far right was attacking Clinton with overstated charges, the much larger group of left of center Americans had their decision re-enforced like mine is now.

We have a mid-term election coming in 06. My vote will be to weaken the strong hold the GOP currently has on the federal gov't.

The US system gov't is moving in the direction of the Canadian system of gov't and that is centralization of power and money. I oppose that.

In my opinion the federal gov't should only have those powers granted to it under the constitution. Over the last 100 years the federal gov't has continued to increase it's authority over things that rightfully belong to the State. I am a proponent of State's rights and believe we need to strength it.

Most politicians see State positions as a stepping stone to the real power.

People with similar beliefs to mine need to reverse this power. It is an up hill battle and one I am not sure is achievable in my life time. There is a large segment of the population that wants the feds to take on even more authority. You see this continued demand for a national heath care system and other national social plans like social security.

Now there is a cry for the feds to take on authority for local events such as the recent catastrophe in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. This will be viewed by the politicians on both sides as an opportunity to once again increase its authority. Once the emotional reaction has subsided you will see more new laws and more new taxes that will further centralize our system of gov't and it will be done under the name of those poor people who died in New Orleans.

The US gov't needs to have the following powers
- National security. I mean protecting US from foreign attacks
- Border security. Ensuring that those entering our country are here lawfully and for valid purpose.
- Interstate commerce.
- Civil rights and liberties
- Federal laws for the protection of people and their property
There maybe a few more that I have not mentioned, but you get my thoughts.

The State needs to have most of the power and authority, like health and welfare. The closer gov't gets to the people the more accountable it is and the more likely it is to serve the needs of the people who elected them.

As a direct result of a number of recent events I will change the way I cast my presidential vote in 08. I may even provide financial support if there is a 3rd party candidate that actually makes sense. Although a vote in Washington State for anyone other than the DEM candidate is a waste of gas getting to the poll, but I am going to do it anyway.

Thanks hank.......you make me think

 

[dirtydan]

Over time the Supreme Court will reflect the will of the people.

That maybe so, however Bush's nominee is clearly a pleaser to the political extremists in the Christain movement.

Of the 3 branches of Gov't it has the slowest turn over and it should.

America is becoming more conservative and the Supreme Court will as well. It will just take longer.

To find the last real liberal president you would need to go back to Carter. Even Clinton was at least closer to the center.

What is a liberal? Really, today it's a term that is used to condemn one's opponent as some sort of boogie-man. So often I have seen people quite ignorant of politics equate liberals with pretty well anything left of centre.

To me the last president remotely able to be labelled as a liberal the US had was FDR. Even then FDR was friend of the establishment. His measures were not to destroy capitalism but rather to revive it. Which he accomplished with enormous success.

The house and senate are GOP. Now I just wish the GOP was conservative.

Do you really know was conservative is?

Many people confuse Christian and conservative. The two are not synonymous.

True, but only to an extent. I know people that call themselves Christains and lean to the centre or to the left of the political spectrum. Hell throw a stone at a United Church of Canada congregation and you are more likely to hit some one that votes Liberal or NDP than Conservative.

However it is the flamboyant and greedy self proclaimed evangilists that have created a something all too cult like. Pricks like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the rest of that "criminal" ilk are in a sense nothing more than a 21st century version of Tammany (sp?) Hall. They are a loathsome organization far too eager to impose its policies, and its extensive stupidity, on a nation. Beware of this bunch, as much as they preach democracy their real goal is undoubtedly to turn the US in a theocratic dictatorship. Call it a Christain version of Iran. It's the new fascism.

If there is a massive difference between the US and Canada, it is for the latter religious leaders in politics have more often than not been on the progressive side. But in the US they largely have been the other way.

I'll gladly take the legacy of JS Woodsworth, TC Douglas, and SH Knowles over the direction Robertson, Falwell and the rest of those fuckheads want to take the US. Any given agnostic (like me )is a far better Christain than what those disgusting and dangerous whackos can ever aspire to be. Hitler-ites armed with a twisted interpretation of the Bible rather than carry Mein Kampf.

