Posted on 03/27/2005 12:56:09 PM PST by LyricalReckoner
Let's talk about the arguments that will be made, court cases cited, the sound bites, and votes in Congress.
Let's talk about what's going to happen. Chief Justice Rehnquist isn't going to be around forever, and I'd bet a beer that this is his last court session. Then the president gets to nominate a replacement. That replacement is someone who votes just like Rehnquist did when it comes to religious freedom issues. The court remains much the same.
It's late in the president's second term when Sandra Day O'Connor and one other justice decide that they'd rather have their replacements named by the current president than by who knows who. Then the president gets to change how the court decides religious freedom issues.
Let's talk about what to do when the next Supreme Court nominations are made. Conservatives are going to be pressing familiar arguments and using terms like 'judicial activists,' 'legislating from the bench,' and 'run amok.'
What are the liberals going to do? Play Me Too, as in the run up to the war in Iraq? When the senate gets to talking about Rehnquist's replacement, is Hillary Clinton going to give a speech condeming the attempts to keep her God -- America's God -- out of the public square?
I say let's talk about the arguments we should present: effective arguments that can persuade the public that it might not be such a good thing if the court goes from being a reasonable place where a swing-voter like O'Connor can make all the difference to a place where thinking is dominated by the likes of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Any ideas?
Hey, Greer might be looking for a new job soon.
My personal preference would be that all Supreme Court decisions would be subject to review by some impartial body, which would remand all decisions which were decided based on anything other than established United States legal arguments. No such impartial body exists. Therefore, I would submit all decisions to a computer or a series of computers which had data bases which included the Constitution and all cases which clearly are decided on established law which would exclude anything "found" in the Constitution which, in fact, can't be found there.
Just a start, but in other words I don't trust the Supreme Court. If you throw out natural law, everything else is let in, and from then on it's just a toss up.
Republicans that include Snowe, Collins, Chaffee, Warner and McCain.
Snowe, Collins and Chaffee hate Geroge Bush even nmore that John Kerry does, Warner is a squish RINO at best and McCain ahtes the presdient even more than the gal pals from Maine.
What's it mean? No Pro-Life Christian Judges.
I hope Rehnquist doesn't have a feeding tube.
To make a long story short, the Chief Justice will probably resign in June. Justices O'Connor and Ginsburg will probably resign then, also. (A combination of age and serious medical problems.)
Bush will probably name Scalia to replace Rehnquist, and then the big fight will occur this summer to replace Scalia, O'Connor and Ginsburg. It is a close call, but I think Bush will get his nominees through, and we will have a legitimate Court for the next generation.
Congressman Billybob
From your mouth to God's ear, Congessman. I'll be delighted to see Scalia at the helm - what a shame that he's not a younger man. Given the number of cases the Court grants "cert" each year, it'll take a minimum of 20 years to right some of the wrongs of this 5-4 Court we've been saddled with. A shame, really, that there isn't some provision for "firing" a justice (like Souter) for lying to the President & the Congress in order to gain appointment. I think a sitting president ought to be able to "unappoint" their own appointments, don't you?
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.