Chief Justice SCOTUS to resign?

[amicus]

Robert Novak: "Chief Justice William Rehnquist To Retire Today"

July 8, 2005 3:02 p.m. EST
Douglas Maher - All Headline News Staff Reporter
Washington D.C. (AHN) - Big changes could be looming at the Supreme Court. Journalist Robert Novak reports Chief Justice William Rehnquist will announce his retirement upon President Bush's return from the G-8 summit in Scotland.
Much of Washington is buzzing with reports the retirements will not just stop with Sandra Day O'Connor and Rehnquist, but a possible 3rd vacancy might be fast approaching. Sources indicate ailing Justice John Paul Stevens might announce his retirement after replacements are named for O'Connor and Rehnquist.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/cgi-bin/news/newsbrief.plx?id=2241698688&fa=1

Could be a warmer summer than usual.


amicus...

 

[Guest]

Could be a warmer summer than usual.

amicus...

He says with glee.

 

[impressive]

It just got a LOT chillier to me.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

No big news there. Everyone knew it was just a matter of time before Rhenquist stepped down. Stevens is no big shock either. He's 85 years old.

Word is also starting to leak out that Justice Ginsbergs health may be failing. We could realisticly be looking at replacing 4 justices within the next several months.

 

[amicus]

Although we occupy opposite ends of the political spectrum, events continue without us, some to our pleasure, some not.

For most of the history of the Supreme Court, it remained in the function of 'interpreting' the laws of the nation in terms of whether those laws abided by the Constitution.

During the 20th century, beginning with Income Tax laws, Prohibition laws, and Anti-trust laws, the court has become more involved in 'writing law' instead of interpreting it.

Many believe that the Constitution should be a 'living document', one capable of changing as time and events portend.

But the intent of the Framer's, said by many, was that the Constitution could only be changed by Amendments requiring full participation by Congress and the People.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has basically ignored the law and engaged itself in social legislation.

A portion of the political spectrum applauds this activist mode; another portion does not.

Clinton appointed two liberal justices, Bush will appoint two or more, conservative judges; that is how it works.

Hopefully, a century of social manipulation will be undone and we can re discover what a free people under a limited government can accomplish and achieve.

amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

This shouldn't surprise anyone. He's been very ill, he's an old man and has been serving since the Nixxon administration. Although somewhat libertarian, he is usually counted among th conservative vote, so it dosen't really change the makeup of the court much, save perhaps to make it a little more conservative.

O'connor was the one that hurt, because she has been a pretty independant justice and has been a critical swing vote in a lot of cases.

If stevens goes, its going to be a court with a very conservative character, particularly if Sclalia becomes Chief Justice. If Ginsburg goes, it will mean a significant swing, since she is one of two non republican appointees.

This could make the mid term elections the most critical in years, as the only hope of getting even somewhat moderate selections would be to move enough votes in the senate to allow the democrats to block, rather than just philibuster, Bush's appointees.

 

[amicus]

Colleen: "...This could make the mid term elections the most critical in years, as the only hope of getting even somewhat moderate selections would be to move enough votes in the senate to allow the democrats to block, rather than just philibuster, Bush's appointees...."


'moderate selections...' This surprises me.

Do you really advocate changing the nature of the entire government by keeping the court in an activist mode?

The balance of power in Washington, is divided between the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Supreme Court.

The court functions to interpret laws passed by Congress according to their constitutionality.

Although either party may occupy the White House at one time or another, the Supreme Court exists to 'limit' and ascertain the constitutionality that either party might place into law.

You want to change the entire concept over gay rights and Roe v Wade?


a curious amicus...

 

[elsol]

This could make the mid term elections the most critical in years, as the only hope of getting even somewhat moderate selections would be to move enough votes in the senate to allow the democrats to block, rather than just philibuster, Bush's appointees.

The most moderate, we're likely to get is Gonzales; and he's going to get cremated by both sides...

The Neo-Cons for being a 'social liberal'.
The Libs for being Gonzales.

