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."

Comments

Nothing to worry about

[bigtallmofo]

With the spirit of common brotherhood that has been displayed in Washington lately (especially in the Senate), the confirmation of O'connor's replacement should go very smoothly.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[ndansmith]

The sarcasm of parent has got a real point. I think that Bush's Supreme Court appointment(s) will be one of the defining political battles of recent time. Democrats in the Senate have violenty resisted Circuit Appellate Court nominees, and Bolton for UN ambassador. How much more will they fight the Republicans and President Bush if he nominates anyone but a moderate judge. Yes there will be great strife on the floor of the Senate in the coming months.

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.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[11223]

Don't worry. Senator Kennedy's driving!

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Planesdragon]

If the Democrats aren't very careful in its application, they may may lose it forever.

Both houses of Congress have impressively low quorum rules. If the Republicans give the Democrats no reason to stay in Washington--i.e., by being hardcore party-line all the time--then the Democrats can simply withdraw from washington and campaign full-time.

Which, really, will mean that Republicans will lose both houses of Congress. If the Democrats go from "obstructionist" to "revolutionary", they'll win faster than if the Republicans required everyone to become a Scientologist.

And the Republicans were looking for a fight to get rid of the Filibuster--and the media's done a crappy job pointing out that Bush's "straight up or down vote" was never given any President's slate of nominees, party majority or not.

Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[corn52283]

We all saw the battle with Bush's other nominations, let's see how badly he can piss the democrats off this time... and if his pick is as bad as John Bolton or Condoleeza Rice, we'll be hearing about it for a good long time... As for Rehnquist, if he retires, that's not just a seat to fill, they need to fill the head seat as well

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[whats_a_zip]

Ok, here goes some karma, since I know most of the folks here tend to be on the left side of the asile...

I don't think Bush can mess up the SCOTUS any more than it is already. Please don't forget that it was the left leaning justices who gave your local officials the right to take your property if they deem it to be in the public interest. And I believe most local public officals can be easily purchased by a WalMart looking for a new home.
Nice job SCOTUS.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[FungiFromYuggoth]

Um, sorry to bother you with facts, but Condi is bad because she was really bad at her job as National Security Advisor.

Example 1: 9/11, and intelligence agencies not playing well together. That's her job. Example 2: Ignoring Richard Clarke. Example 3: No WMDs in Iraq. Example 4: Allowing DoD to ignore State's reconstruction plans, completely screwing up the postwar.

Also, middle class is not poverty. You seem both very race-focused and very ignorant of Condi's background. She's apparently a trained classical pianist as well as an ice skater. Both of these are impressive accomplishments, but they don't mean she'll be good as Secretary of State. Talent is not fungible.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Trifthen]

Which is actually part of the problem. Once you have party affiliation, you have obligations you need to fulfill, loyalties that need to be maintained. Stray too far from the party line, and you're toast. Few politicians will take this risk, and so the band plays on.

I wish we *didn't* have political parties, but it's a little late for that; the barn door on that has long since rotted away.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[FungiFromYuggoth]

Make up your mind.

Do you want activist judges or do you want judges who follow the law?

You don't like the Kelo case - you shouldn't. But the remedy is not at the federal court level; there's no case law or precedent to support it.

Most states already prohibit these kind of takings - you know, the kind of taking of private land that made Bush millions of bucks when it was done in Texas. The rest of the states should follow suit, but it would be legislating from the bench if the Supremes would have done it..

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[FungiFromYuggoth]

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?

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[SacredNaCl]

Jocelyn Elders was fired for suggesting that teenagers should be taught masturbation isn't evil.

Elders wasn't canned for that, she was canned for suggesting marijuana was a public health issue that should be addressed there and not in the legal system, and for stating it probably wasn't very harmful. Even bringing up the idea of discussing a different approach to drug policy was enough for the Clinton administration to pull the rug on her.

Re:Which way?

[adtifyj]

http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96mar/oconnor.htm l

Re:Which way?

[PaxTech]

She dissented on both Kelo and Raich.

YRO.slashdot.org or Politics.slashdot.org?

[Rude Turnip]

Under any other administration, I could see this one clearly going to the politics section of Slashdot. But, undoubtedly, the fundie whackjob that Bush will nominate for the open SCOTUS seat better places this story under YRO.

About time.

[Capt. Caneyebus]

It is about time we can get some fresh blood into the SC. Let's just hope they can actually put someone good in that is young and can actually grasp today's technology better.

Question.

[rackhamh]

I'm going to show my lack of knowledge concerning the SCOTUS here, in the hopes of learning something new.

How is it determined which of the justices is the "swing vote"? Presumably, the swing vote is a concern in decisions that are split 5-4. But if there are 5 justices voting in a particular direction, how is it known which of those justices was undecided? (And, in fact, shouldn't they ALL be undecided until they've considered the merits of the particular case?)

Do the justices reveal their deliberation process? Or are particular judges just considered "swing votes" because they aren't consistent in the leaning of their decisions? (Which would also strike me as somewhat questionable behavior from a SC justice.)

Please enlighten me!

Re:Question.

[rcs1000]

Well: the Supreme Court typically (and this is by no means always) tends to split into two seperate camps:

(1) The "progressives" or "liberals", who have tended to favour an "expansionist" interpretation of the constitution, and have typically been in favour of Roe vs Wade.

(2) The "conservatives" who typically are more "creationist" and who believe that "if it ain't in the constitution, we shouldn't try and add it."

Because many issues fall clearly into one of the two camps, and there are some justices that reliably support one side rather than the other (i.e. Stevens is as liberal as they come for example) the decision often depends on the "swing" justices.

Of course, there are issues that transcend this simple left/right analysis, and even within this there are sub-groupings: states rights are one area (Clarence Thomas is normally staunchly conservative but voted that California's pot laws should not be overturned ), and religion another. The recent Grokster case is also interesting, if only because of the dissenting opinions filed. (Which indicate that the decision might have been entirely different if just 10% of the traffic was for "legitimate" purposes.)

Anyway: this is all very interesting, and for anyone with an enquiring mind I highly recommend reading some of SCOTUS's rulings.

Thanks,

Robert

Re:Question.

[Daniel_Staal]

The "Swing Vote" is the person who didn't have an obvious voting record. In almost all cases, 4 of the justices are likely to vote one way, and 4 the other. (One side being very conservative in it's reading of the law, the other being very liberal.) That is, most of the justices will read the laws in predicatible ways.

Sandra was the one who was most likely to change groups she voted with on any issue; therefore she was the swing voter. And therefore this is a very important position for Bush to fill: If he can get someone who will vote the way Bush wants, Bush can likely get the whole SCOTUS weight on his side.

Of course, Justices are not known for doing what the people who appointed them want them to do. Sandra, for instance, was appointed by Reagan, who was a very conservative president...

Re:Question.

[Qzukk]

Do the justices reveal their deliberation process?

Yes.

The justices write majority and minority opinions based on whether they were on the "winning" or "losing" side of the argument. Typically one on each side will write the opinion and everyone else endorses it, although sometimes some justices will write their own opinion by themselves.

Re:Question.

[donutello]

No, being a swing voter has nothing to do with being Left or Right. 4 of of the justices on the SCOTUS currently are "constructionists", i.e. they believe that their job is to resolve ambiguities in the Constitution by figuring out what the people who wrote it most likely meant when they wrote it. 4 others believe that the Constitution is a "living document" and that their job is to resolve ambiguities by applying modern interpretations to the words in the document. Conservatives like the constructionists because their rulings tend to support their own agendas and likewise the liberals tend to like the "living document" wing because their rulings tend to conform to their agenda.

O'Connor is a "swing" voter because sometimes she reasons based upon a strict interpretation and at other times reasons based upon a more creative interpretation of the constitution. It has nothing to do with Centrism. The fact that constructionists are aligned with the right and the "living document" wing is aligned with the left is merely an accident of what the constitution actually is.

Re:Question.

[Strawser]

If he can get someone who will vote the way Bush wants, Bush can likely get the whole SCOTUS weight on his side.

Yes, and the problem is that one small group of people, the party leadership for the GOP, will control both houses of Congress, the Executive Office, and the Supreme court. They will be able to pass just about any law they want, sign it, and uphold it in court.

That's exceptionally dangerous.

Re:Bring on another Scalia

[numbuscus]

Yeah, those damn liberals on the court! All 2 of them that were nominated by democrats!

Bush names successor

[Karl Cocknozzle]

In related news, President Bush has announced plans to exhume Hitler's brain, have it surgically implanted in a Great White Shark, and to nominate that shark for Justice O'Connor's seat on the court. No comment yet from ocean swimmers or fish schools about this development.

Re:Bush names successor

[42Penguins]

It had better have a frickin laser mounted on its head!

Re:Let the...

[Trifthen]

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?

Re:It is a big deal.

