Damn! If this turns out to be true then were only 6 seals away from the apocalypse!

Be Well.

lol...lol!!

Well, this should be very interesting to see whether Bush has a brain. Will Bush put in a somewhat moderate Republican judge who would be found acceptable by at least 75% of America, or will Bush nominate some far right wing, neo-con, "corporations and big business can do no wrong" Supreme Court judge. Hmmmmmmmmm, who will it be?

... say hello to Chief Justice Scalia and one of the other loser judges Chimpy's promised his dominionist friends. And of course Roe v Wade is history.

Chris,

GZ is correct, to a degree. I would bet that Scalia gets the nod.

The ever truthful GZ:

And OH How you sick leftists would HATE to see your precious Roe V Wade return to the dust
or even to the states control. No more killing the defenseless and speechless while you wail and
moan about the money we "waste" in Iraq.

The idol of the left, the god of hatred and evil incarnated.

If we cannot kill babies anymore then we are doomed. Lost. Powerless.


YOU make me sick.

Oh yeah, thanks GZ for at least being your true honest disgusting self. ;0)


Again I say it, the left, proving it here daily. Defend this one Corky, NG3 and all you wonderful sanctimonious wimps. Please.

Good day.

Well, this should be very interesting to see whether Bush has a brain. Will Bush put in a somewhat moderate Republican judge who would be found acceptable by at least 75% of America, or will Bush nominate some far right wing, neo-con, "corporations and big business can do no wrong" Supreme Court judge. Hmmmmmmmmm, who will it be?

Posted by califchris at 2005-06-21 09:10 PM | Reply


Hey Chris

Enlighten us with YOUR list of the judges 75% of America "approves" of.

Or this another of the numbers you just pull out of that light Cali air?

Rehnquist voted against Roe v. Wade. If his replacement were also against abortion rights, it wouldn't affect the balance of the court on this issue.

Every appointment is important, but the real moment to cry doomsday is when a liberal like Justice Stevens retires.

Since I am pro choice, I don't particularly want to see Roe overturned. That being said, it really was legislation from the bench. Overturning it would probably be the Constitutional thing to do. However, I don't think it should go to the states. If it did, we'd have a veritable underground railraod from states that outlaw it to states that approve it. If Roe gets overturned, it should be legislated at a federal level IMO.

Jeff,

All decisions from the bench are the legal outcome of legislative changes. The judges aren't making "new", they are exploring outcomes from the balance of laws they have been presented to consider.

Legislators around the world love to hide behind the unpopular (in some quarters) outcomes of their laws and wring their hands trying to wash off their culpability.

Don't fall for it.

If you don't like where a legal outcome has arrived at, tell your legislators to change it. Simple matter. If pro-lifers don't like abortion, get the laws changed. The fact that your own legislators did make this possible in the first place, haven't changed the laws since, and won't now due to the votes they would lose isn't some judge's fault.

It's the guy lying to you while he asks for your vote.

You voted for him in other words. Don't vote for him again.

Regards,
etc.

My opinion but

Bush will appoint a far right wing judge - the Bush family isn't done with us yet and they still need the Dominionists - Dobson, Robertson etc. Jeb still has a turn coming and these boys, the religion gang, have long memories - just ask Daddy Bush.

Either Scalia OR Thomas will be elevated - Thomas IS Scalia so perhaps the Bushies will go for Thomas for a grab at the black conservative/clergy vote and bragging rights for nominating the first black as Chief Justice. The new judge will probably be known as a corporate creature but also way far right enough for the social conservatives to be happy.

NICEVILLE ... Orin Hatch would be one of those from the right that would probably be acceptable to most of the country but I bet he wouldn't be far enough to the right for the Dobson crew.

Was that DISGUSTING enough for ya .. ?

I'm guessing Ashcroft. Same brilliant legal mind as Thomas, but can really sing! Remember the West Wing where the CJ rhymed his decisions? Assy can sing them.

This is at worst a draw and possibly a victory for the democrats. The swing voter on the SC is O'Conner, not WR: the court's CJ is part of the conservative triumverate (with Scalia and the idiot savant); replace him, and all you do is swap out a conservative vote--and that's the BEST CASE SCENARIO for the radical right.

Consider what happens if Bush nominates an arch-conservative: huge battle in the Senate; much wringing of hands, rending of clothing, bitching, moaning, kvetching, posturing, filibustering, delaying, nuclear option considered, nuclear option dismissed, nuclear option re-opened, etc. Ultimately, Dubya will not be able to get a christian conservative/right-wing fundamentalist through the Senate. Period. End. Just not gonna happen unless there are a few more small aircraft accidents involving democratic senators in states with Republican governors.