 

[rickoshadows]

The race to the bottom continues at breakneck speed.

rickoshadows

 

[JustAGuy]

Does Bush's decision today to nominate John Roberts to be chief justice of the Supreme Court, replacing William Rehnquist, mean
A) that he recognizes that Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are just a little too far to the right to be palatable choices for the job or ...
B) that he knows something about John Roberts' leanings that really haven't surfaced yet and that he's even MORE wacky right than either Scalia and Thomas. Not to mention that with being just 50 years old, Roberts could be chief justice for the next thirty or more years.

I know where I'd be placing my bets if I were a betting man and it isn't on Option A.

 

[luckydog71]

Does Bush's decision today to nominate John Roberts to be chief justice of the Supreme Court, replacing William Rehnquist, mean

Good question but I don't pick either of your choices, sounds like choices Mike Moore would offer.

Rehnquist was a strong advocate of states rights and is viewed as very conservative. Bush will want to replace him with another very conservative judge. The fight to get another Rehnquist through confirmation would be too bloody and would not be done before the Supreme Court reconvenes.

With the exception of the far left like Teddy "let her drowned" Kennedy or Robert "KKK sheets" Byrd, Roberts will get support. I predict about 70% support.

Once that happens Bush can bring in his more conservative nominee and let the fighting begin.

It is actually a very smart political move on his part. The confirmation hearing for the next nominee and the many hearings that will be ongoing to examine the fuck ups in N.O. and find out who we can blame will collide.

The DEMS will be beside themselves. The liberal media outlets will not know what to cover.

 

[cancowboy2001]

Just a question

Does being Chief Justice give that person a greater say or vote in matters?
Or does the title make her/him "first among equals" but only one voice in nine (nine justices right?)?

 

[luckydog71]

Does being Chief Justice give that person a greater say or vote in matters?
Or does the title make her/him "first among equals" but only one voice in nine (nine justices right?)?

Yes nine justices and the Chief Justice has one vote.

Most of his extra duties are administrative. I think his office is responsible for the budget, when he votes with the majority he decides who will write the majority or court opinion.

I think he has control of the court docket decided what order cases will be heard.

The Chief justice will also preside over an impeachment trial, when it is the President being impeached.

 

[dittman]

Does being Chief Justice give that person a greater say or vote in matters?
Or does the title make her/him "first among equals" but only one voice in nine (nine justices right?)?

actually he gets the same number of votes which is one, but he gets to assign the person who writes the majority opinion.

Dave you really do need to get over this christian right thing of yours, I actually thought you were logical in your thought processes. The reall money behind the republicans are the money men. The only power the so called christian right has is to get someone nominated to run for president, trust me if it came down to satisfying one or the other the republicans are going with the money men. who else are they going to vote for JOHN KERRY?
trust me they would much rather have someone else other then roberts in front of the senate right now.

o.k hank i will try to spell it out so even you can understand it i dont give a damn what you do, how you do, when you do. It has never been my business, will never be my business. I was making a statement of fact. period. well with a little sarcasim. I will send you 100 bucks today if you can show me anywhere in the u.s constitution where it states we have the right to privacy. All im saying is you put that phrase in the constitution and you have no more battles over the right to privacy. just a statement of fact. and with that the so called strict constructionist would fall into line, no questions about legislative intent, no questions about the history of the legislation, just a slam dunk.

and no dave the christian right would not oppose it because they would understand then you truly are on that slippery slope.

since gwb became president i have lost one right and that was because of the extremist on the left on the supreme court. go figure.

 

[dittman]

good call mike, his next nominee will be hispanic but not the ag. if he could find a hispanic female that is a conservative she would be it. But they say he wants to be the first to nominate a hispanic to the bench.

 

[luckydog71]

It is odd that the GOP are the ones who seem to provide opportunites for those considered by the DEMS to need special rules.

1st Woman - nominated by GOP
1st Black - nominated by GOP

1st hispanic - will likley be nominated by GOP.

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today."
MLK

I wonder why the DEMS have never nominated anyone except a white male? Guess they just could not find one. I am sure they looked.

 

[Herb_The_Perb]

He's likely elevating Roberts because of 2 reasons:

1) Roberts is fairly certain to be confirmed as he has no negative stances on hot issues and he is very well liked as a lawyer and judge, and

Only someone who is hopelessly uninformed, or hopelessly right-wing, could say this.
Maybe even both?