[PaxTech]

What are you talking about?? Clinton administration policy was for regime change in Iraq, Gore is on record before 2000 calling for regime change in Iraq, and most importantly it's been shown that Bush would have ultimately won any Florida recount anyway!

Re:Which way?

[Golias]

She wrote an absolutely furious minority opinion on the recent eminent domain ruling. She felt very strongly that it was a bullshit ruling, but it passed 5-4 anyway. Oddly enough, it was mainly the so-called "progressives" on the court who voted to give the Big Bad Corporate World the legal means to get governments to push you out of your homes by promising to deliver better tax revenues with the land.

Now we probably need to talk about a new Amendment to the Constitution to protect property rights the way the 5th Amendment was supposed to, according to anybody who gives a fuck about the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

Although she was a Reagan appointee, she's generally regarded as a "swing" vote on a lot of the high-visibility social issues. A lot of 5-4 decisions over the years came down to 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, and Sandra Day O'Connor breaking the tie one way or the other.

Disclaimer: IANAUSSCJ (I Am Not A United States Supreme Court Justice)

O'Connor's Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to SCOTUS Blog's sister site Supreme Court Nomination Blog for the following info.

Relevant post from which this is taken

*****Copied Post Follows*****

Which Important Precedents are Likely to Be in Jeopardy?
Jurisprudential Effects | Posted by Marty Lederman at 01:23 PM

These are among the cases in which Justice O'Connor's has been the decisive vote or opinion, and in which a more conservative Justice might well vote to overrule the governing precedent. (Post in progress. Please suggest additional cases.)

Note: Because most Justices consider stare decisis a more serious obstacle in cases of statutory construction, those cases (e.g., the Davis and Jackson Title IX decisions) might be more secure, even if Justice O'Connor's replacement would not have agreed with her as a matter of first impression.

McCreary County v. ACLU (2005) -- Ten Commandments displays

Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Educ. (2005) -- Title IX Liability for Retaliation

Rompilla v. Beard (2005) -- standard of reasonable competence that Sixth Amendment requires on the part of defense counsel

Johanns v. Livestock Marketing (2005) -- assessments for government speech

Smith v. Massachusetts (2005) -- double jeopardy

Small v. United States (2005) - felon firearm possession ban doesn't cover foreign convictions

Tennessee v. Lane (2004) -- Congress's Section 5 power

Hibbs v. Winn (2004) -- Tax Injunction Act

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) -- EPA authority under Clean Air Act to issue orders when a state conservation agency fails to act

McConnell v. FEC (2004) -- campaign finance

Groh v. Ramirez (2004) -- sufficiency of non-particularized search warrant

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) -- affirmative action

Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003) -- no takings violation in IOLTA funding scheme

American Insurance Ass'n v. Garamendi (2003) -- presidential foreign-affairs "pre-emption" of state law

Stogner v. California (2003) -- ex post facto clause as applied to changes in statutes of limitations

Alabama v. Shelton (2002) -- right to counsel

Rush Prudential HMO v. Moran (2002) -- upholding state laws giving patients the right to second doctor's opinion over HMOs' objections

Kelly v. South Carolina (2002) -- capital defendant's due process right to inform jury of his parole ineligibility

FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) -- upholding limits on "coordinated" political party expenditures

Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) -- prohibiting indefinite detention of immigrants under final orders of removal where no other country will accept them

Easley v. Cromartie (2001) -- race-based redistricting

Rogers v. Tennessee (2001) -- "judicial" ex post facto

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (2001) -- state action

Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) -- "partial-birth abortion" ban

Mitchell v. Helms (1999) -- direct aid to religious schools

Davis v. Monroe County Board of Educ. (1999) -- recognizing school district liability under Title IX for student-on-student sexual harrassment

Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network (1997) -- injunctions against abortion-clinic protestors

Richardson v. McKnight (1997) -- private prison guards not entitled to qualified immunity in section 1983 suits

Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996) -- provisions of the Voting Rights Act are constitutional as applied to choice of candidates at party political conventions

With the recent close votes

[VolciMaster]

in the supreme court, and the lack of any recent appointments to the highest court in America, it seems like a good thing that there will be some new blood in the justice seat. I don't personally support everything Mr Bush has done as president, but he is my president, and as such deserves my respect.

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.

Re:With the recent close votes

[numbuscus]

One of the biggest problems is not that the courts makes law, it's that congress writes such shitty and unclear law that it has to be interpreted over and over again.

Re:With the recent close votes

[Jherek Carnelian]

But please, show me the line in the Constitution that gives us a right to privacy.

Sure:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Re:With the recent close votes

[killjoe]

"Mr Bush has done as president, but he is my president, and as such deserves my respect."

Nobody deserves respect. It has to be earned.

"Mr Bush has done as president, but he is my president, and as such deserves my respect."

You are in the minority. Other people resored to grilling about which orifice of Monica he stuck his cock into. Yes they point blank asked him if he stuck his cock into her mouth and her pussy (under oath!). Now that's what I call respect.

"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."

Whoever Bush picks will be looking to make lots of new law. Bush wants somebody who will roll back roe V Wade, make sure fags never get married, roll back affarmitive action, and institute prayer in schools. He will be looking for somebody whose philosophically thinks the US should be a theocracy.

VACANCY

[Anonymous Coward]

anti-choice?
homophobic?
evangelical christian?
xenophobic?
pro-business?
anti-privacy?
old, white, and crazy?

please mail your resume to:
White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
re: SCOTUS

Re:VACANCY

[learn fast]

This administration really specializes in finding extreme-right appointees that are members of minority groups.

Look, this memo was written by hispanic Albert Gonzales! The choice bits: "the war against terrorism is a new kind of war" and "this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

That certainly would look good under Supreme Court letterhead, wouldn't it!

Re:Be afraid...

[Wyatt Earp]

"Never has there been a president more intent on making sweeping changes and pushing an agenda that upon final analysis is fairly marginal (and more truly radical than most realize)."

Ha.

Abraham Lincoln
Franklin D. Roosevelt

To name two.

This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left...

[katharsis83]

O'Conner's retirement is actually much more important than if Rehnquist had retired; on a pretty wide array of social policies, i.e. abortion and affirmative action, O'Conner has been the swing vote in the 5-4 decisions. Rehnquist, on the other hand, tends to vote conserative, period. Slashdotters might be pleased to know she was a key vote in the challenge to the President to arbitrarily detain individuals w/out review:

"It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation's commitment to due process is most severely tested," she wrote last year for the court in the Iraq-war era case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. "And it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad. . . . We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens." ~ taken from the Washington Post article today.

There are pretty much two options for Bush to play this:

1) He tries to appeal to the Hispanic vote, key for his party in upcoming elections, by nominating Alberto Gonzalez. Problem is, the Christian Right, would be pretty pissed about this, since they think he'll vote to keep Roe v. Wade and affirmative action. Just a reminder though, this is the same guy who authored the infamous legal documents saying we don't need to treat prisoners from Afghanistan under the Geneva Conventions, and wanted to redefine torture more loosely.

2) He tries to please his core-base, the social conservatives, by nominating someone likely to overturn Roe v. Wade, and affirmative action. This'll set off a firestorm on the right AND left.

Option 1 would be the far more moderate choice, and less likely to create a protracted battle in the Senate, which SEEMS to be what he was hinting at he wants when he said in his speech that he wanted a "dignified" nomination process - of course this could just be posturing.

Another interesting tidbit will be to see how the "Gang of 14" in the Senate, who avoided the filibuster showdown, will react if Bush goes with Option 2. No offense to the "Gang of 14," but I think that pressure from far right and left interest groups are gonna tear the agreement under asap. Especially since Frist hates the agreement, since it was pretty much a slap in the face to him when key Republicans went around him to get it done. I doubt he'll lift a finger to try and negotiate if Bush nominates a social conservative like Scalia or Thomas.

Just a few thoughts. The comings weeks will be fun to watch.

Re:Which way?

[ReverendHoss]

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=4 246

Disclaimer: The Nation is a left-wing magazine. But at the bottom is a listing of rulings where O'Connor has been the swing vote in a 5-4 decision.

Re:Florida, Florida

[magarity]

the same Sandra Day O'Connor that stopped the recount

You mean who helped stop the Fla court from changing the local election law after the election. Well, I guess it doesn't matter. The LA Times, NY Times, and Washington Post all conducted their own independent counts and found that GWB was the winner.

Re:It is a big deal.

[hagrin]

Well, you gave people 8 minutes to respond to the news posting here. Many of us, in those first 8 minutes, were rushing our girlfriends to Planned Parenthood to "get it taken care of" just in the nick of time.

Re:Which way?

[soft_guy]

Fuck what the Founding Fathers intended. (They are dead anyway.) Anyone who cares about freedom and property rights should support such an amendment!

Re:Let the...

