Posted on 12/26/2004 3:08:49 PM PST by Aetius
.........To the extent that the vote was a mandate for any social issue, it was a repudiation of gay marriage, not a vindication of restrictions on the right to choose.
Indeed, voters oppose courts' imposing gay marriage for the same reason that they oppose a reversal of Roe vs. Wade – they do not support it when judges try to impose their own views on the social consensus. Just as most voters want marriage to remain strictly heterosexual, so most want abortion to continue to be legal, albeit with restrictions. While parental notification and consent, restrictions on late abortions and limitations on Medicaid funding all meet with popular approval, the voters will treat very unkindly any effort to reverse the essential findings of Roe.
If President Bush nominates a Supreme Court justice who is a conservative in the mode of Sandra Day O'Connor or Anthony Kennedy, he will meet with a broad public level of support. But if he tries to add another knee-jerk reactionary to the court – and jams the nomination through by changing the rules to block a Democratic filibuster – he will shatter the national moderate consensus that impelled his re-election.
The nation will not tolerate seeing an electoral victory impelled by terrorism hijacked to put another William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas on the court. If Bush tries it, he will not be able to govern effectively for the balance of his term.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Yes, that was quite amazing that a US Sup Court justice would look overseas for guidance. If that were to become common, then it would be another barrier to conservative and Constitutional govt as we are not likely to get any good ideas from Europe.
To place an ideological tag of any kind on Sandra Dee is ridiculous. I can't take her "reasoning" seriesly. Her opinions would get her flunked out of any reputable law school.
It was possibly the most absurd thing he said in this piece. Roe was the judicial imposition of values; overturning it would result in 50 democratic solutions.
If the Sup Court actually respected the 10th Amendment then the national culture war would be but a shadow of what it has become. It is the outrageous power grab by the Courts that has closed democratic avenues, and that has made issues that should be decided by the people at the state level into national questions.
I wish that there would be some Constitutional show-down between the President and Congress versus the Sup Court. Unless the other branches stand up to this insanity it will continue. Of course on specific issues like gay marriage, some form of Constitutional Amendment should be pursued to stop the Courts, but generally a bigger, political debate about the proper role of the Courts should take place.
You're absolutely right!
You call it centralist I call it two faced, with no spine.
"but generally a bigger, political debate about the proper role of the Courts should take place."
Each of the three branches is in a deal with the devil with each other to usurp the power of the States and the people.
He hates Christians, and is a pro-abortion fanatic.
Well said.
O'Connor and Kennedy are not "conservatives."
I heard Bob Beckel today say that the GOP would "rue the day" if they change the cloture requirement because the Dems would use the new rule against them someday when they retake power. First, the GOP has not generally used the filibuster to prevent Dem appointees from receiving a vote anyway, which is one of the reasons we've got this problem. Second, if Frist can change this rule, then what on earth would prevent a Dem Majority Leader from doing so, when the time comes? What can they offer us that assures that if we keep the rule in place, they will do so as well? Nothing.
We've got nothing to lose by knocking it out now, and I think we should do so.
Bush just has to ask himself before every Judicial appointment: " How many more babies will be slaughtered because I appoint this sonovabitch?"
Homosexuals will continue their life threatening, disease friendly, life style, whether or not same sex marriages are legalized. The homosexual deaths from suicidal behavior, is mostly from voluntar actions.
First we save the next 40 million babies, threatened by Roe vs Wade and then worry about saving homosexuals from themselves.
When Gay Marriage goes to the Supreme Court, the vote could be broken down like this:
In Favor of Gay Marriage: Stevens, Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg
Against Gay Marriage: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
Swing Votes: Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor
It will be a close vote. If Rehnquist retires soon, his replacement will likely be against gay marriage and not change the line up of judges, on this and other cases. If Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires, for example, look for that to bring on a Bork or Thomas type of 3 ring circus confirmation, because a Ginsburg replacement could really tip the balance of the court.
O'Connor and Kennedy have already shown their hand, as far as I am concerned. Both of them voted to overturn the earlier decision upholding sodomy laws, and Kennedy wrote the opinion.
Of course, the two issues are not identical, but they have demonstrated that they will vote to change the Constitution by judicial fiat, and I have no doubt that they'd do the same here, if given the opportunity.
Personally, I think sodomy laws are dumb, but not so dumb that I think the Supreme Court should be able to simply substitute it's own "enlightened" viewpoint for what the Constitution actually says, and doesn't say.
Even the Canadian Supreme Court did not do that. They said that gay marriage is OK, provided that it is approved by the legislature. In the US, though, the issue is not whether gay marriage is allowed if approved by the legislature. The issue is whether courts should be able to mandate gay marriage, even if the legislature says, "No."
Pray for W and Our Troops
If the voters don't like the results, they can vote the liberals back in the legislative and executive.
President Bush has lost more brain cells than the toe sucker ever had.
He's a Rove wannabe.
this is all a misunderstanding. Dick Morris is fine with changing cloture; he's opposed to changing his socks.
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.