Reordering the court (another article concerning the next Supreme Court)

U.S. News ^ | Alessandro Fiaschi

[alessandrofiaschi]

Nation & World Reordering the court Bush may have the opportunity to name several new justices By Angie Cannon

There may be little George W. Bush does in his second term that will have a more lasting legacy than his likely appointments to the Supreme Court. Two of the current justices are in their 80s; two are in their 70s; only one is under 65. And last week Chief Justice William Rehnquist was absent from the bench because of aggressive thyroid cancer (story, Page 60), leading to speculation that he might have to step down. Add it all up, and President Bush may actually have the chance to appoint as many as three justices in his second term. But don't be surprised if it doesn't go just exactly as scripted. While everyone expects the president's choices to be conservatives, the tortured politics of seating new justices may also require at least a dash of moderation and conciliation.

Roger Simon: Bush's second act

Michael Barone: The 51 percent nation

Gloria Borger: Divided we ... govern?

More election coverage and anylsis

However it goes, Bush may be able to reshape the court like no other president since Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, who filled nine high court vacancies. So any action on the court front would be " the major event at the beginning of Bush's second term," says David Atkinson, a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and author of a book about Supreme Court departures. "If it isn't handled carefully, it will tear the country apart. On the other hand, if he taps moderates for the court, it could be an opportunity to bring the country together." (...)

[the article is made up of two pages]

[alessandrofiaschi]

"For liberals, a more troubling prospect would be a Bush court's further embrace of "new federalism" rulings expanding states' rights - rulings that have been supported by a conservative majority". What kind of rule of low Democrats are thinking about? No more excuses. To restrict or dilate the power of the "federal government" is not the real issue, even if Dems wont to shift or conceal the groundwork of the fundamental contentions: "abortion (they would prefer it ... on demand)", "role of faith" in our society (save or not the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?), "flag-burning right" (a true insanity!), and so on! I don't think we need a constitutional amendment against gay marriage or other similar questions, because I believe it should be a State problem, but we strongly need two other anti-Roe (i.e. pro life) justices to sweep that piece of jurisprudential trash into oblivion. That's my opinion. Thanks.

[RWR8189]

Should that trend continue, this new federalism "would restrict the power of the federal government across the board," asserts Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University. "The government could become unrecognizable." And that might not bother the president's supporters one bit.

He's sure got that one right.

[Innisfree]

It will be very interesting to see how Bush maneuvers through the political minefield. Whatever Bush's obligations to his base, a statedly anti-Roe candidate could not be confirmed, so I think it likely we will end up with a "conservative" candidate in the style of Souter, or worse.

[alessandrofiaschi]

If so, why not a well-known liberal, like T. Kennedy or H. Clinton? [/sarcasm]

[Innisfree]

Are you more optimistic? Why? I've read that most expect an appointment of another Souter or O'Connor, which would tend to erode the conservative character of the court. Read the bio of White House counsel Albert Gonzales, a favored prospective nominee.

[Paleo Conservative]

Should that trend continue, this new federalism "would restrict the power of the federal government across the board," asserts Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University. "The government could become unrecognizable." And that might not bother the president's supporters one bit.

RWR8189:
He's sure got that one right.

Ironically if this were allowed to happen it would make federal elections less contentious. If the states were allowed to make their own policy without the federal government ramming their preferences down the throats of local governments, there would be less to fight over in federal elections. The blue states could have their socialistic systems, while the red states could have freedom. It's the insistence of a one-size-fits-all mentality of the DemocRATS that creates the political polarization we see today.

[alessandrofiaschi]

Not sure. If existents ultraliberal (and communists) Dems should have reseized "power", they would like a strong socialist federal government. No more "red States could have freedom", only blue States with their french-like socialistic systems. Pay attention! The fight is not over!!!

[FairOpinion]

William H. Rehnquist born October 1, 1924 80 yrs old
John Paul Stevens born April 20, 1920 84 yrs old
Sandra Day O’Connor born March 26, 1930 74 yrs old
Antonin Scalia born March 1, 1936 68 yrs old
Anthony M. Kennedy born July 23, 1936 68 yrs old
David Hackett Souter born Sept. 17, 1939 65 yrs old
Clarence Thomas born June 23, 1948 56 yrs old
Ruth Bader Ginsburg born March 15, 1933 71 yrs old
Stephen G. Breyer born Aug. 15, 1938 66 yrs old

And think, in 4 years, they will all be 4 years older.

Looks like 4 of them really should leave during the next 4 years. And if we would have everyone over 65 leave, that would mean 8 justices leaving, with only Clarence Thomas staying.

[alessandrofiaschi]

A curious thing is that, because of his disease and his current role, we all discuss about William H. Rehnquist, who is 80 y.o. BUT John Paul Stevens, the most liberal voice of S.C. is older, he is 84. This one prepresents one of the more awful appointement made by a Republican (former vice-)President! By the way, I bet that he will resign BEFORE 2008 (or 2006 if the Demons should regain some seats in Senate). This man is so deplicable!

[alessandrofiaschi]

Errata corrige: "I bet he will NOT resign before..."

[Jimmy Valentine]

We need strict constructionalists like Scalia and Thomas.

Stevens is old and in declining health; Ginsburg had/has colon cancer; O'Connor is a cancer survivor (maybe);Rhenquist wants to retire and is very sick.

I believe that G.W.B. will appoint at least four judges.

Time for the "nuclear" option of forcing a straight up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. Screw the filibusterers.

Regards,

[Noachian]

Sandra Day O'Connor, 74, might be such a consensus choice for chief justice, suggest some legal experts, because the Reagan appointee is a conservative who sometimes sides with the more liberal bloc as a swing vote... "She epitomizes the nature of judicial accommodation, of wanting to build bridges across conservative and liberal views while being quite influential as the deciding vote,"

O'Conner is more comfortable in Brussels than in Washington. She's said, more than once, that international law shoud be introduced into American law. Do we really need an internationalist as our Chief Justice?

[Noachian]

I would be more comfortable seeing the Judiciary put back into its original role as the third branch of government instead of the overseer of the executive and Legislature.

[Tarkin]

To restrict or dilate the power of the "federal government" is not the real issue, even if Dems wont to shift or conceal the groundwork of the fundamental contentions: (...) "flag-burning right" (a true insanity!),

That case was bizarre by the way. The majority was formed by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Kennedy and SCALIA, and the minority by Rehnquist, White, O'Connor and STEVENS.

(...) because I believe it should be a State problem, but we strongly need two other anti-Roe (i.e. pro life).

Anti-Roe is good enough. Remember that Justice White was pro-choice but he dissented in Roe.

[alessandrofiaschi]

I know both the cases you consider. Hon. Scalia strongly believes in the letter of the Constitution (and then to the first Amendment freedom of expression). For this reason I like him and I hope for him a future as the next CJ, even if I judge the flag-burning a true insanity. Thank you for your answer.