[str8]

two branches of the government are already controlled by one party

You forget, every 2 or 4 years, two of the branches are decided by voting (you did vote, didn't you?) so they represent a majority of the country. Why shouldn't the third branch also represent the majority? Don't forget, just because someone has an R next to their name, doesn't mean they are controlled by the party.

Vote, there's your checks and balances.

Psst, hey buddy, can you spare a .sig?

Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

Supreme Court Justices are required to be conservative. The definition of their job is to interpret new laws for consistency with the old ones, rooted in the original - the Constitution. So they are required to exercise the maximum possible conservatism, determining whether the new law conserves the law, or makes a new legal principle. Only very rarely can they allow a new legal principle, on the theory that that the old ones are just, and comprehensive.

So the Justices are all conservative. The only question is how conservative, or whether they're really radical (changing the root), or just using conservative language to make new changes.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

Of course I have. What have you been paying attention to? Where's the innovation, the novel legal principles? Please skip the fake "framers' intent" mumbo jumbo used to mask innovation in the name of mythological conservatism. Where is it?

Re:Public ConServants

[Danger Stevens]

There's a difference between real conservatism and modern conservatives. Bush is considered a conservative. He's liberal with the military, liberal with spending, liberal with tax breaks and corporate advantage, liberal with big government and federal power. SCJs are required to be conservative in a way that calls for moderation and tact in letting our country make changes. The two are completely different, they're just both called 'conservative'

Re:Public ConServants

[John Newman]

How is a "fundamentalist" a "liberal"?

The classic examples are the abolitionist and utopian movements in the 1800s, both of which were born of Christian "fundamentalism". But it seems like fundamentalism is far more often associated with authoritarian reactionaries. The whole idea of fundamentalism is that the truth is already known, so any "progress" can only deviate further from that truth.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

So then how can a "fundamentalist" be a "liberal", in the terms of the post to which I replied? They clearly are implying one kind of politics, citing only "liberal" and "leftist". Two political labels which are synonymous primarily to Christian fundamentalists today.

Obscuring the actions of Christian fundamentalists with a semantic smokescreen is disingenuous. Merely citing the dictionary without respect to the context is naive. Both are dangerous, hiding some of America's best organized and radical activists from public discussion of their activities. Especially in the context of Bush, a fundamentalist spokesmodel, appointing at least one new Justice to the Supreme Court.

Re:Public ConServants

[afidel]

Hmm, I would say their ruling on thermal imaging devices was pretty novel. They not only ruled that the police were required to get a warrant for the use of that specific device, but also laid down that any device which allowed the police to see in a manner enhanced from the naked eye would also require a search warrant.

Re:Public ConServants

[soft_guy]

Prior to Roe vs. Wade, back in the 40's - 60's a lot of Christian fundamentalists were liberal democrats because of the part of Chritianity that supports "social justice". A lot of the whites involved in civil rights were christians (from the north) who believed that discrimination is wrong. For example, quakers and other groups. The republicans were mostly aligned with the rich and big business which is why they typically were not winning elections prior to 1968.

The one exception , Eisenhower, could have been elected as either a republican or a democrat as he was in charge of the Allied victory in Europe.

By 1968, the democrats had self destructed over vietnam, the hippy rhetoric took over the party, the civil rights issue had permanently caused three southern states (Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama) to switch from "solidly democrat" onto their course of eventually becoming solidly republican.

Prior to 1980, when people thought of religion in politics, they thought of the democratic party. People were afraid when Jimmy Carter was elected because he was a "religious fundamentalist". And in fact, he was a very principled man who is deeply religious to the point where he was willing to let the US be embarassed (Iran Hostage Crisis) because of his principles.

To those who will no doubt say "What else could Carter have done?". I guarentee if Teddy Roosevelt had been President the situation would not have gone on for 444 days. Carter could have, for example, diplomatically "recognized" Iran and then asked Congress to declare war on them declaring our "war aim" to be the return of the hostages unharmed OR the unconditional surrender of Iran. I personally think that would have scared Iran into coughing up the hostages very quickly.

Re:Public ConServants

[jadavis]

I disagree. O'Connor is a moderate politically, but an activist judge. She sometimes comes down on the side of the right, and sometimes the left, but almost always making law that didn't exist before.

Example 1: The death penalty for minors. Where in the Constitution does it say that the death penalty can't be used on minors? It's a perfect example of something that should be left up to the states. As justification, the majority in that decision used international laws (wtf?) and some kind of "evolving standards". That is not rule of law, that is rule of man (or woman, in this case).

Example 2: Roe v. Wade. Let me say that I believe that abortion should be legal in some circumstances. However, I am against the decision for two reasons: first, it should be up to the states, and second, if it is national law, why not let the legislature make the law? The Constitution does not state anywhere that abortion is illegal. 5 judges of 9 decided that for the whole nation. If it should be a right, try to get an Amendment passed. Otherwise, it's up to the states (or at least the legislature).

We live in a nation where the rule of law should apply. You should know in advance whether you're breaking the law or not, in plain english. Even 4 Supreme Court justices don't know that you're breaking the law? That's the abysmal state of our legal system right now. In reality, they fabricate the law where it doesn't exist, and interpret the Constitution to mean exactly the opposite of what it says because of a chain of precendents each using odd reasoning and ignoring the implications.

You can give me a million good reasons why it's a good idea to require registration and waiting periods for guns, and to impose all kinds of restrictions on the sale, transportation, manufacture, and so forth. But it's all unconstitutional, plain as day. The 2nd Amendment does't say "the right of the militia" it says "the right of the people". It's unqualified permission for any person in the United States to keep and bear arms. Of course responsibility comes with that, and if you are threatening people, you go to jail, where you lose all kinds of rights. But the Supreme Court is too smart and clever to read the simple sentence, they use all kinds of strange logical constructs and legal BS to ignore the text.

Now we have stupid rulings where it's legal to have the 10 Commandments in Texas but not in Kentucky. One place it's Constitutional and the other place not? I hear all kinds of political BS every day, and all of it is "protected speech" (even if paid for by the taxpayers), but if someone gives it the magical label "religious" it is now "unconstitutional speech". What deserves the label "religious" vs. something else? Judges, primarily.

In other words, we live in a land ruled by man, not law.

Re:Public ConServants

[isotope23]

With our standing army, such a "well regulated militia" is no longer necessary to the security of a free state

Freedom from a tyrannical state was as much a fear (if not more so) than a foreign invasion. Parse the sentence how you will, but the intent Clearly was to protect against both other nations AND a tyrannical federal government. (not to mention the ability to defend and protect one's natural rights from bandits etc.) If you think the second amendment is no longer valid, fine, just amend the constitution. That is precisely why the amendment process is there.

An example of my own, is the interstate commerce clause. Nowhere was it inferred or implied that the interstate commerce clause gives the federal government the power to PROHIBIT commerce. It was understood that the power was to protect free commerce FROM interference. If this was not the case, then the 18th amendment would not have been needed since the power to prohibit the trade in liquor would have already existed.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

That's a pretty neat Republican history of America. Of course it omits the KKK, still burning crosses for their "Christian America" (and whose mailing lists are part of Senator Bill Frist's franking privileges). It skips the Republican opposition to labor rights which sank the party during the Great Depression, though it was able to coopt Eisenhower in getting rid of an entrenched "5 term" Democratic White House. Yeah, it skips Nixon, who was able to win in 1968 when the Democratic frontrunner , Robert Kennedy was mysteriously assassinated, like his brother the president who had defeated Nixon the last time around. You do get in mention of the hippies of 1968, who spent all their political time marching against Johnson, a Democrat, until gassed and beaten in the streets of Democrat Daley's Chicago - really your most egregious historical distortion, in degree if not in importance.

Probably your most important distortion is how "the civil rights issue" caused three southern states to switch. Yes, white southerners sided with the Democrats while the party produced racists like Alabama's George Wallace, promising to protect their jobs from management above, and blacks below. The racists have now found a home in the Republican Party, as they foolishly believe that Republican exclusionary culture will protect their remaining privileges, though they are themselves excluded from any benefits but promises to turn the country into a "more Christian one".

So it's no surprise that you ignore Carter's negotiations with the Iranians, whose revolution kicked out the Shah propped up by Nixon during the creation of OPEC. Of course you don't mention the simultaneous negotiations of the Republicans, to keep the hostages until Reagan was inaugurated, which deal was honored in exchange for illegal military assistance known as "Iran/Contra" by those with more complete histories than yours. Your boys instead armed Iran, and entrenched their government, while simultaneously backing Iraq, and its chemical warfare. Creating both the monsters that are our biggest foreign threat today. Except perhaps for Pakistan, the source of the Taliban and probable home of bin Ladin. Or Saudi Arabia, source of 19 of the 9/11/2001 planebombers, and the apparently the majority of the suicide bombers in Iraq. Or the nuclear program they accomplished while your boys, Reagan and Bush, ensured we pumped maximum money and security into their tyrannical regimes, to say nothing of your Saudi hand, cheek and ass-kissing president now covering these enemies with more cover than we can even produce.

