Slashdot Mirror
Justice O'Connor Retiring
rlbond86 writes "The New York Times reports that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will be retiring. Justice O'Connor, the first woman to become a Supreme Court justice, is considered by many the crucial 'swing vote' on many issues. How will this affect Supreme Court decisions in the future?" From the article: "Her departure, which had been the subject of rumors for weeks but was still a surprise, will give President Bush his first opportunity to name a justice to the Supreme Court. It is still not clear whether Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is battling thyroid cancer and had been widely expected to resign, will step down this summer, giving Mr. Bush another seat to fill."
Unfortunately this isn't really about SCOTUS bashing. The point here is that two branches of the government are already controlled by one party, and this latest retirement risks sending the final branch in that direction, depending on who Bush decides to appoint.
We already know the Republicans can, if push comes to shove, remove the filibuster option. Think about what this implies... Three branches of the government all controlled by a single party with a single (supposedly) agenda. What happens to checks and balances when there is no more balance, and checks become mere formalities?
Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
I personally supported almost nothing the previous president did, but I still respected him for being President of the United States.
Also note that the justices appointed don't always carry otu the 'wishes' of the appointer. President Ford, a fairly conservative leader, managed to get one of the more liberal judges appointed.
What we really need is to get judges who stop trying to legislate from the bench, and return to applying law to the case, not writing law for a case.
antipaucity
While I'm scoffing, let me take up the senate. Do me a favor: go figure out what percentage of the population are represented by Republicans and Democrats in the senate. Okay, I'll give you the answer: you'll figure out that Democrats represent more than 50% of the population in the senate, even though they're in the minority.
This "up-or-down vote" is just a front for the Republicans' desire for a tyranny of the majority. Finally Democrats are standing up to them, and rightly so.
Well, no, I'd mod you down because you're a thoughtless shill.
Of course, this all depends on who the President picks as a replacement. If he picks Alberto Gonzales (currently attourney general), all hell may break loose.
...it's almost certian we're going to get a hardcore far right judge as a replacement. When that happens, kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye.
...I'd say there is more of a chance we'll get reacquainted with the Bill of Rights than not.
I very mugh disagree. If this last week is any indication...:
- conservative side of the court dissenting when the SCOTUS threw out state and personal rights in favor of federal prohibition of medical marijuana
- dissenting when the SCOTUS
If you look at how "liberal" (not to be confused with classical liberalism) judges view the Constitution and Bill of Rights (as a "living document" that much change with the times and social moreys) and contrast it with how the conservative judges view the Constitution & BoR (as things to be interperited/implemented as the authors intended) it is pretty obvious that there is more potential for a liberal court to throw out individual rights (as an antequated idea), welcome socialism (as a replacement for the limited government defined in the constitution), and otherwise head down many other slopes that lead away from what the US was founded on.
I probably share with you in fearing that an authoritarian, statist (as opposed to libertarian) judge could take the bench...but I think that's more likely with a liberal judge (and even if not, a liberal reading of the constitution would likely be more permissive or an authoritarian legislature and executive.
You misunderstand the point of the judicial branch. The point of the judicial branch is to make sure that the other branches don't abuse their powers, and that the other branches don't shred the Constitution.
The judicial branch is supposed to be above partisan politics. Judges are appointed for life at the federal level. Regardless of a judge's MORAL stance on an issue, they are to rule according to the LAW, and the Constitution. That's why abortion remains legal in this country. Regardless of whether or not you feel abortion is a sin, or morally repugnant, or whatever, abortion seems to be allowed by the Constitution.
Now, as a snide side comment, Bush wasn't elected by a majority of this country. (Although he was re-elected by a majority. Go figure).
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
If she were a Democrat, she'd be touted as the next coming of Martin Luther King, Jr. That's all I'm saying.
Yes, since the Democratic party has no strong, intelligent black women. Idiot.
Jocelyn Elders was fired for suggesting that teenagers should be taught masturbation isn't evil. Condi Rice can tell Congress that no one could have expected planes to be flown into buildings - after the X-Files, Tom Clancy, and antimissile defenses at Genoa - and get promoted.
By the way, Jocelyn Elders worked as a maid to support herself while in college. I think her background is a wee bit more humble than Condi Rice's.
Most of the criticism I hear of her, like yours, is highly partisan.
So it's partisan to expect a political appointee to be competent at their job, or to demonstrate some understanding of what that is?
Or is it just partisan to assign responsibility to Republicans?
Or is Richard Clarke - a man who served under four presidents, three Republican - 'partisan'
Or does saying "partisan" allow you to turn your brain off and ignore criticism?
I've read Article 3 numerous times and don't see anything even remotely supporting that statement.
It's part of the "checks and balances" the 3 branches are meant to have on each other. Of course, this implies that after confirmation, the executive or legislative branch can check the power of the Court, but since they have never done it, it seems they are either happy with the situation or lack the will to exercise their own powers. I find either possibility unacceptable.
The fact of the matter is that the Court is increasingly issuing rulings based on anything BUT the Constitution, citing things like morality, changing times, foreign law, or "emanations of penumbras" (translation: "I'm trying to rationalize the fact that I pulled this out of my ass"), and have all but stated that the original intentions of the Founders who wrote this magnificent document, and in many cases the clear, plain English words contained therein simply don't matter in this so-called politically, socially and scientifically enlightened age.
If the Court would get back to what's actually WRITTEN down in the Constitution, combined with a clear understanding of the intent of the language and a sharp dose of common sense, and stop making things up just to suit their political or moral prejudices or to suit the new pressure group du jour, we would all be a lot better off. Of course, it will never happen, because then the other two brances would be forced to acknowledge that 4/5 of what the Federal Government does uses powers never granted by the Constitution, and that through increasingly (small 'l') liberal and tangential interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, the very idea of the Federal government being restricted to only those powers specifically enumerated has become irrelevant.
In other words, they threw the Constitution under the bus decades ago to serve the interests of big business, post-morality "morals", extremist pressure groups, a sense of universal entitlement and their own hyper-inflated sense of self-importance.
Once upon a time, a bunch of really smart guys got together to form a new country based on the idea of supreme and inalienable individual rights. They drew upon and expanded traditions that had developed largely in Europe and had existed in various forms since the days of the Romans and the ancient Greeks.
In their wisdom, they decided it best to surrender a small amount of these rights (but not life, liberty ot the pursuit of happiness) to a small, explicitly and narrowly defined Federal government, whose primary purpose was to help the united, but largely autonomous, states to engage in fair commerce, defend themselves against foreign aggressors, and to make sure that the rights of the individual states, and more importantly the people are preserved... and very little else.
It's ironic in the 21st century to even consider that there was a faction of the Constitutional Convention that felt the Bill of Rights was completely superfluous, as it spelled out the obvious, and that the Federal government as defined by the Constitution could never possibly usurp those God-given rights spelled out therein. Nowadays, the average American will not only recognize those rights, but a substantial portion of them think those rights go to far. If you look over the Bill of Rights today, the only right spelled out therein that I think we can all agree has not been watered down, whittled away or completely tossed out is the right to not have soldiers quartered in your house. And I wouldn't hold me breath if, God forbid, there is ever military conflict on American soil.
In the Federalist Papers, you will see the great lengths the various Founders go to explain the huge advantage the unity will provide in terms of global economics and security, but they also believed that such a union would only be just if it were voluntary. As we know, this was changed radically less than 100 years later, as was the very (small 'c') constitution of the Federal gov
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.