So, El Presidente's fall back position has to be a more moderate candidate--someone with unimpeachable "strict interpretation" credentials, but also someone without a formal record on abortion. (Sorry guys, this is the poison pill issue: any jurist on record with a firmly anit-choice bias is unconfirmable, thanks to the "maverick 14" last month.) It won't be a pantywaist like Souter, but you better believe that Bush is in trouble here: he will likely be forced to nominate something of a wildcard, a candidate that appears to be a loyal Republican and a conservative jurist, but someone who has successfully shielded himself from overt positioning on devisive social issues.

Again: worst case scenario for Dems is a draw; very possibly a slight victory in which the next SCJ is less idealogue and more a dedicated jurist.

--Publius

We need something to shift pontificators' opinion pieces off of Iraq and SS.

Scalia and his shadow are poor choices, either would mean two fights instead of one.

He should have resigned a long time ago. Hasn't he been absent for months? Reminds me of the pope, these guys don't resign till they die.

Headline was incomplete: Should have read "Renquist has resigned himself to fact he installed idiot as President in 2000".

Instead of dividing along Republican/Democrat or Conservative/Liberal lines we should look at the concept of free men vs. slaves. We need government of, by and for the people. How strange that only Rehnquist, Thomas, and O'Conner came down on the side of "free men" in the Medical Marijuana case. All the labels Politicians use, from Communist, Conservative, Republican or whatever are a smokescreen for an ever increasing oppressive Government of unelected Bureaucrates that treat people as slaves. Rehnquist's last decision put people first. Unfortunately the Facists, by many other names, are increasingly in charge.

Let the games begin!

We'll be hearing about nothing but Roe vs. Wade for the next two years.

I hope no democrats were planning on anything being done about any of the important economic issues facing the country.

Norm

PUBLIUS,

" Ultimately, Dubya will not be able to get a christian conservative/right-wing fundamentalist through the Senate. Period. End."

I disagree. I think Bush has little choice but to nominate and let the chips fall where they may. The Dominionists will insist on it. They'll commit to fight with money and pressure all over the country.
I just do not think Bush and more importantly who follows Bush will have any support unless Bush at leasts nominates a hard liner and fulfills a promise he made to these people. They'd never forgive him or his hand chosen which I think perhaps not in 2008 but at some point will be
Jeb. Finally, it suits Bush to have a knock out public fight. It's consistant with his image ala John Bolton ...

Good thing I got my abortion done a while ago. I wouldn't have to want to fly to some foriegn country to have a fetus terminated.

There's more to this issue than Roe v. Wade.

Frankly, I think it should also be overturned, if only for the fact that it is a states' rights issue, not a federal issue. Just like education, when you think about it...

You are never going to see Roe v. Wade overturned, though. It's part of our culture now.

Don't people have anything else they worry about besides the overturning of Roe v. Wade?

did anybody wake up Rehnquist yet..to tell him he resigned?

NICEVILLEs 9:29 post just proves that many of these right wingers dont want you to have your freedoms. They feel inadequate and for some reason have this strange desire to control others. It's never 'live and let live' with these assmonkeys! It's 'I'll live my way and fully expect you to comply". Such a sad individual.

along with our security and who was best able to provide it, this is what the election of 2004 was all about. ANd now its time to do what a clear majority of people in this great country put them there to do....and kowtowing to a bunch of liars with thier 'compromise' on judges was not one of them. This looming battle will prove that they were liars then and they are liars now.....this will be one of the biggest FILABUSTERS of all time........but you know...sort of looking forward to it....always like a good fight..........and as bette davis said...well sort of......

'fasten your seatbelts....its gonna be a bumpy night.

commonsense...save your breath...the right will never see two sides of an issue....my way or the highway is their mantra....they have all three branches of government...and they still can't get anything done...damn moderate Republicans...Nagle..Chaffee..
Snow...Collins....McCain..Spec
tor...damn the reasonable.

Bushlover,

Since Rehnquist is a Conservative, I don't think the Dem's will filibuster his replacement. They'll likely go to all lengths to stall the up or down vote, but I don't believe they will filibuster this...and if they do, I'd be willing to bet the gang of 14 will vote for cloture. The nominee will likely be Scalia, and his seat will likely be replaced with another conservative judge. However, the current balance of power in the SC won't change; which is why the Dem's won't filibuster IMO.

bushlover2...a "clear" majority (HA HA)may have put him in...but NOW a clear majority would like to put him out...you guys had a chance to make a difference...but you're guys BLEW IT...with lies..secrecy...arrogance..the tide his turned boys....if it walks like a lameduck...and talks like a lameduck...what you've got is a lameduck..3+ more years of this insanity...let's hope we can survive this.