Now, I've gone on long enough just adding a little balance to your unilateral distortion of history. I could add all kinds of Democratic malfeasance, like Johnson's prefiguration of Iraq in the Gulf of Tonkin, Carter's refuge for the Shah, protection of Ceausescu, benevolent neglect of Peron and Pinocet. Or Clinton's coddling Indonesia among various other tyrannical client states.

But I'm not going to hide the manipulation of "faith-based" (nonrational) American voters behind the complicity of Presidents in multinational corporate tyranny. Because that would be just as devious as hiding the agenda of these fundamentalists behind meaningless political labels. The people we're talking about have always been willing, even anxious, to discard American justice and equity in exchange for the right to be the ones doing the persecuting. Their leaders have ridden that wave to unquestioned power, counting on "faith" to keep them in the best position to exploit their own people first, and the rest of us in their name second. These Christian Taliban are the greatest threat to America - greater than foreigners, greater than their current shepherds in the Republican Party. If they tempt the Democrats into their antiamerican agenda, then all is lost.

Seems to me Bush won reelection

[unassimilatible]

And one of his platforms during the campaign was nominating solidly conservative justices. Additionally, the GOP gained seats in the Senate in the last election. Seems like the people have spoken. Bush should be able to nominate the jutices he wants, and get an up-or-down vote, not be dictated to by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Moveon.org.

You might not like it, but it's the truth. And you wouldn't mod me down just because you disagree with me, would you?

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Pixie_From_Hell]

And one of his platforms during the campaign was nominating solidly conservative justices. Additionally, the GOP gained seats in the Senate in the last election. Seems like the people have spoken.

Yes, because 51% percent of voters prefer Bush to Kerry, we should have an all-conservative-all-the-time goverrnment. I scoff.

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.

And you wouldn't mod me down just because you disagree with me, would you?

Well, no, I'd mod you down because you're a thoughtless shill.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[revscat]

And one of his platforms during the campaign was nominating solidly conservative justices. Additionally, the GOP gained seats in the Senate in the last election. Seems like the people have spoken. Bush should be able to nominate the jutices he wants, and get an up-or-down vote, not be dictated to by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Moveon.org.

Dictated? Coming to a compromise is not "dictating." Democraces are built upon compromise, and the tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Why shouldn't he appoint someone who both sides agree upon, instead of trying to comletely silence fully half of the country? Sen. Reid, the leading Democrat in the Senate, has already offered up a list of Republican candidates who they would be willing to negotiate over. But the usual tactic for Republicans is to give a rats ass about actually being democratic, so I'm sure they'll attempt to run roughshod over the American public again.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[FungiFromYuggoth]

This may make your brain explode, but it's not my fault if it does.

Republican Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan) placed a "hold" on a Bush nominee - denying her and up-or-down vote - because she's pro-choice. Even though she's a nominee for a position at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which is not exactly a hotbed of abortion decisions.

Damn that Ted Kennedy!

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Sir Pallas]

It's not really gerrymandering because the State lines aren't redrawn all that often. I don't know where you've lived, but I've lived both in the Midwest and on the West Coast. Maybe it goes without saying that they are completely different worlds; the States operate very differently. They are individual entities with distinct voices. When I try to explain my politics to people on the West Coast (in particular) they get confused because their picture is different than the picture where I was raised. And I think that distinct voice needs to be heard. (I am also quite proud that Missouri, my birthplace, has voted with the winner in the presidential elections for about the past 100 years. It's a representative voice.) Think of it this way: just beacuse one man is bigger doesn't make his voice more important; just because one state has more people, doesn't make its voice more important.

Re:O'Connor's impact

[bindster]

Here is a more faithful reproduction of the Salon piece:

O'Connor and the 5-4 decision

We've already noted the critical role Sandra Day O'Connor has played as a Supreme Court swing voter over the last 24 years. Here's more on that front -- People for the American Way's list and description of notable 5-4 Supreme Court decisions that could have gone the other way if a more conservative justice were sitting in O'Connor's seat:

• Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) affirmed the right of state colleges and universities to use affirmative action in their admissions policies to increase educational opportunities for minorities and promote racial diversity on campus;
• Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) said the Environmental Protection Agency could step in and take action to reduce air pollution under the Clean Air Act when a state conservation agency fails to act;
• Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran (2002) upheld state laws giving people the right to a second doctor's opinion if their HMOs tried to deny them treatment;
• Hunt v. Cromartie (2001) affirmed the right of state legislators to take race into account to secure minority voting rights in redistricting;
• Tennessee v. Lane (2004) upheld the constitutionality of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and required that courtrooms be physically accessible to the disabled;
• Hibbs v. Winn (2004) subjected discriminatory and unconstitutional state tax laws to review by the federal judiciary;
• Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) told the government it could not indefinitely detain an immigrant who was under final order of removal even if no other country would accept that person;
• Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (2001) affirmed that civil rights laws apply to associations regulating interscholastic sports;
• Lee v. Weisman (1992) continued the tradition of government neutrality toward religion, finding that government-sponsored prayer is unacceptable at graduations and other public school events;
• Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003) maintained a key source of funding for legal assistance for the poor;
• Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996) said key anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act apply to political conventions that choose party candidates;
• Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) upheld laws that limit political party expenditures that are coordinated with a candidate and seek to evade campaign contribution limits;
• McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) upheld most of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, including its ban on political parties' use of unlimited soft money contributions;
• Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) overturned a state ban on so-called partial birth abortion; and
• McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) upheld the principle of government neutrality towards religion and ruled unconstitutional Ten Commandments displays in several courthouses.

-- Tim Grieve

Re:Great!

[Dagny Taggert]

Amen. Liberals always looked at this court as "conservative"----it is center-left at best. Look at their recent decision further eroding private property rights.

Re:Boooo

[Cromac]

Not nearly as bad as Clinton appointing 2 for life.

Re:It is a big deal.

[Ken Broadfoot]

"most importantly it's been shown that Bush would have ultimately won any Florida recount anyway!"

Bush's first gutless act was going to the feds to settle a state issue. What happened to states rights? Strict Constructionist he says...

Medical Marijuana,
Assisted Suicide.

If he was so sure he was going to win the recount he should have let it be.

Same for Gore too... He should have asked ALL counties to recount. Not just the democratic ones.

Yes I am a liberal. So what? If everybody in America walked in lock step with Bush this truly would be a scary place. There are two parties for a reason.

Debate, etc...

--ken

Re:It is a big deal.

[revscat]

What are you talking about?? Clinton administration policy was for regime change in Iraq, Gore is on record before 2000 calling for regime change in Iraq,

A) They were wrong. B) You're taking what they said out of context. C) Bush has been such a stubborn ass that he won't change any policy, no matter how badly it fails. D) Repeating lies don't make it true.

and most importantly it's been shown that Bush would have ultimately won any Florida recount anyway!

That is a lie. Also, anyone -- anyone -- who supports unverifiable electronic voting should be shot.

Doesn't surprise me

[jangobongo]

When I heard that she was going to be teaching a class at the University of Arizona (albeit, during the Supreme Court's winter recess in 2005-2006), I had a feeling that she might retire soon.

She's a republican, she's 75, her husband has Alzheimer's and she wants to spend time eith him. She probably thinks there's no better time to retire and let Bush put another Republican in her place.

I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[b0r0din]

Frankly I hope the two parties tear each other to pieces. Maybe then some third party could finally get in edgewise and actually get rid of this horribly corrupt administration and Congress, Dems and Repubs alike. And no, I don't necessarily mean Libertarian. Something that fits with my socially liberal, fiscally conservative agenda. Let's face it, neither party is anywhere close to that right now.

Personally I'm a moderate, and I agreed with a lot of O'Connor's decisions, particularly recent were her decisions on eminent domain (although I agree with her Pro-Choice stance too). I can't help but feel all of America is about to get the hard end of the stick with Bush's next appointee. And if he decides to be the angry child he normally is, I have no doubts the government will cease to function in Washington over this next nomination.

Let the war begin!

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[snorklewacker]

> And if he decides to be the angry child he normally is, I have no doubts the government will cease to function in Washington over this next nomination.

One can only hope. You forget that the same corrupt party controls two branches of government, and is gunning for the third. And frankly, they're a lot better at pandering to ignorance and fear, so they'll get the vast majority of the public behind them.

I can hope we get another David Souter. I think we're going to get one that makes Thomas look like Ginsburg. Maybe even two.

The next 20 years look grim.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

By being the "angry child he normally is," you of course mean excersizing his constitutional power to appoint judges who have similar views and beliefs as himself? In this situation, the only "comprimise" that the democrats will be satisfied with is appointing a liberal judge. That isn't a comprimise at all, that would simply be surrender.

George Bush has never made it a secret exactly what his views on society are. He is a conservative, just as he was WHEN HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT.