Too bad... I'd love to see a Latino on the Supreme Court, in my opinion in a couple years a Gonzales would look and say 'Wait, this 4-L!' Then he starts remembering all those snide 'good ole boy' comments, he heard/somewhat heard.

Nothing like the memory of prejudice to make one lean further to the left.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen: "...This could make the mid term elections the most critical in years, as the only hope of getting even somewhat moderate selections would be to move enough votes in the senate to allow the democrats to block, rather than just philibuster, Bush's appointees...."


'moderate selections...' This surprises me.

Do you really advocate changing the nature of the entire government by keeping the court in an activist mode?

The balance of power in Washington, is divided between the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Supreme Court.

The court functions to interpret laws passed by Congress according to their constitutionality.

Although either party may occupy the White House at one time or another, the Supreme Court exists to 'limit' and ascertain the constitutionality that either party might place into law.

You want to change the entire concept over gay rights and Roe v Wade?


a curious amicus...

Wow, I guess American civics was wrong. My understanding was that the SCOTUS was the final arbiter in the interpretation of the law. As such, they should be as moderate as possible. Their function, impartial interpretation of what the law means and it's aplication to the document that stands at the head of our system of laws should not be influenced by political stance.

The court should be apolitical.

If, however, the court is not apolitical, and it's politics are those of the party with a majority in both houses of the legislature and with the party in control of the White house, then it would seem there is no check, no balance, against that party's program.

It would seem that you, with your oft stated belief in the rights of the individual, would be just as worried about that as I am. Not beacuse of Roe v. Wade or gay mariage, but because the only thing now standing between you and the removal of any of the rights you hold dear, is the hope they are good guys and wouldn't do that.

Or are you just so gleeful to see the complete annihilation of liberals that you are willing to run that risk with no complaint?

As a conservative, I personally prefer the court to have a more conservative character. That is a true conservative character, in that it dosen't take cases unless clearly consitituional questions are brought up by a case and then they interpret the case according to what the constituion says. With a truly conservative court, I wouldn't have to worry abour Roe v. Wade. A quick glance at the document will show you the word abortion isn't mentioned anywhare in the document. Another quick glance will tell you that any power not specifically enmumerated to the Federal government is a reserve power of the states. Ergo, the legality of abortion is a matter to be determined by each state.

Sitting in my seat, the idea of one Bush appointee is anathema, not because he's cinservative, but because he isn't. He's a reactionary and his picks are just as politically motivated and reactionary as he is. So yes, Dear Ami, I hope the Dems can filibuster his choices until the mid terms and I hope the democrats get off their high horses and try to talk to people and win enough seats to force Bushy-boy to pick more moderate candidates. That wish is entirely consistant with a conservative world view and entierly consistant with a respect for what the court's function is.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The most moderate, we're likely to get is Gonzales; and he's going to get cremated by both sides...

The Neo-Cons for being a 'social liberal'.
The Libs for being Gonzales.

Too bad... I'd love to see a Latino on the Supreme Court, in my opinion in a couple years a Gonzales would look and say 'Wait, this 4-L!' Then he starts remembering all those snide 'good ole boy' comments, he heard/somewhat heard.

Nothing like the memory of prejudice to make one lean further to the left.

Sincerely,
ElSol

If Gonzo has become a moderate, then I am now so liberal I bleed pink.

 

[BlackShanglan]

If Gonzo has become a moderate, then I am now so liberal I bleed pink.

Let's not test that.

Can't say I favor Gonzales either. I think he's moderate in a strange way; that is, he's marked liberal in some topics and strongly conservative in others, so I suppose that the average might be called "moderate." Or possiblt he's more like an independent. Unfortunately, he leans left where I go right and right where I go left, so ironically either a strong lib or a strong conservative would be preferable to me on the whole.

Shanglan

 

[elsol]

If Gonzo has become a moderate, then I am now so liberal I bleed pink.