Commonsense,

Only conservatives voted for the "freedom" of dying patients to use medical marijuana. The "Liberals" were 100% against it. Republocrates don't even read the bills they vote on. We are ruled by unelected bureacrates. Political labels are totally absurd.

Get out the Crisco and bend over, because here it comes......

and again......my comments disappeared.....hhhhmmmmmm

jeffj....sounds interesting...lets see how it all unfolds.....one thing I am confident in is the dismissal of this great compromise.....just lay back and watch

question for the enlightened.

Can a issue be put on the national docket for national voting that would over ride a suprecourt decision concerning a decison by the supremes?

V2:31

It's called a Constitutional Amendment.

231 visitor,

I am no law expert, but the quick answer is a probable NO. The Supreme Court has the power to overturn legislation voted into law if said legislation is unconstitiutional. Your scenario is somewhat akin to mob rule, and that is not how this Republic is structured.

Is it true that the Bush admin was or is putting pressure on the cheif judge to resign from his position?

Although the possible resignation of Renquist will not change the ballance of politics on the court. It will however chnage the agenda of the cases reviewed by the court ond their time table.

239 visitor,

Rehnquist is very old and is in poor health. I don't think he was 'forced' out.

so all of the constitutional amenments are a result of Mob rule?

242 visitor,

No. The Supreme Court has the power to declare a law unconstitutional. Our Constitution has a provision in place whereby we can Ammend the Constitution. This is a slow and deliberate process which can't be attained through the ballot box; it has to be done within the government itself.

"Can a issue be put on the national docket for national voting that would over ride a Supreme Court decision concerning a decison by the supremes?"

If the Supreme Court says a law is unconstitutional, then the only way to get past that is for a constitutional amendment. This requires 2/3 of both houses of congress, the president, and 75% of the state governors. We the people only have say in regards to who in congress, the whitehouse, and in the state government gets to vote. It is the oversight the supreme court has.

Thank you all. I received great answers from all of you with out having my intell questioned are being called a vulgar name.

Not bad, Not bad at all.

First off, I fully expect GWB to put in another ultra-conservative judge who is a strict constructionist. He has strong armed everyone, every step of the way, and I fully expect him to continue in this fashion. He is as bull-headed as he is stupid. And by the way, Rehnquist is NOT a strict constructionist--he's just conservative.

This is going to be another frustratingly bitter and annoying political fight. We'll hear every catch phrase from "legislating from the bench" to "activist judges". And the right will continue to misconstrue non-strict constructionist views as not following the constitution. Then we'll hear a bunch of non-lawyer partisan talking heads really butcher what the law is and how it is interpreted. Then I'll throw my shoe at my TV in total frustration and utter disgust and I'll be out 4 grand. You'd think a lawyer would enjoy what is about to unfold---but I can assure you I am not. This is going to be yet another step towards politicizing the bench, and that isn't the way it should be. Sometimes I really hate politics.

I don't care if he puts another conservative on the bench--just not another strict-constructionist. That particular view is the EXTREME minority view in the eyes of the law. We've already got 2 of the 9, one of which will be the Chief soon and that is MORE than enough representation for that narrow view of the law. There are a number of ways to interpret the law--and for a LONG time, each of these views were given their due regard and treated as legitimate. Only until now has one party decided to de-legitimatize all but one view because it flies in the face of their agenda. I have to tell you, I'm going to give a verbal ass-whooping to each person who says that anyone who isn't a strict constructionist is not actually following the constitution. Of course they'll just stare at me blankly or ignore each argument in their stubborn partisan and ignorant stance.

Scalia for Cheif Justice, and Janice Rogers Brown to fill his spot!

VISITOR 2:39 p.m.

Rehnquist has a very virulent form of thyroid cancer. When they did not immediately operate - as is the normal first course of medical treatment for this type of cancer - outside physicians have written that the cancer has probably metastisized and spread in his vocal cords, throat, and other areas where it is incurable. He is 80 something and with this type of cancer I'm surprised he didn't resign sooner.

Curious and fun question for the right wing on here - is it legally possible for Dick Cheney (I'm not sure if he has a law degree) to be put on the Supreme Court or do you have to come up thru the ranks - federal appellate court judge, etc.?

10-1 Bush appoints his "torture memo" ambulance chaser - Gonzolez. You remember him, don't ya - the guy who says "it's okay for the U.S. to torture an individual but only up to the point where the individual's body organs begin to shut down." Sound's like Bush's kind of guy!

bush will nominate who he wants and fight tooth n nail to get them thru////what's he got to loose he can't run in 2008 so why not really stick it to the dems make them filibuster till the election then blame all the non progress on them
jasman