Rehnquist's court, but liberals gain.

Yahoo.com ^ | Fri Jul 1 | By Warren Richey, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

[alessandrofiaschi]

I start thinking that Rehnquist is hostile to President (and his possible appointments to the Supreme Court), even if he is in line with our Conservative Agenda. As a result, we have a Stevens Court, one of the worst Court of the last 60 years.

[alessandrofiaschi]

I start thinking that Rehnquist is hostile to our President (and his possible appointments to the Supreme Court), even if he is in line with our Conservative Agenda. As a result, we have a Stevens Court, one of the worst Court of the last 60 years.

[queenkathy]

Be afraid...Be VERY afraid! I don't understand why the liberals are so worried about a new Supreme Court nomination. They are gettin everything they want anyway. This IS the court they want! The liberals are taking over the court now!

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Be afraid...Be VERY afraid! I don't understand why the liberals are so worried about a new Supreme Court nomination. They are gettin everything they want anyway. This IS the court they want! The liberals are taking over the court now!"

The liberals are worried because we are 5 months into the new administration and like the Conservatives on the bench,(Rheinquict, O'Connor) there are two Libeals on the bench that can also retire(Stevens and Ginsburg).

That means Bush could very well pick 4 people for the SCOTUS. When added to Scalia and Thomas, this makes for a formidable Conservative bench for at least the next 20 years. We are talking solid 6-3 majority.

That's why the libs are scared.

[Blood of Tyrants]

"If constitutional interpretation were race-car driving, the US Supreme Court term that ended this week would be a twisted hunk of metal lying at the bottom of a gorge with it's dead driver trapped inside.

[Noachian]

He adds, "This whole question of federalism and enumerated powers is going to be sort of back-burner for the next several years."

I'm not sure about this.

If anything this year's cases have brought to the forefront the judiciaries abuse of The Constitution, and the silence of both the Congress and the President.

When the court allows a person's house to be taken away, or his personal property to be subject to interstate controls instead of state law, or when it delves into a person's religious beliefs, and none of our elected officials make a sound, that sends a message to the public that something is wrong in government.

I'd be very surprised if the separation of powers issue, and a tongue lashing of the court by some congressmen, didn't take a prominent role in politics before the next election.

[21stCenturion]

It is insufficient to kvetch endlessly about the course the SCOTUS and inferior Courts have followed and merely mutter amongst ourselves that T.H.E. answer is to reconstitute ( ! ) the Court with a view to more favorable, i.e. 'blue' -- demographics.

The appointment and installation of more 'proper' Justices will, in and of itself, do NOTHING to undo what has already been inflicted upon us by those who came before. UNLESS ...

There is ALREADY a plan in place to review SCOTUS decisions and develop specific cases INTENDED to reverse specific decisions that run contrary to the principles we hold most dear. As an excellent guide to what needs doing and why, you can begin by reviewing carefully the Dissent on cases the outcome of which is most objectionable. THAT, after all, is what our opposition ( in particular the ACLU ) tends to do as 'show prep' for the next phase of THEIR program.

Staffing the Courts is like turning on the engine. That's just when the journey begins ...

[AIC]

This year, Kennedy, in particular, emerged in high-profile cases. He played a decisive role in striking down the juvenile death penalty. His was also the deciding vote in the property-rights case - siding with the City of New London, Conn., and against residents who objected to the city demolishing their homes to make room for a privately owned development project aimed at helping boost the city's tax rolls. That decision is a major setback to what had been a growing property-rights movement seeking a more robust application of constitutional protections for private property. Instead, the five-justice majority adopted a constitutional interpretation that strongly favors cities and government officials rather than home and property owners.

The part that can not be ignored is that the five-justice majority adopted a constitutional interpretation that strongly favors cities and government officials rather than home and property owners.

I can't help but think that the day has come where the interpretation of the constitution is no longer for the citizens of the U.S. but for cities and government officials.

[adam_az]

"That means Bush could very well pick 4 people for the SCOTUS. When added to Scalia and Thomas, this makes for a formidable Conservative bench for at least the next 20 years. We are talking solid 6-3 majority."

Not if we get stuck with Gonzalez and another like him.

Then it will still be a liberal court.

[PISANO]

Ginsburg will NOT retire until there is a Dem President and will stay until she dies if she has to contend with a Republican President.

Stevens will stay until he dies or health reasons make his sevice impossible. However from all reports he is in EXCELLENT physical condition.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Not if we get stuck with Gonzalez and another like him.

Then it will still be a liberal court."

We won't.

[jwalsh07]

Turley is losing his mind.

The Rehnquist court swung towwards the 10th Amendment quite a bit. But now the court has become the Armadillo Court with Kennedy and O'Connor as the armadillos. There are 4 liberals, three conservatives and two armadillos on the court although Kennedy is trending liberal and the O'Connor armadillo has today retired.

What we will be left with after Bush replaces O'Connor with an American conservative justice is 4 liberals, 4 conservatives and Justice Kennedy who has fallen under the spell fo Washington DC and a fatal Solomon Complex.

[adam_az]

"We won't."

If President Bush appoints someone with his own views, we'll get another international law citing Justice. One who supports things like CFR, like CAFTA, and like LOST.

Heck, he appointed Gonzalez to AG. Why wouldn't he appoint him as Chief Justice once Rehnquist retires?

[alessandrofiaschi]

We hope that Stevens will retire soon. He is 85, and he hates Republican Party, that Party which named him many years ago (Ford)!

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Heck, he appointed Gonzalez to AG. Why wouldn't he appoint him as Chief Justice once Rehnquist retires?"

Because as AG Gonzalez scares the piss out of the RATS. Plus Gonzalez has many questions. It would be like appointing Kennedy. Same with Garza.

No, Bush is going to appoint Brown or someone else that made it through committee. I would not be suprised to see Estrada get another shot. Then again, this Michael Luttig looks very good as does Owen.

[Torie]

Kennedy has really gone nutter hasn't he? I call him the bipolar justice. He seems sane in one decision, and nutter in the next. His concurrence in the eminent domain case was an incoherent mess. I have "solved" this matter, even though it has nothing to do with the Constitution. Limit eminent domain where the end is to hand over the land to private parties, to where there is clear and convincing evidence, that the holdouts in a large project, where most have sold out, is to achieve an extortionate price for their land. Not pretty perhaps, not Constitutional, but maybe practical, given the play of all of the issues. In New London, the die had been cast, since most of the homes had been bought out, the place was a brown field, and the whole thing was at standstill because of the holdouts. The present situation was a veritable economic disaster.

Don't bother me with citing the Constitution. It was already warped by O'Connor's own hand, when she struck down the ownership of Hawaii by the Bishop Trust.

[jwalsh07]

Don't bother me with citing the Constitution.

Aieee. You've been infected with the Kennedy virus. The Constitution is the bedrock not elegant compromise. I may have to rethink reccomending you to a position on the high court. :-}

[jwalsh07]

That would be recommending dumdum.

[Torie]

One must deal with what is there. The making of Constitutional law is like the making of sausage. It ain't pretty. Land use is a horribly complex issue. That is why it endlessly fascinates me. The economic externalities are so huge (aka benefits and costs not internalized into the price system). My economic and property rights selves are at war with one another. It causes me to think a lot about the issue as a result.

At least when I toy with the dark side I admit it. Let it all hang out, at least until Jimrob bans me. :)

[jwalsh07]

He won't ban you, it'd be like banning Uncle Toots from the Two Way Inn. LOL, you'd have to have known my Uncle Toots.