Slashdot Mirror
Chief Justice Rehnquist Dies at 80
After 33 years at the bench, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist has passed away at the age of 80 due to thyroid cancer. This comes after the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor from the court over the summer. Rehnquist's passing gives President Bush the opportunity to replace the second justice of his term, this time perhaps to assume the highest role in the judicial system.
Clinton got his two nominees, looks like Bush will get his two also.
Just hope this won't immediatly swing the issues of legal abortion and religious coersion too far to the right when all is said and done. Right wing judges aren't insane, but they are at least as activist on their core issues.
Ryan Fenton
This is truly a sad day. It should be noted that anyone picked to replace Rehnquist though probably won't be too ideologically different. Check his history and you'll see a man who supported VERY CONSERVATIVE views. If GWB is smart, he cut a deal with the senate to appoint a more "moderate" individual in exchange for no fighting on the nominations, not likely but possible.
It should be noted that it is possible he will get more then just the two nominations. John Paul Stevens is 85, and could possibly retire or die before the end of GWB's term. The youngest justice at present is Clarence Thomas at 57. So anything can happen in two years.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
I wonder if George W. Bush will be able to find as perfect of an antithesis of a model candidate, as John Bolton is as a U.N ambassador, to fill the position left by Rehnquist's absence. It seems unfortunate that a president, with an approval rating lower than that of Richard Nixon at the height of Watergate, will be charged with appointing judges, that will be around to perversely interpret our constitution and law, decades into the future. It's times like this that the fallacies of our republic become painfully apparent, especially the claim that it is a true democracy. The Executive branch is sometimes elected, not by the people, but through a Judicial decision that suspiciously adheres completely to party lines. And now the Judicial system is elected, not by the people, but by the Executive branch it originally implanted.
If the dems want to continue to have a voice in the future of this country they're going to have to get some leadership that can put out a coherent statement of what the party stands for and which has more charisma than a common flatworm. The party is adrift and in disarray right now and they seem to be at a loss as to how to fix things.
The dems have some golden opportunities with a quagmirey war in iraq, energy prices hitting levels that many Americans will find painful and a less-than-satisfactory federal response to the destruction of New Orleans. If they could put forth a coherent plan to deal with all that crap instead of the usual set of talking points that don't mean anything, they could clean up in the next couple of elections. My money is that they won't, though. *sigh*
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
We always need a hero. When there are none, we create them. We forget that Colin Powell wanted to invade Iraq, that Pope John Paul II's peaceful words toppled no governments, that Che Guevara executed more political prisoners than anyone he opposed. Without heroes, life is just too boring.
Nowadays, Washington is dominated by a self-righteous Us-And-Them mentality that makes such friendships impossible. The Supreme Court is sort of resistant to this, but is still pretty bad. And we're all suffering for it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes, President Bush can choose a candidate he thinks is best. However, he cannot (successfully) nominate a right-wing extremist who won't conceivably pass through Congress. Yea, this is the kind of power we afford the country's highest elected official.
Please watch Akira Kurosawa's Ikiru.
But one interesting thing about the CJ position is that he gets to decide who writes the opinions. The WSJ cited several examples of where Rehnquist unexpectedly did an about face and voted for stuff everyone was expecting him to vote against. The tinfoil-hat theory is that he did this because he knew he was going to lose (like 7-2 votes) but he wanted to "limit the damage." So he would side with the winners, then elect himself to write the majority opinion. He would make a legitimate assent, the theory goes, but he would carefully limit it. One of the examples was the Miranda case. Everyone expected him to vote against it, but he didn't. Instead, he wrote the opinion and basically just said "Miranda stands as is," when many of the majority justices actually wanted to expand it.
So if the WSJ's depiction is accurate, the CJ is pretty important. He can't make policy, but he can guide it. I'm sure there are also lots of procedural advantages that are mostly invisible to outsiders, like maybe he gets to decide who talks first in deliberations or something.