The majority of this country chose him knowing full well that he would appoint judges who believed as he did. Why shouldn't he therefore follow the wishes of the majority of the country and do JUST THAT?

So when you say that "I can't help but feel all of America is about to get the hard end of the stick with Bush's next appointee," what you SHOULD be thinking is that if Bush appoints a judge of HIS choosing, the majority of the country will WIN. Only if the democracts are allowed to win this battle will the country get the "hard end of the stick."

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[daVinci1980]

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).

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[google]

Bush has already spent his political capital. I hate to tell you, but 1% is not a mandate.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Brian_Ellenberger]

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.

That's nice and all in abstract, but who watches the judicial brance to make sure THEY don't shred the constitution? After all, the whole reason that we have a democracy, 3 branches of government, and checks and balances is because human beings are fallible. If we could find a perfect human beings who make perfect decisions everyone agrees with we could create a dictatorship with all decisions made by that one person. But there is no such person. And the current supremes are obviously biased by their internal politics and beliefs. Most observers can predict what each supreme will do, not based on the observation of law, but each supreme's perception of reality and what is right and wrong.

The danger is that the Supreme Court does not have the same checks and balances as Congress or the President. Supremes are not elected, have lifetime memberships, and the only way to theoretically overrule a decision is to amend the constitution. The more decisions that the Supremes make that overrules the elected bodies, the less we become a republic and the more we become a autocratic society.

Brian

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[fbg111]

I can hope we get another David Souter.

How can you hope for another David Souter after his recent ruling on eminent domain??? People don't seem to understand that both the Democrats and Republicans are now statist parties. Just b/c the Democrats oppose the Republicans doesn't mean they're suddenly libertarian good guys.

And to set the record straight, it was the conservative, Republican-appointed judges who opposed this decision - three of Reagan's four judges (Rehnquist, Scalia, Connor, but not Kennedy) and one of Bush Sr's two judges (Thomas, but not Souter) opposed the ruling[pdf]. Furthermore, it is Congressional Republicans introducing legislation to mitigate its damage, while Congressional Democrats state both their opposition to that legislation and support of the Kelo decision. Of course, there are plenty of examples of people on both sides of political spectrum opposing this, even socialists, so it's much more complex than the typical dumbed-down Democrat-vs-Republican football match. So enough of the uninformed, knee-jerk reactions please, and we'll take two more Rehnquists President Bush, thank you very much.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[afidel]

Uh, where does it say that the president has unlimited power to put whoever he wants on the bench? From what I see he has the power to appoint judges with "the advise and consent" of the congress. That little clause is meant to be one of the many checks and balances engrained into the constitution. It means that a tyrany of the masses is that much more difficult. From an objective point of view Washington is at its best when it is doing almost nothing, when only those ideas that are almost universally supported are passed into law. The rest of the time the pundulum is swinging too far to one side or the other, usually with bad results for everyone.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[centron]

This dramtic oversimplification brought to you by the American Black and White Idealism Committee, bringing you opinions void of thought for over two hundred years.

I won't claim objectivity, since anyone that does so is lying or fooling themselves, but George Bush is the least compromising individual I have ever witnessed in a position of authority. Some call it "staying the course", and "determined leadership", but it is really just euphemistic for "don't confuse me with facts, I've already made up my mind".

The idea that every branch of our federal government can now be dominated by the agendas and members of the far conservative right, especially after Rehnquist finally bites it, with nothing to temper it towards a moderate stance, should be deeply concerning to anyone that doesn't buy into the same beliefs as the staunch conservatives and the fire and brimstone Christians. Even for conservatives, this may well lead us to a government too far right for comfort.

Add to this the continued Republican policies of deficit spending, something they have decried the now oddly fiscally responsible Democrats for years about, and you have a recipe for the alienation and fracture of American society and America as a respected world power, not to mention the economic disaster that the current financial policy puts in our future.

Re:Let the...

[VikingDBA]

The checks and balances are between the branches not between the parties. How do you think the Libertarians and independents feel?

Re:Which way?

[EastCoastSurfer]

Actually the ruling is doing what I hoped it would. Lawmakers are now scrambling to put specific laws in place to prevent this type of eminent domain. At the end of the day it'll end up being harder to eminent domain someones property than before the ruling.

Re:Let the...

[Golias]

The SCOTUS appointments is 90% of the reason why the religous wing of the GOP went out in droves to vote for GWB. If he does not appoint social conservatives, the "Dixiecrats" will either go home to the Democratic Party, or completely melt down... either way would leave us with one-party rule from the Democrats for a good 20 years or so.

Odds are, three branches of Republicanism will probably inspire enough "broken glass" Democrat voting to turn a lot of red states blue next time around, so it's far from a permanent arrangement.

The problem with the Democrats right now is that their core constituency resides on the far ends of the economic bell-curve: The dirt-poor and the "old money" rich.

The vast majority of salary-earning, 401K-owning, mortgage-holding, middle class folk seemed to like Clinton fine, because riding that bubble sure was a lot of fun, but the rise of the "Deaniacs" has kind of alienated a lot of those people, to the point that they are even willing to put up with the things they don't like about Bush and his Country Club buddies.

The Democrats, if they want to survive as a viable party, desperately need a way that they can talk to somebody who's currently making $50,000 a year (and hopes to be making over $100,000 within the next five), and get that person to think the Democrats have their best interests at heart. Whining about the "gap" in the already-too-expensive medicare drug benifits ain't going to do it, and neither is constant harping on the war issues.

Were I in charge of the DNC, I would be making overtures to the libertarians. Become the anti-PATRIOT Act party, the anti-RICO party, the anti-"War on Drugs" party. Let the hard-core socialists run off with the Greens, and establish Clinton-style triangulation on budget issues (wiping out the GOP's second-biggest vote-getter) while becoming the ultimate champions of individual liberty. Stealing the entire middle ground would be a piece of cake.

The Democrats, unfortunately, are moving in the opposite direction. They seem to be systematically purging the Clintonistas of the party, and rallying around the most shrill and bitter voices in their party.

I firmly believe there's going to be a huge political realignment within this generation. The Democrats are either going to radically evolve, or else present the Greens, Libertarians, and even the remnants of the Reform Party with a golden opportunity to become America's main Republican opposition.

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[donutello]

How the heck is the parent Flamebait? The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret ambiguous law, not substitute it with the law they'd like to see. A state where judges are allowed to make up law is an autocracy, not a democracy. The task of making law should be left up to the legislature, not usurped by the judiciary.

That being said, Sandra was one of the few judges who dissented against the recent property-grab decision. My worry is that Bush will nominate someone who is right-wing rather than a Constructionist to replace her. Someone who makes laws from scratch to favor the right is just as bad as or worse than a judge who makes laws from scratch to favor the left.

Re:It is a big deal.

[lowmagnet]

Shooting people is a form of expression.

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[jandrese]

I'd be all for this, except that the people fighting for removal of "Judicial Activism" invariable turn out to be highly conservative types who are pissed off that some Judge said they couldn't hold christian revivals in the local public schools during school hours and stuff like that. When judgements go their way, even if they expand judicial powers, they stay quiet.

It's the same tactic as repeating the phrase "Liberal Media bias" over and over and hope that people start to believe it. The sad thing is that it works and we see a gradual shifting of the media from the center to the right to compensate for this percieved imbalance. The whole position that the media is liberal and activist is rediculous when you realize that they're just parroting GOP talking points and prepackaged news reports without even offering countering views so much of the time.

Re:Which way?

[Golias]

7 of 9 being appointed by Republicans means nothing.

I, for one, fully endorse the idea of appointing 7 of 9 to the SCOTUS. She's a bit of a head-case, but a major cyborg hottie!

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[Mr_Huber]

Bullshit. Judicial activism is just a name for rulings one particular group doesn't like. It is not a serious problem with modern government, but evidence of a properly balanced government.

Or were you really that offended when the 'activist judges' blocked Congress' grandstanding attempt to reinsert Terry Schiavo's feeding tube?

Re:Which way?

[A coward on a mouse]

The creators of the Bill of Rights were largely enlightenment-types that didn't adhere to any organized religion. Many of them were "theists" who believed in an almighty creator but little to none of Christian mythology. Some of them may even have been atheists. To use your terms, the nutbars who led the Revolution were definitely the "hippies" of their day as compared to the "fundie" royalists. Just because you wish the framers were conservative Christians doesn't make it so; they were, as compared to their contemporaries, closer to being radical left-wing freaks.

Re:respect

[Ma$$acre]

It is disrespectful, but it's hardly illegal or even unlawful, which I suspect you feel it should be despite your "regardless of politics" comment.

And using disrespect, or even actually holding the belief that he's not the POTUS, to make a point is definitely covered under freedom of speech. It speaks volumes about any writer's intent when opting for Mr. Bush or just Bush, over President Bush.