Believe it or not, the conservatives (neo-cons and christian fundamentalists) call him a 'social liberal', most of it has to do with a Texas pro-abortion decision when it came to teens not having to need parental permission for an abortion in certain cases (that one PISSED the neos off) and a stated stance that a Judge's position is to apply the law and adhere to precedence.

Which is sort of strange, conservatives calling someone 'liberal' for being a 'conservative' judge.

I'm trying to find his stances on issues, pre-Attorney General.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[BlackShanglan]

Believe it or not, the conservatives (neo-cons and christian fundamentalists) call him a 'social liberal', most of it has to do with a Texas pro-abortion decision when it came to teens not having to need parental permission for an abortion in certain cases (that one PISSED the neos off) and a stated stance that a Judge's position is to apply the law and adhere to precedence.

Is that all? Serve me right for giving any heed to sound bites. Thanks, El Sol. I really must stop listening to the news. It only confuses matters.

Shanglan

 

[elsol]

Let's not test that.

Can't say I favor Gonzales either. I think he's moderate in a strange way; that is, he's marked liberal in some topics and strongly conservative in others, so I suppose that the average might be called "moderate." Or possiblt he's more like an independent. Unfortunately, he leans left where I go right and right where I go left, so ironically either a strong lib or a strong conservative would be preferable to me on the whole.

Shanglan

I think this is something common in Latins; I'm a moderate via the 'balance' of my stances.

I go EXTREME LEFT and EXTREME RIGHT; no true moderate opinions.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Mmm, R.E.M. playing in my head.

See, kiddies, if you blow up day care centers and mail anthrax to politicians, you can have this much power too. To the evil go the spoils. Thus the souls to me forever go. Looks like there'll be a fine crop this year.

 

[amicus]

Looks like perhaps Robert Novak has egg on his face again.

In a broadcast statement, he said he had 'confirmation' the the Chief Justice would resign on either Tuesday or Friday (today), neither happened.

Interesting....


amicus...

 

[Guest]

Looks like perhaps Robert Novak has egg on his face again.

In a broadcast statement, he said he had 'confirmation' the the Chief Justice would resign on either Tuesday or Friday (today), neither happened.

Interesting....


amicus...

Robert Novak, that douchebag of liberty?

(To quote Jon Stewart)

What a shock.

 

[elsol]

I see the problem with Gonzales now. He's a REAL fucking believer in judicial conservatism.

Oh... the neo-cons are going to crucify him.

Gonzales opinions criticizing Owen dissents on reproductive rights
In re Jane Doe 1(II), 19 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. 2000)

A recent Texas law requires minors who seek an abortion to notify their parents unless a court grants a "judicial bypass" based on its finding that: the applicant is "mature and sufficiently well informed" to make the decision herself; notification would not be in the applicant’s "best interest;" or "notification may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse" of the applicant. In this particular case, the court ruled 6-3 that the minor had "conclusively established the statutory requirements to obtain a judicial bypass." Id. at 361. Owen dissented vigorously, accusing the majority, including Gonzales, of acting "irresponsibly." Id. at 383. The majority specifically rejected the views of Owen and the other dissenters, explaining that the dissents’ efforts to make it much harder to obtain a judicial bypass contradicted the legislature’s judgment in enacting the statute and that, whatever their feelings about abortion, judges "cannot ignore the statute or the record." Id. at 356. Recently, Gonzales has suggested that this simply reflected "an honest and legitimate difference of how to interpret a difficult and vague statute." But Gonzales also wrote a separate concurring opinion criticizing the dissenting opinions for advocating a "narrow construction" of the bypass provision nowhere found in the statute and "directly contradict[ed]" by its legislative history. Id. at 365-66. In fact, Gonzales specifically wrote that adopting the dissenters’ narrow view "would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism." Id. at 366 (emphasis added).

Gonzales blasted 'right-wing' judges who were using activism to put forward a right-wing agenda over the legislative law in several opinions.

Now, it makes more sense; the boy has a real hair up his ass about judicial activism regardless of left or right.