Were Rehnquist a liberal or a moderate, Bush could significantly change the ideological balance of the Court by nominating a left-of-center jurist to take his place. However, Rehnquist was neither a liberal nor a moderate, and Bush is not likely to nominate anyone substantially to the right of Rehnquist as the replacement. So this new vacancy on the Court is essentially a non-issue.
The O'Connor -> Roberts transition is another matter.
Cthulhu for President! Why settle for the lesser evil?
So, the republicans will undo Lincoln's work at freeing the slaves and allow it to be state rights? Oh, wait. That is what the south wanted in the first place (which was under democrat control).
There is a constitutional amendment eliminating slavery. There is no such amendment regarding abortion.
As somebody proposed to me, if lose of upper brain function is considered death, then why not let the opposite of it be considered life. Basically, outlaw Abortion at the point where it can be PROVEN that upper brain functions starts (which is probably somewhere in the 2'nd trimester).
Brain function SHOULD be considered the beginning of life. There is much dispute about when that begins, some claim as early as 8 weeks after conception and others claimed as late as the third trimester(those people had to revise their positions when we had premature babies born before the beginning of the third trimester).
Whatever the case may be, when an EEG detects brain activity, the baby should be safe.
But we also need to return to sensable education and science, such as teaching sex ed with birth control.
I'd even go as far as to advocate universal government subsidized birth control
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Shifting the tax burden to the middle and lower class is not a fiscaly responsible "tax cut". Shifting taxes and fees into middle/lower class spending structures is not a "tax cut".
The steady increase of tax revanue and bullish stock market is due to Us. Paying a few hundred dollars less in *income* tax does not turn the economy around in any sense, Bush gave the rich huge tax breaks and made us wait out the recession.
Yes, it is we the people who are the last line of defense between the constitution and the government. The First and Second Ammendments are what protect our ability to keep the government in check. Too bad that we the prople have forgotten our duty and responsibility to do this.
P.S. Before I forget, since I've seen a few posts screaming about it, the court decision regarding private property was based off state law. The state law of Connecticut allowed the state to use its power of eminent domain for public use or public benefit. This is why the Supreme's made their decision
I'm finding it difficult to look at the big splashy memorial banners on the news sites when there are reports of thousands dead in New Orleans in smaller print below it.
I know it's a "celebrity" and all that, but I'm still amazed how we (or the news media) don't have the capacity to magnify the loss of one well known person into the loss of thousands of unknowns, and grieve accordingly.
I'm not saying Rehnquist did this, but it's not good to blindly praise someone who stood by their principles when their principles were bad.
I'd want the right to marry a woman, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to pretend that it was the "same" right as my neighbour Bob's right to marry his friend Steve.
I'd want the right to marry a white/christian woman, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to pretend that it was the "same" right as my neighbour Bob's right to marry a black/muslim woman.
This would be pretty blatant racial and religious discrimination. Don't you see that what you are suggesting is sexual discrimination? The right to "marry the opposite gender" is not an equal right, it is two different rights "the right to marry men" and "the right to marry women". Imagine a law that said "the right to travel in areas designated for your race". It's pretty obvious segregation, even though everyone has the "same" right. Except it isn't, because white people would have different rights than black people.
Whether or not a person could marry Steve depends on the sex of that person, thus it is discrimination based on sex. Perhaps if I put it in the form of an imaginary amendment it will be brilliantly clear:
"The right to marry an individual [Steve] shall not be denied to any individual on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
But who am I kidding, most of you dont like Pat Robertson anyway
What reason is there to like him?
I'm speaking as a Christian here. Is this guy any different from a subversive hellbent on libeling the term "Christian"?
There is no anti-Christian rhetoric here except yours. If Mr. Robertson gets off the air, he will do a great service for Christianity. The religion is not about killing some people and condemning the rest. It's about loving your enemies.
private company forces me to do anything against my will.
The government does this every day.
Corporations have no power over me unless I give it to them - and that is a profound and staggering difference which you are ignoring.