If the write is serious, he would use one of the above, but if they are just spouting propaganda, maybe Dubya, or George W, or something equally derogatory. Which is Also covered under free speech.

Though I doubt many people would care to address him personally as Mr. Bush, the office carries respect, even if the person holding it does not.

Re:Let the...

[Negadecimal]

Don't forget, just because someone has an R next to their name, doesn't mean they are controlled by the party.

Case-in-point: SCOTUS. Seven of the nine were appointed "R", but have still ruled in many cases against the Republican platform (abortion rights, Schaivo, etc.)

I appreciate it when congressmen/senators cross party lines. May not agree with them, but I like knowing that our elected officials think for themselves sometimes.

Re:Let the...

[EastCoastSurfer]

It would be great if a bunch of the libertarian ideas could be moved more into the mainstream. There really is no place for someone to vote who is for personal responsibility, fiscal conservatism, and social liberalism.

Re:Which way?

[WaxParadigm]

...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 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

...I'd say there is more of a chance we'll get reacquainted with the Bill of Rights than not.

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.

There are no constructionalists

[isotope23]

on the court. There are only those who claim to be contructionalists when it supports their agenda. The medical marijuana case clearly shows that. If ever there was a clear cut case of states vs federal power that is it.

What we really have is two camps of judges, one who promotes the increase of federal power for the liberal agenda, and another camp which promotes the increase of federal power for the conservative agenda.

A constructionalist would do neither....

This is the WORST time for a justice to retire

[John Seminal]

The Senate has never in its history been so owned by corporations. Hell, the RIAA has a few senators in their pockets. The Senate just passes a law allowing the exporting of more USA jobs. This senate is very pro-buisness, the gap between the poor and rich is huge. Just from the news, Motorola lays off 11,000, GM lays off 25,000, Motorola builds plant outside the USA, GM moves jobs to Mexico (for a wage 1/20th of the USA, so it is not like Mexicans are getting good jobs), the RIAA sues grandmothers for downloading songs, Chicago puts up 3,000 cameras for the police department.

If Bush gets his 2 replacements, we could be fucked. Because I don't think the Senate will take anyone the RIAA is against, someone who is pro-people, someone who is anti big buisness. Bush pused to do away with the 40 hour work week, by killing overtime pay. I can just imagine what the future holds- the 6 day work week, 9 hours a day. I am suprised buisnesses have not started selling advertising space in their offices. I can just see an spreadsheet open on the bottom 3/4ths of a monitor, with an advertisment on the top 1/4th.

Re:This is the WORST time for a justice to retire

[Cheeko]

Well in all honesty, its not quite as bad as you make it sound. Yes in all likelyhood he will replace 2 justices. BUT, one will be Rhenquist, who is as conservative as they come. If Bush replaces him with a diehard conservative, it will just be status quo. O'Connor being a moderate conservative is slightly different, but she is still a conservative on most issues. His best bet at getting someone approved will mean someone in a similar mold. Only if one of the liberal members decided to step down would you see a massive swing in policy.

Also one thing people forget to SOME extent, is that history tends to show that supreme court justices, no matter who pics them, generally have done their job as described, and thats to interpret the constitution and laws as set forth by Congress and the President. Things like Free Speech, etc, are fairly clearly laid out in the Bill of Rights, no amount of RIAA politicing will CHANGE the bill of rights. Its just a matter of getting the right cases to the Supreme Court so that they can smack down laws that are in violation of those rights. The reason many things like the DMCA survive is because nobody will challenge them to the degree neccessary to get them to the Supreme Court. This I think speaks more for the legal system as a whole, that allows people with deep pockets to intimidate people who are in the right, according to the constitution.

Re:This is the WORST time for a justice to retire

[admiralh]

Only if one of the liberal members decided to step down would you see a massive swing in policy.

I agree with you, except for one thing: There aren't any big-L Liberals on the court.

The closest thing to a liberal is Justice Stevens, and he only seems so because the rest of the court is so right-wing. Blackmun, Brennan, and Marhshall were all more liberal than Stevens and were replaced by more conservative justices.

What we have is 1 moderate liberal (Stevens) 3 centrist judges (Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer) and 1 moderate conservative (Kennedy) and 3 extreme conservatives (Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas). O'Connor was typically another moderate conservative. She or Kennedy would usually be the decider in close cases.

Of course I expect George W. "Uniter, not a Divider" to nominate someone like Scalia or Thomas. After all, he was quoted as saying they were his favorite Justices.

Also one thing people forget to SOME extent, is that history tends to show that supreme court justices, no matter who pics them, generally have done their job as described, and thats to interpret the constitution and laws as set forth by Congress and the President.

In past Administrations, I would agree. But this Administration has made a partisan mockery of nearly every function of government. Scientific reports have been edited by industry insiders. Intelligence has been "fixed" to support policy. FEAR has been used to drive policies that have nothing to do with security.

I'm betting he nominates John Ashcroft.

Re:Great!

[numbuscus]

7 of the 9 were nominated by republicans. "Center-left"? I think not. Maybe "left" of you, but not to most. I'll guess that most americans support (in general terms) the Court's decisions over the last decade. Otherwise, wouldn't there be massive, daily protests in front of the courthouse? Relative to the country, I'd say the court has been fairly moderate. Too "right" for me personally, but probably pretty much representative of the median voter's position.

Re:Huh..?

[Locke2005]

Uh, I think there might be a chance that decisions like Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. may have some slight effect on Your Rights Online, and thus might qualify as "News for nerds".

Re:Which way?

[smooth wombat]

Ya know, I was thinking about this decision today (rather than doing actual work) and I realized something: this is actually a conservative decision because it represents states rights. Hear me out on this.

For the longest time you have probably heard the conservatives in the country talking about how the federal government is imposing too many rules and regulations on states and how this is a bad thing.

This decision is a victory (if you can call it that) for states rights because the court ruled that states have control over their own domain (no Seinfeld jokes thank you). It is the states who can decide who can build what and under what circumstances.

In this case the state decided that they could make more money buy having a private business on property on which citizens now reside.

In essence, the conservatives of the country got what they've asking for: limited federal intrusion onto the right of a state to conduct its affairs.

While I understand the logic of the court I don't agree with the decision. Even allowing that the people will be fairly compensated for their home and land (don't bet on it) and that they have had their due process of law (as required by the 5th Amendment) this ruling will come back to haunt the justices and everyone else.

Judicial versus Political Conservativism

[ari_j]

One thing you seem to have missed is that judicial != political when you are talking about conservatives versus liberals. Although it's true that most issues don't bring light to the difference, it is there. For instance, when it comes to abortion the political conservatives say you have no right to it, while the judicial conservatives agree that the Constitution doesn't guarantee any such right. The difference is that a judicial conservative would not say that the Constitution prohibits abortion, while a political conservative would make sure to pass laws that do just that.

Justice Scalia is very judicially conservative, and sometimes that conflicts with his political views. When faced with that choice, he chooses to be judicially conservative. Even Rehnquist, who is definitely a political conservative, is not nearly as judicially conservative as you would expect if you equated the two traits as one.

Of course, it is extremely rare to have a dichotomy on the liberal side of things, because political liberals want things to be a certain way and judicial liberals are really good at reading the Constitution to mean just what they want it to. You will rarely, if ever, find a politically liberal judicial conservative.

My personal hope is that Bush appoints someone who is judicially conservative and politically moderate. But he wouldn't do that any more than Kerry would have appointed Cheney to the bench.

Re:Oh, come on.

[the_mad_poster]

Maybe in your vernacular, but a fundamentalist in the real world is just any individual with a philosophy of Fundamentalism on a given subject. For example, I follow the fundamentalist automotive performance philosophy that's usually summed up in "No replacement for displacement".

In fact, I rarely, if ever, hear the term fundamentalist used without some sort of qualifier such as "Chrsitian" or "Muslim" or "Right wing". The only time it would even work in intelligent conversation is if the qualifier is implied based on some other part of the conversation that's already passed.

There's a difference between being "difficult" and being "accurate". This is accurate, you're just being confusing.

Re:Which way?

[mfago]

does anybody know if satan is still buying souls?

Nope, not after getting W's.

BTW, Satan prefers to be called Rove these days.

Re:Which way?

[Swamii]

Funny you should bring that up, just the other day I was reading an op-ed piece in the Washington post about this very subject. It was an interesting read, check it out here.

Re:It is a big deal.

[dfenstrate]

You're pretty good at calling someone a liar without a single link to back your view up.

Nothing would get posted on the internet if everyone had to cite something when making a statement, but if you're going to yell LIAR LIAR at someone, at least have the decency to post one link supporting your insulting allegation.

Re:It is a big deal.

