I very much hope Justice Stevens gives us all a gift for his 87th birthday by retiring in peace.
Not surprisingly, there is not a mention in the article of what the Constitution requires. To the Old Media, the Court is just a convenient, and unelected, branch of the legislature that is, regrettably, not quite as left-wing as it once was.
We need at least two more Justices to erase decades of leftist judicial activism. This upcoming Presidential race is far more pivotal than many people realize.
I'm sure that name makes the editors feel SO much better about infanticide.
This seems like something they should have been able to do, but Justice O'Connor was the swing vote ruling against this.
If commercials on TV are a violation of the McCain-Feingold act, then what about emails or other things on the Internet?
Will the FEC try to regulate the Internet come election time?
It is good, in my opinion, that conservatives have worked so hard to get Alito and Roberts on the court.
Maybe there is incentive to work very hard in 2008 for a President to deliver conservative nominates to the SCOTUS.
I don't think that Stevens-Ginsberg-Breyer-Souter will all still be on the SCOTUS in the next 8 years.
A Republican majority in the Senate is also something to help insure conservative nominees.
But then one thing that can be done is NOT fill vacancies in the court -- unless they are the right people. Take a slow, methodical pace.
Conservatives have only won a partial victory with the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Law. Now the fight must continue until things change so that the family unit can be rebuilt in the United States, and the Government will get their paws out of families and family life...
“Is the court about to make sweeping changes in important areas of constitutional law, including in decisions expected shortly on the role of money in political campaigns and of race in the schools?”
To disgronify:
“Is the Court set to revert to its intended role of simply interpreting the Constitution, instead of legislating from the bench as we Liberals hope they would?”
Obviously, the high-profile cases the NYT highlights are the one in which O'Connor turned left.
It amazes me that no one in the media thinks we can find the US Supreme Court web site and read the decision ourselves.
What a pathetic bunch of lying scumbags.
But would the Senate approve of a pro-life nominee to replace him? The Senate has a tiny de facto majority, and Bush does not have that much power due to him being a lame duck and Iraq. The odds of a pro-life, conservative nominee making it through the Senate is much lower than it once was.