Slashdot Mirror
Justice O'Connor Retiring
rlbond86 writes "The New York Times reports that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will be retiring. Justice O'Connor, the first woman to become a Supreme Court justice, is considered by many the crucial 'swing vote' on many issues. How will this affect Supreme Court decisions in the future?" From the article: "Her departure, which had been the subject of rumors for weeks but was still a surprise, will give President Bush his first opportunity to name a justice to the Supreme Court. It is still not clear whether Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is battling thyroid cancer and had been widely expected to resign, will step down this summer, giving Mr. Bush another seat to fill."
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.
I'm a big tall mofo.
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
http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96mar/oconnor.htm l
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.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Yeah, those damn liberals on the court! All 2 of them that were nominated by democrats!
Unfortunately this isn't really about SCOTUS bashing. The point here is that two branches of the government are already controlled by one party, and this latest retirement risks sending the final branch in that direction, depending on who Bush decides to appoint.
We already know the Republicans can, if push comes to shove, remove the filibuster option. Think about what this implies... Three branches of the government all controlled by a single party with a single (supposedly) agenda. What happens to checks and balances when there is no more balance, and checks become mere formalities?
Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
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!
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
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)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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
I personally supported almost nothing the previous president did, but I still respected him for being President of the United States.
Also note that the justices appointed don't always carry otu the 'wishes' of the appointer. President Ford, a fairly conservative leader, managed to get one of the more liberal judges appointed.
What we really need is to get judges who stop trying to legislate from the bench, and return to applying law to the case, not writing law for a case.
antipaucity
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
"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.
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.
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.
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
--- My dad's political betting
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.
Hagrin.com
two branches of the government are already controlled by one party
.sig?
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
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.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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:
-- Tim Grieve
WARNING: DO NOT LET DR. MARIO TOUCH YOUR GENITALS. HE IS NOT A REAL DOCTOR.
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.
Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
"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
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
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.
Mmmm.. Donuts
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.
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
The checks and balances are between the branches not between the parties. How do you think the Libertarians and independents feel?
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.
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.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
While I'm scoffing, let me take up the senate. Do me a favor: go figure out what percentage of the population are represented by Republicans and Democrats in the senate. Okay, I'll give you the answer: you'll figure out that Democrats represent more than 50% of the population in the senate, even though they're in the minority.
This "up-or-down vote" is just a front for the Republicans' desire for a tyranny of the majority. Finally Democrats are standing up to them, and rightly so.
Well, no, I'd mod you down because you're a thoughtless shill.
> 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.
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
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.
I read the internet for the articles.
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.
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!
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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?
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."
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.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
...it's almost certian we're going to get a hardcore far right judge as a replacement. When that happens, kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye.
...I'd say there is more of a chance we'll get reacquainted with the Bill of Rights than not.
I very mugh disagree. If this last week is any indication...:
- conservative side of the court dissenting when the SCOTUS threw out state and personal rights in favor of federal prohibition of medical marijuana
- dissenting when the SCOTUS
If you look at how "liberal" (not to be confused with classical liberalism) judges view the Constitution and Bill of Rights (as a "living document" that much change with the times and social moreys) and contrast it with how the conservative judges view the Constitution & BoR (as things to be interperited/implemented as the authors intended) it is pretty obvious that there is more potential for a liberal court to throw out individual rights (as an antequated idea), welcome socialism (as a replacement for the limited government defined in the constitution), and otherwise head down many other slopes that lead away from what the US was founded on.
I probably share with you in fearing that an authoritarian, statist (as opposed to libertarian) judge could take the bench...but I think that's more likely with a liberal judge (and even if not, a liberal reading of the constitution would likely be more permissive or an authoritarian legislature and executive.
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....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
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.
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".
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.
You misunderstand the point of the judicial branch. The point of the judicial branch is to make sure that the other branches don't abuse their powers, and that the other branches don't shred the Constitution.
The judicial branch is supposed to be above partisan politics. Judges are appointed for life at the federal level. Regardless of a judge's MORAL stance on an issue, they are to rule according to the LAW, and the Constitution. That's why abortion remains legal in this country. Regardless of whether or not you feel abortion is a sin, or morally repugnant, or whatever, abortion seems to be allowed by the Constitution.
Now, as a snide side comment, Bush wasn't elected by a majority of this country. (Although he was re-elected by a majority. Go figure).
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
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.
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.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
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.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
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:
> > and most importantly it's been shown that Bush would have ultimately won any Florida recount anyway!
s tories/main.html
> 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/
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
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.
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.
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 )
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.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.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?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.
I've read Article 3 numerous times and don't see anything even remotely supporting that statement.
It's part of the "checks and balances" the 3 branches are meant to have on each other. Of course, this implies that after confirmation, the executive or legislative branch can check the power of the Court, but since they have never done it, it seems they are either happy with the situation or lack the will to exercise their own powers. I find either possibility unacceptable.
The fact of the matter is that the Court is increasingly issuing rulings based on anything BUT the Constitution, citing things like morality, changing times, foreign law, or "emanations of penumbras" (translation: "I'm trying to rationalize the fact that I pulled this out of my ass"), and have all but stated that the original intentions of the Founders who wrote this magnificent document, and in many cases the clear, plain English words contained therein simply don't matter in this so-called politically, socially and scientifically enlightened age.
If the Court would get back to what's actually WRITTEN down in the Constitution, combined with a clear understanding of the intent of the language and a sharp dose of common sense, and stop making things up just to suit their political or moral prejudices or to suit the new pressure group du jour, we would all be a lot better off. Of course, it will never happen, because then the other two brances would be forced to acknowledge that 4/5 of what the Federal Government does uses powers never granted by the Constitution, and that through increasingly (small 'l') liberal and tangential interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, the very idea of the Federal government being restricted to only those powers specifically enumerated has become irrelevant.
In other words, they threw the Constitution under the bus decades ago to serve the interests of big business, post-morality "morals", extremist pressure groups, a sense of universal entitlement and their own hyper-inflated sense of self-importance.
Once upon a time, a bunch of really smart guys got together to form a new country based on the idea of supreme and inalienable individual rights. They drew upon and expanded traditions that had developed largely in Europe and had existed in various forms since the days of the Romans and the ancient Greeks.
In their wisdom, they decided it best to surrender a small amount of these rights (but not life, liberty ot the pursuit of happiness) to a small, explicitly and narrowly defined Federal government, whose primary purpose was to help the united, but largely autonomous, states to engage in fair commerce, defend themselves against foreign aggressors, and to make sure that the rights of the individual states, and more importantly the people are preserved... and very little else.
It's ironic in the 21st century to even consider that there was a faction of the Constitutional Convention that felt the Bill of Rights was completely superfluous, as it spelled out the obvious, and that the Federal government as defined by the Constitution could never possibly usurp those God-given rights spelled out therein. Nowadays, the average American will not only recognize those rights, but a substantial portion of them think those rights go to far. If you look over the Bill of Rights today, the only right spelled out therein that I think we can all agree has not been watered down, whittled away or completely tossed out is the right to not have soldiers quartered in your house. And I wouldn't hold me breath if, God forbid, there is ever military conflict on American soil.
In the Federalist Papers, you will see the great lengths the various Founders go to explain the huge advantage the unity will provide in terms of global economics and security, but they also believed that such a union would only be just if it were voluntary. As we know, this was changed radically less than 100 years later, as was the very (small 'c') constitution of the Federal gov
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
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.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
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.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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.
XeoMage
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.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
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.
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.
"Excuse me, did you say 'Trekker'? The word is 'Trekkie.' I should know; I created them." -- Gene Roddenberry
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.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.