[marcus frost]

As a fairly staunch conservative (although I will also say that I am at odds with the administration on a number of issues as well), I have to tell you that what you wrote is very, very respectable, and I applaud you for it. It seems too often people from one side use "bashing" the other side as the reason they are what they are. "I'm a conservative because liberals are xxxxx" and vice versa. Kudos to you, I am glad liberals like you exist, because you are completely right - if the entire country followed in any leaders footsteps, it would be a scary place. Many times in political discussions I've given things new thoughts because of liberal interpretations or opinions, and vice versa. It's very healthy, in my opinion, even if it's impossible for both sides to agree on things. I really sometimes wish there was less extremism on both sides, but I suppose it is all human nature especially in such a divese society as what we have here.

the "progressives"

[zogger]

You got it. Governmental "progressives" have a thoroughly dismal record of taking peoples property via government scams/seizures like the "endangered species act" and so forth. A nice example would be to revisit what happened to thousands of people in Klamath Falls Oregon with that little "progressive" fiasco. How about "stakeholders viewscapes", that's another "progressive" winner. Of course that's usually leet urbanites seizing property from poor rural people thousands of miles away, but hey-it's progressive!

They are just as much to blame as so called "conservatives" when it comes to thievery, being bribed or blackmailed, or being in the pockets of fascist transnational corporations.

Bottom line, if it's elected, appointed or hired on and it comes from government, expect to lose if you have something they want. Labels mean nothing beyond "private citizen or governmental employee", those are the ones that count. And for that matter, pay no attention to those ridiculous D and R labels, they are designed to keep the rabble occupied thinking they have some vague "voice" in government. There's about as much difference as between the Crips and the Blood.

Re:Let the...

[FriedTurkey]

not this social/compassionate conservative crap

Really?? They guys running the show couldn't be any farther to the right. There is a reason George Bush senior isn't part of the adminstration. He would be run out as a liberal just like Colin Powell & Christie Todd Whitman.

I think its funny how all these Republicans are running away from George W. They remember the good time in 90's listening to Rush Limbaugh when there wasn't somebody in office trying to actually implement crazy ideas like privitizing social security. Many Republicans rather keep it as an idea and say "only if".

Fundamentalism == Doubt is Bad

[justanyone]

According to my religion instructor at Hamline University in St. Paul, MN, the definition of fundamentalism is "any ideology where doubt is a sign of weakness. If the idea is that faith is strongest when it is never in doubt, then this it is a fundamentalist faith.

The Opposite of Fundamentalism is (at least embodied in the Unitarian Church's perspective) that a questioned faith is the strongest. Where faith is a cognizant (thinking) recognition, that faith is strongest because it has been examined and no perspective is unworthy of discussion, that the truth of a situation depends on your viewpoint.

Fundamentalism can apply to any religious doctrine, just as it can apply to an unwavering faith in a person or institution, be they political or not.

Re:Florida, Florida

[IceAgeComing]

The LA Times, NY Times, and Washington Post all conducted their own independent counts and found that GWB was the winner.

Sorry, I can't let such revisionist history go. I'd like to see links to those reports.

I looked over the Wikipedia article on the 2000 election, and at the bottom are the results showing that Gore would have won a statewide recount. The problem apparently rested with the fact that no clear rules were in place mandating a complete statewide recount in a close race, but the Dems may have succeeded in arguing for a complete recount if they had had the foresight to do so:

In November 2001, after conducting an unofficial recount of Florida's ballots, the news outlets discovered that if all legally cast votes had been counted - regardless of the standard used for evaluating chads - Gore won [8]. But when legal votes were evaluated, based on the standards set in law at the time, Bush won.

Re:It is a big deal.

[PaxTech]

> > and most importantly it's been shown that Bush would have ultimately won any Florida recount anyway!

> That is a lie.

Tell CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/s tories/main.html

Re:AAAAAAAARGH!

[zoomzit]

Unless you are far to the right and desire more activist judges, you should be very thankful that Rehnquist is still there.

There isn't a chance in hell that Rehnquist will be replaced with a more intellegent and legally sound justice. When you read his rulings, even if you disagree with him philosophically, you have to respect the guy for his noggin.

Re:Supreme Court Sucks

[fahrbot-bot]

Um, dude. Perhaps you should learn how the three branches of the government work before espousing uninformed opinions. Case in point: The Congress passes bills into law, not the Supreme Court. If you don't like the Flag Burning Amendment, blame Congress. They're attempting to pass this legislation *because* the Court protected flag burning as a form of free expression. (See high-school government 101.)

Re:Which way?

[jeblucas]

She wrote an absolutely furious minority opinion on the recent eminent domain ruling. She felt very strongly that it was a bullshit ruling, but it passed 5-4 anyway. Oddly enough, it was mainly the so-called "progressives" on the court who voted to give the Big Bad Corporate World the legal means to get governments to push you out of your homes by promising to deliver better tax revenues with the land.

BZZT! Wrong. Conservative judges have always been the bastion of personal property rights. There's nothing odd about this ruling aside from the fact that it 5-4 for the so-called liberal side of the argument. And that largely was a function of federalism more than a question of personal property vs. public good. The Court could be seen simply as deciding question of local takings for the public good are a local issue and should not be semantically argued in the SCOTUS or federal system, regardless of one's feelings towards private economic interests potentially serving the public good.

Err, Whatever...

[EXTomar]

We should take what is written in The National Review as fact because...?

Why is an expansionist view of judical power bad? In Common Law and in particular in the US, one of the few things that keeps the Legistlature in check is judicial review. The fact the far elements in Congress want things like a Flag Burning amendment is because the restraints the judiciary puts on them.

What Mr Franck should have said is that he is disappointed because O'Conner kept deciding against things he liked instead of trying to pull the "flip flop" card. Being mad a judge for deciding against what they desire does not make that judge bad.

Re:Great!

[stinerman]

This entire thread has been killed by semantics.

First, to you, !conservative != liberal. Also liberal != more government. Actually the party in control of the government is for more government and the minority usually takes up states' rights.

To the rest of people, you're intent on thinking that Republican == conservative, when it doesn't. Furthermore, on the supreme court, "liberal" and "conservative" mean different things than we're all used to.

Regarding the court, the Kelo v. New London was a "liberal" decision in that it tended to give a loose constructionist interpretation of the constitution. It was by no means in line with liberal political views. No one liked that decision except for statists and corporatists.

Took from the Individual, gave to the state

[MDMurphy]

While I guess some might construe the "eminent domain" ruling to be a "victory" for states rights, I don't quite see it that way.

In the recent medical marijuana case and "out of state wine purchases" case the SCOTUS took the control out from the states and gave it to the federal government. Yes, technically they ruled that the federal gov't already had control, but the result was less state control.

In the eminent domain case they took the rights from the individual to his property and gave it to the government. While they didn't rule that the constitution prohibited this, it was still a case of control moving up hill, away from individuals.

So IMHO, I wouldn't call that a benefit for states rights, but a continuation on the theme of rights and control moving farther away from the individual. Additionally, I don't think the eminent domain case means the states the only one who can wrest property from the owners, I'm sure the federal gov't could do it as well. All they ruled was the individual is not the master of their domain ( no Seinfeld joke )
So if the gov't wants your property, even if the reason is that some other person "bribed" them with the promise of more taxes, there's nothing you can do but stand there holding your... ( Seinfeld joke here )

James Madison at 7200 RPM

[rlp]

Hopefully, they'll pick someone who will walk down to the National Archives and take the time to read James Madison's little document. Right now we've got justices that are taking direction from international law. I don't recall Madison mentioning international law. But I suppose it explains the Kelo decision - they must have looked at law in Zimbabwe.

Re:Why do swing votes have to be so important?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

By the time a case gets to the Supreme court, it's so arbitrary and so specific that just about any system would be "unjust."

By definition, the Supreme Court is filling in the gaps where the law isn't clear. If there was a clear cut way to decide the case, it would have been.

It's a misunderstanding to think of the Supreme Court as the "Championship" level of the Legal System. You don't get to appeal because you lost a case. Your appeal has to either prove an error on the part of the proceedings, or some novel question of law. SCOTUS acts like that wizened old Engineer whose been around since the start of the project, and elaborates on details that elude all the lower levels of problem solvers.

I'll take that.

[khasim]

Rice is also an expert on the former Soviet Union.

And in 2005, that is about as important as being an expert on Elizabethan England. Maybe you should include her best time on the Rubic's Cube, too.

I find Ms. Rice to be very impressive, ...

I'm sure you do. And I'm also sure that you cannot name a single item that is "impressive" that she has accomplished since she was appointed to either of her jobs.

Do you know what "racist" means? Would you find her as "impressive" if she was a white woman?

How about "classist"? Would you find her as "impressive" if she were a rich white woman?

How about we wrap this up and check if you would find a rich white man as "impressive" with the same list of accomplishments since being appointed?

I didn't think so. And before you go off making claims about how you aren't racist, be sure you include specific accomplishments. No one cares about some rich white guy learning to play the piano.

