Can you say "backhanded liberal insult?"
Double-barrelled Mega-PING! to both lists! If you want on, FReepmail me!
Posted on 11/08/2004 2:19:50 AM PST by DBeers
Chief Justice William Rehnquist is battling thyroid cancer. Three of his colleagues on the Supreme Court are over seventy. There is no doubt, this presidential term, as to whether George W. Bush will have the chance to name justices to the Court.
The only questions worth asking now are who, how, and how many.
"Moral Values," Filibusters, and the Fate of Roe v. Wade
The most obviously pressing question, given the possible chief justice vacancy, is who President Bush's nominees will be. During the 2000 presidential campaign, in a telling comment, Bush named Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as the Supreme Court justices he most admired. While Thomas would be an unlikely choice for chief justice -- he's not an intellectual leader, to put it mildly -- many believe Scalia is the man to beat for the job.
There would be no better way for Bush to acknowledge the "moral values" vote - that blinkered segment of the electorate that, the polls say, gave him the presidency - than to nominate Scalia to the post. An anti-abortion, anti-gay-rights, pro-school prayer Catholic, Scalia has precisely the record that Bush's red-state constituents want.
Which brings us to the question of how. Scalia is not a moderate conservative, or even a disagreeable but tolerable conservative; he is an extremist. Given the power of the chief justice to shape the Court's decision-making process, Scalia's nomination would be vigorously opposed.
The Democrats in the Senate would no doubt filibuster to block a vote on the nomination, as they did with unacceptable judicial nominees during Bush's first term. But Republicans, who now have a majority of fifty-five members in the Senate, might seek to change Senate rules to allow them break such a filibuster and allow a confirmation vote to proceed. If this last check on conservative extremism were to give way, a multitude of ideologues could be set loose on the courts.
And so finally to the depressing question of how many justices Bush will appoint. This one is hard to predict, but it is perhaps the most crucial of all. The difference between an extremist minority - for example, Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia -- and an extremist majority is just a couple of seats. If President Bush appoints three or even four new justices, as many believe likely, he could radically change the course of the law.
As paleo-conservative Patrick Buchanan just announced, triumphantly: "The last best chance to overturn Roe vs. Wade is at hand."
What to Expect from the Scalia Court
While Roe v. Wade is the most prominent target of the Republic majority, it is not the only precedent at risk. If, in four years, a true Scalia Court exists, a number of important rulings might well be overturned.
A glance at cases in which Justices Scalia and Thomas have dissented offers a preview of what to expect. The subjects of their outrage range from affirmative action - stigmatized as racial discrimination - to campaign finance laws, environmental protection regulations, and gun restrictions, among others. They have tried to restrict the rights of certain groups -- sodomizing adults, suspected criminals, women who need abortions, prisoners, the poor, religious dissenters, detainees on Guantanamo, to name a few - and enlarge the privileges of others.
What is the worst that would happen during the tenure of the Scalia Court? The wall between church and state would crumble, if not collapse. Cattle, mining, coal and timber interests would trump environmental concerns. Gays and lesbians would be forced back into the closet. Innocent defendants would face criminal incarceration or long-term detention as due process rights would be eliminated. Women would face death or permanent injury by getting back-alley abortions. No one would have the right to remain silent.
And talk of "moral values" aside, the death penalty would get a big boost from the Scalia Court. In Atkins v. Virginia, for example, the landmark death penalty case decided in 2002, Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist agreed that mentally retarded adults should not be protected from execution.
Raise Your Glass
So we are back to how: how to stop this from happening. Bush has won the election, but it is the battles that will be fought over the next four years that will determine the character of the Court.
Hang tough, Senate Democrats, and remember these three essential steps: save the filibuster, block the judicial extremists, and toast the health of the remaining Supreme Court moderates!
-humans in the womb have rights too?
From: http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/scalia.htm
[Scalia] During oral argument, Scalia is noted for his sarcastic, witty, intellectually demanding and occasionally biting comments and questions. He loves the cut and thrust of debate. He is both a colorful and incisive writer of opinions, and one whose candid and rhetorically combative statements may offend others, including his fellow Justices of all political persuasions. He is very intelligent and very opinionated, a combination that soothes those who agree with his views and which is troublesome to those who disagree with his views."
For these and many other reasons, I LOVE Scalia and I hope he will be appointed CJ. He has strong intellectual skills, and aboveall he has got an "originalist" (and conservative) view of interpretation.
SCALIA FOR CJ, NOW!!!
"Extremist" = anyone leftists oppose. As for the author, has someone tested her to see if she has an extra X chromosome?
Gee, if if weren't for abortion, just think about how many potential democratic voters there would be.
Is that one level below or above a Barf Alert?
Yeh........ sure. Ashcroft has been working for Hitler, and it's going to get worse. (Barf Alert)
"humans in the womb have rights too?"
Not according to the left.
I already have my pick for Sanda Day O'Connor's replacement.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/jun04/239180.asp
Kohl & Feingold are both on the Judiciary Committee & they wanted to give Doyle the opportunity to name her far left replacement on Wisconsin's Supreme Court, so they both supported her rise to the 7th Court of Appeals.
Dear Moderator,
why not a poll about the next CJ?
I vote for Scalia!
Gotta love that backhand for Clarence Thomas!
This is where the rubber meets the road folks!
Scalia sounds like a winner to me.
This is a great way to start the week! They are scared! This truly makes my day! Thanks!!!
Can you say "backhanded liberal insult?"
Double-barrelled Mega-PING! to both lists! If you want on, FReepmail me!
This is great news! The thought of A Scalia/Thomas Court makes my day A+ ;)
I love to see them wallow in their ignorance and whine like babies. It won't change the fact that Bush won and we are so fortunate that Bush will make appointments. May God bless Bush and the court. We need men/women who will not make laws according to their own political agendas.
People who say this have never read Thomas' decisions. They seem quite intellectual to me. I love his perspective on law.
This statement shows the writer as being so far left, HE is the extremist.
OK . . .she . . .
Justice Thomas proves that one doesn't need to speak for the sake of speaking to be an intellectual force.
There's this fallacious rumor out there that Justice Thomas is a mental lightweight. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wish that rumor would retire to snopes.com.
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.