So it's probably safer to say he's not a moderate, but a non-neo conservative.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Weird Harold]

This could make the mid term elections the most critical in years, as the only hope of getting even somewhat moderate selections would be to move enough votes in the senate to allow the democrats to block, rather than just philibuster, Bush's appointees.

One historical bit of trivia always seems to be forgotten when the subject of SCOTUS appointments comes up:

I can't think of single president who got what they expected from their SCOTUS appointees.

Eisenhower and FDR are two presidents who more-or-less publically lamented their choices because they got amost exactly the opposite of what they wanted.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

One historical bit of trivia always seems to be forgotten when the subject of SCOTUS appointments comes up:

I can't think of single president who got what they expected from their SCOTUS appointees.

Eisenhower and FDR are two presidents who more-or-less publically lamented their choices because they got amost exactly the opposite of what they wanted.

One reason we appoint them for life is so they are free of political pressure. And some do take their won path. But I fear with Bush, he isn't appointing them on their track record, he is appointing them on their personal beliefs and a record of putting those beliefs above the law. And to give someone with that bent freedom from any censure seems a dangerous game.

 

[BlackShanglan]

El Sol, I find that commentary quite encouraging. Perhaps there is hope yet.

 

[amicus]

Both of Clinton's appointees were liberals, one an attorney for the ACLU, the other for the Washington Post, I think they said....and they remain liberal left wing to this day.

Bush will appoint at least two strict constructionalist conservatives and they will stay that way.

Thangs r changin, folks....



amicus....

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Both of Clinton's appointees were liberals, one an attorney for the ACLU, the other for the Washington Post, I think they said....and they remain liberal left wing to this day.

Bush will appoint at least two strict constructionalist conservatives and they will stay that way.

Thangs r changin, folks....



amicus....

Far right fundamentalist christians tend to make very bad constituionalists Amicus.

 

[Seattle Zack]

It's alway fun, for a political junkie (like me) especially when we haven't had dual appointees in about thirty years or so.

Supreme Court Justices! So let's see ... traditionally, the justices have proved to strictly interpret the constitution (i.e., be more liberal) than the appointers wanted. Souter and Kennedy, in particular, have proven to be real thorns in the Bush theocrats' sides.

Now the theocrats are slavering to appoint ardent anti-abortion judges, in the hopes of overturning Roe v. Wade, but dumbass Bush is making it tough on them.

Maybe a little history is in order:

The current court had been the longest-serving nine-justice lineup since 1823, when James Monroe was president.

There have been 145 Supreme Court nominees. Of those, 29 have failed to be confirmed. In the 20th century, only seven have failed.

Republican presidents have appointed nine Democratic justices, Democratic presidents have appointed three Republicans.

Legal analysts note that even without O'Connor, there are five justices -- a majority -- who support Roe, the landmark 1973 ruling that made abortion legal.

O'Connor has been one of six justices in the abortion-rights bloc, along with Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas make up the anti-abortion cadre.

It would take two justices staunchly opposed to abortion to shift the court's balance on the core decision. And even then, a majority of the court would have to be willing to take up the issue -- and overturn a 32-year-old precedent.

So let's see what happens, huh? You idiots that didn't vote, or don't know how because you watch daytime TV all day, can gear up for next time. This is when the fun begins.

 

[Weird Harold]

But I fear with Bush, he isn't appointing them on their track record, he is appointing them on their personal beliefs and a record of putting those beliefs above the law.

That's exactly the sort criteria FDR used to appoint what he thought was a nice, safe, staunch democrat so he could have a SC Justice in his pocket.

There have been 145 Supreme Court nominees. Of those, 29 have failed to be confirmed. In the 20th century, only seven have failed.

As Zack points out, nomination is no guarantee of confirmation, and confirmation is no guarantee that what GWB expects is what he's going to get.

The nature of the SCOTUS will change, but I have just little bit of faith left in the system confirming a completely amoral person on the bench who would completely ignore the oath and the law to chase some religious agenda.