Hopefuls' Preferences for Court Spring to Forefront

Washington Post ^ | October 27, 2004 | Charles Lane

[Former Military Chick]

It is axiomatic of presidential politics that while many people are concerned about the future of the Supreme Court, the issue mainly influences narrow groups of voters at either end of the political spectrum, and then only by intensifying preferences, Democratic or Republican, they already have.

Both President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) have campaigned as if they accepted that view in 2004. Each has limited his remarks on the court to carefully phrased messages aimed at reassuring his core followers without inflaming his opponent's.

But with the court's announcement Monday that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, is suffering from thyroid cancer, the wider public is seeing more news about the prospect of change in the justices' ranks than at any other time in the campaign -- and the presidential candidates' positions on judicial nominations have been thrust into the spotlight.

The current nine justices have been together since 1994, the longest period without turnover at the court since the 1820s. With the court sharply divided between liberals and conservatives on such key issues as affirmative action, abortion rights, states' rights and gay rights, the next nomination to a life appointment as a justice will probably be the focus of intense political combat when it comes before the Senate.

"What we've been saying is that the Nov. 2 election will determine the law of the land for several decades," said Ralph G. Neas, president of the liberal organization People for the American Way.

Indirectly, Bush and Kerry have already clashed over judicial nominations over the past four years. Bush has sent the Senate the names of conservative nominees for federal appellate judgeships. Senate Democrats, with Kerry's support, have blocked them, citing ideology and other factors.

[Former Military Chick]

This is one of the biggest issues I have as it pertains to my vote. I cannot and this is an absolute NOT allow Kerry into the WH. Why, because we may lose several justices and that could impact our country for years to come.

Bush may not be every conservatives dream guy, but, frankly we need him to return. If not I have deep fears of where our country will go.

Yes, Iraq and the war on terror are important as well. But we will be fighting terror for years to come. We will be there for Iraq. Yet we need to decide what we do in our own country.

[gop_gene]

This is one of the biggest issues I have as it pertains to my vote. I cannot and this is an absolute NOT allow Kerry into the WH. Why, because we may lose several justices and that could impact our country for years to come.

Bush may not be every conservatives dream guy, but, frankly we need him to return. If not I have deep fears of where our country will go.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that whoever wins the WH will have the great potential to shape the political/cultural landscape of this country for the next generation. This, even more so than the WOT, is why this election will be so important. I'm mostly nonchalant about the social issues, but I detest the kind of offensive, in-your-face liberalism the democrats stand for, and that would likely be cemented even more so than it is already if Kerry wins.

[montag813]

First of all, may god bless William Rehnquist. Barring that, Mr Bush please name Theodore Olson to replace him. Thanks.