I believe that if Rice were a Democrat, she'd be touted as the second coming of MLK.

You can believe whatever you want.

But, just maybe, you should look at what the differences between those two really are. Why don't you try naming them, other than one was a liberal and the other was not.

Those who cry about "no WMDs" generally aren't worth trying to educate about the war beyond their strict viewpoint.

The fact is, our current regime claimed over and over that Saddam had them and that we knew where they were.

How do they spell "lies" on your world?

I used to think liberals cared about human rights, but not when human rights are promoted by a Republican apparently.

How do you define "human rights"?

Is it okay if we only kill 1/10th the number of people that Saddam did as long as we're doing it as part of the "war on terror"?

How does killing innocent people equate to "human rights"?

And before you go off on how many people Saddam killed, you'd better be damn sure you want to start making comparisions between the USofA and a 3rd world tin-pot dictator.

Re:Great!

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

A lot of people are complaining about parent characterizing this court as "center-left". Look at the username for a hint why. Dagny Taggart is a character from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. This means that parent's conception of "right" and "left" is probably the Randian individualism vs. communism.

Just because neo-cons evolved from right-wingers doesn't mean that they're not communist. A state-backed and state-helped "private" corporation is no better than a state-run industry. If "private" corporations can use eminent domain - a power of the state - then aren't the state and the corporations the same thing - a feature of a Communist government?

Re:The point of the judicial branch...

[ConceptJunkie]

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

Re:Let the...

[edremy]

Double or tripple? I'm in the 25% tax bracket right now and the max is 35%. According to you with a flat everyone would be paying 50-75% (including those currently paying 35%).

You don't understand how the current tax system works. I'm in the 25% bracket (for some of my income) but I pay nothing like 25% of my income to the feds.

The actual number is closer to 3%. Moderate income, two kids, house, state/property taxes, some charitable donations wipe out virtually all the tax for someone like me. (And I'm not uncommon- in fact, we're quite close to the median American family.)

The one area I'm really different is adopting my kids. The adoption tax credit is going to set my federal taxes to 0 for the next few years. The credit makes it possible for normal people to handle the expenses involved- eliminating it will seriously hurt adoption in the US, toss more kids into foster care and end up costing the taxpayers money in the long run.

You Just Can't Tell

[bayers]

Eisenhower promoted Warren to the Supreme Court and he said it was the worst mistake of his life, Warren being one of the most activist judges ever.

Bush Sr promoted Kennedy who he thought was a lot more conservative than he turned out to be. O'Connor was supposed to more conservative than she turned out to be.

When you are promoted to SCOTUS, you've reached the pentultimate spot. You can't be fired and it's almost impossible to impeach you. Now, you can do what you want, everyone else, presidents, congress, be damned.

I'm not worried in the slightest.

Re:Let the...

[Ironsides]

A simple tax system that many people might accept would be a flat-tax plus a "Citizen's Dividend". For example, you might have a 15% flat tax and a $10,000/year "Citizen's Dividend" payout to each tax payer. This makes the flat-tax system progressive because $10,000 is nothing when you are taxed on your million dollar income. Plus you can reduce many government welfare services (and their huge hidden costs and political battles) because low-income people now have at least $10,000/year to buy food/etc.

A citizens divedend sounds like a good idea until you start doing the math on it. Primary problem is money. There are 300 Million people in the US. At $10k per person, that comes out to a total payout of $3 Trillion dollars. That is larger than the current US budget and is over a quarter of the US GDP.

Second problem I have with that, is that we are having the government take money from some people and giving other people money without having to do anything to earn it. I have a problem with that (even if I am the one getting hte money). Stealing from Peter to pay Paul and that kind of thing. If people want to help out others who are less fortunate, let them give their own money willingly without getting the government to handle it (and force others to give money). It's not that I have a problem with charity, It's that I have a problem with the government forcing me to as that is not charity.

One of the recognized problems with a citizens dividend (and welfare for that matter) is that you will have a certain percentage of the population who will become "surfers". (That's the persons term who wrote about this, not mine). This group would live off the "dividend" (if you can really call it that) without ever trying to get a job.

One last thing. You may actually increase the political battles over this. For one thing, about how to set the $10k, when to move it, who will have it taxable and many other things. Also, you may make people more reliant on the gov as employers will most likely factor this into their paycheck calculations among other things.

Follow that logic!

[bobbuck]

There are SOME lawmakers scrambling to correct this. MOST are not, especially at the state level. The Democrats will try to FILIBUSTER in the senate and it may not pass. It may take a constitutional amemndment to fix this mess and even then if there are still Democrats on the Supreme Court what would it matter? They would just ignore the amendment.

Re:Which way?

[BorgHunter]

No state has the right to take my property. No state. No branch of government, in fact. Not the federal government, not the state government, not the county government, not the municipal government. My property is mine, and I will sell it to the government if I wish. If I don't, tough beans, government, deal with it.

I consider trumpeting states' rights on this issue akin to supporting states' rights for limitations on freedom of speech. It's a basic human right. The kind of thing the Constitution was designed to protect. And it's absolutely heinous that the government would try to take that right away from me.

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[jafac]

On the other hand, Scalia had this to say about the subject:

"Many think it not only inevitable but entirely proper that liberty give way to security in times of national crisis---that, at the extremes of military exigency, inter arma silent leges. Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it." - Antonin Scalia, eviscerating the Bush administration's detention of terror suspects without charges or trials.

Re:Which way?

[alw53]

In its last two big rulings, the court has explicitly delineated the scope of private rights: none. If a State is screwing you, tough, it's a 10th Amendment issue and the Federal Government is explicitly prohibited from doing anything about it. If the Feds are screwing you, tough, it's a Wheat case issue, and anything you do that might possibly affect Interstate Commerce (like breathing, for example) are governable as such.

Re:Which way?

[BorgHunter]

Let me give you an example.

I own a house. It's not all that nice of a house; for simplicity's sake, let's say it's been appraised at $100,000. However, it's been in the family for generations. My grandparents grew up in the house, and I love it dearly. But Uncle Sam doesn't like me having this house, because it's bringing down property values because it's so old, and it's in the middle of a nice, new development. I don't want to sell under any circumstances. Uncle Sam offers me $125,000, which would be more than a fair value if I were looking to sell, but I'm not. So Uncle Sam takes me to court, and the court rules that all ol' Uncle Sam has to give me is $100,000, and they can force me out of my house. I ask you, is that fair? More importantly, is that just? To me, the answer is obvious: No, that is not fair. No, that is not just. The government should not be given the right to buy property willy-nilly, without the consent of the owner. If I don't want to sell to Joe Blow from across town, why should I have to sell to the government? Why should the government take away my right to own my house? What business does the government have doing that?

Re:Great!

[IdahoEv]

it is center-left at best. Look at their recent decision further eroding private property rights.

The court is neither conservative nor liberal, it is primarily statist and authoritarian, as is most of our government right now.

Many liberals, including my self, were horrified at that ruling. Calling that ruling "liberal" merely shows that you have a deep failure to understand the term.

The Political Circus gets Better

[PHAEDRU5]

So, Bush II gets to appoint two new Justices. Doubtless he'll pick them based on their past conservative decisions, only to have them become raving looney liberals as soon as they're confirmed.

Meanwhile, Hillary becomes the next President, and Bill becomes Secretary General of the UN.

Congress remains Republican.

And the great game continues.

Re:The point of the judicial branch...

[kcbrown]

Perhaps you could grace us with an answer to the Grokster question without relying on any document except the Constitution itself?

Oh, that's easy.

1. Is what Grokster is doing protected by the Bill of Rights? Well, to answer that, you have to ask what Grokster is doing. They're doing two things:
   1. Publishing a program.
   2. Advertising the program.

   Publishing is a direct exercise of speech, and is thus protected under the First Amendment. And so is advertising.

   That means that any ruling against Grokster must meet very high standards. And so we move on to the copyright question.

2. The Constitution is very clear about copyright, patents, etc. The explicit and only reason for the existence of such protections is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". And so, the test of whether or not any act is an affront to the clause in the Constitution that grants Congress the power to make laws that have the effect of "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" is whether or not the act in question impedes such progress.

Now, because the acts themselves in this case are protected by the First Amendment, the acts must clearly impede the progress of the sciences and the useful arts for them to be forbidden by law. It's not sufficient for the acts in question to be neutral with respect to that, because the acts are an exercise of one of the (if not the) most important rights we have.

What Grokster was doing doesn't clearly hinder the progress of the sciences and the useful arts. If it did, then it would be easy to show that it did. That what Grokster was doing would otherwise be protected under the First Amendment means that the plaintiff must show that Grokster's actions clearly impede the progress of the sciences and the useful arts. The plaintiff did not do so.

Hence, the decision of the Supreme Court very clearly should have been in Grokster's favor, based on nothing other than the Constitution and the stated intentions of those who wrote it.