Posted on 10/30/2004 2:12:17 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
WASHINGTON -- Despite talk of changes on the Supreme Court stirred up by the news that Chief Justice William Rehnquist has cancer, many court observers believe the sheer intensity of confirmation battles in the Senate in recent years would make it difficult for any president to put an ideological stamp on what is now a moderate-to-conservative court.
Barring an unexpected landslide, both parties will have enough clout in the Senate to block judicial nominations using filibuster rules. And people on both sides of the bitter confirmation divide say they hope that fact alone would motivate either President Bush or John F. Kerry to choose broadly acceptable Supreme Court nominees.
Nonetheless, the news of Rehnquist's treatment for thyroid cancer sent a tremor through a campaign in which judicial nominations -- the political vehicle to discuss such social issues as abortion, affirmative action, and gay marriage -- have so far taken a back seat to terrorism and the economy.
Some activists on both sides seized on Rehnquist's illness to warn of dire consequences if the other party got to choose his replacement. And some political observers predicted that changes on the Supreme Court would be a motivating tool to get some voters to the polls.
"The prospect of a court opening would have some effect on the vested interests -- and abortion is the biggest vested interest in any court fight," said Rick Davis, a Republican consultant working with Arizona Senator John McCain. "Prochoicers, who fear change on the court, will be motivated to go out and vote. The prolifers, who want a change on the court, would be more motivated to vote."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I agree that even with Bush appointee new judges the Supreme Court will not change that much, since those that are more likely to be retired are the more 'conservative' ones (including Sandra Day O'Connor). So, it's more replacing than adding the 'conservatives'.
When nut-cutting time came the wafflers voted correctly in Bush v. Gore.
After the Bush victory I hope the republicans in the Senate grow a pair and use the rule change option to eliminate this nomination fillabuster nonsense. Just stick it to these lying thieving treasonous RATS, they'd do it to us if they had the chance.
This story overlooks one very important fact: It's almost guaranteed that the next Supreme Court justice will be a Latino. If Kerry makes the appointment, it will be a left-wing Latino. If Bush makes the appointment, it will either be a right-wing Latino or a Souter Latino.
I think it's highly unlikely either party will want to filibuster an historic Latino Supreme Court nominee. Yes, the Dems filibustered Miguel Estrada until he withdrew his name, but that hardly got any media attention because it wasn't the Supreme Court.
This election could have a huge impact on the court. (Of course, that's what many were saying in 2000, too.)
If Kerry is elected, his judicial appointments both in the Supreme Court and on lower federal courts will destroy America.
They will surrender the Constitution to foreign courts. They will impose their leftist cultural revolution over our representative legislatures. They will classify honest conservative opinion as "hate speech". And they will repeal the second amendment. The power of centralized government will be declared absolute and unaccountable.
If you are pro-life and Kerry is elected, forget it! Even limited prohibition of the most egregious acts of infanticide will be declared unconstitutional. They will remain that way for more than a generation if not longer.
Finally, with Democrats increasingly seeking to overturn elections through the courts, it is possible that Kerry appointed judges will mean that we can never elect anyone other than a Democrat... The stakes here are no less!
I agree with you. My post was limited to if Bush win. Which, as I mentioned above, will not change much. So, we need to have perhaps Owen in 2008 to 'clean' the Supreme court.
Does anyone remember 1984? Do you recall how much the Democrats hated Ronald Reagan?
If you buy their version of the Reagan presidency, he invented homelessness, eliminated birth control for the poor and personally killed thousands in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Honduras. He created AIDS and apartheid and single-handedly broke the back of organized labor. You think the liberals dislike Don Rumsfeld? Just ask them about James Watt!
Don't forget about Reagan's "assault on the poor." No, the left wing of American politics couldn't just disagree with Reagan's economic policies -- he was assaulting the poor.
They still hate him. John Steppling, a playwright and screenwriter living abroad, remembered Reagan at the time of his death by writing that the former president led "illegal wars in Central America that cost hundreds of thousands of lives . . . maybe more, who is to know really (well, maybe ask [former Reagan administration official John] Negroponte), and waged a relentless assault on the poor for his entire public career."
The playwright is so consumed by his hatred that he wrote, "Reagan died about 92 1/2 years too late by my reckoning, and the world would have been a better place had he been bucketed at birth, like a deformed kitten." Wow, it sounds like he needs a little anger-management help!
....It infuriated the Left that Reagan was an unabashed champion of a strong American military, limited government and a free economy. Such comments as, "Here's my strategy on the Cold War: we win, they lose," and, "Government is like a baby: an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other" greatly annoyed his critics. ....***Demo-nization Of Bush Recalls 1984 Election
I think your percpetion of what courts can and cannot do are a bit exaggerated. The shift is always a long slow process which is what the founding fathers meant it to be.
Your "sky is falling" pessimism about the consequences to the courts of a Kerry presidency echoes enviro-wacko blather about Bush.
It will be interesting to watch Bush in his second term.
Want to bet? Anyone - if GW wins and three seats come open, you can bet that every conservative who has GW's ear is going to be screaming for pro-choice, pro-constitution, less government candidates.
I will be one of them, though I do not have his ear. However Sam Johnson will hear loud and clear from me. BTW I keep hammering him on NPR funding. Please do the same - they are heavily invested from the McDonald's fortune and are taking over local public radio station programming, who can't compete anymore.
Actually, all but the two left most justices voted the right way as the decision was 7-2. As a matter of fact, the only court to ever rule in Gore's favor was the FL SC - and two of them had contributed money to Gore...
So using Bush v Gore as a benchmark is rather self evidentally false.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.