This court is headed to the left - (regardless of how Roberts votes, Kennedy is the new "swinger!")

PITTSBURGH LIVE,COM ^ | JULY 24, 2005 | QUENTIN LANGLEY

[CHARLITE]

With, so far, only Ann Coulter stepping outside the conservative consensus and suggesting that John G. Roberts Jr., could be another David Souter, let me be the first to say that the next session of the Supreme Court will see it moving to the left. And this prediction applies however Roberts turns out.

Even if he consistently votes with Clarence Thomas, the next session of the Supreme Court will produce more left-wing rulings than this one has done. In the short-term at least, conservatives will come to regret O'Connor's retirement. It is partly a matter of arithmetic and partly a matter of Anthony Kennedy.

The lineup on the Supreme Court for the past 11 sessions has been four liberals, three conservatives and two "moderates." You therefore cannot possibly get a conservative majority by replacing one of the moderates. You would need to replace them both or, better still, replace one or two of the liberals. It is simple math, really.

According to Ken Starr's excellent history of the post-Warren Supreme Court, O'Connor was the dominant figure on the Rehnquist Court, especially since Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined it during the Clinton administration. O'Connor has been a key influence on Kennedy and the two of them have often delivered majorities on the court.

O'Connor, with Kennedy tagging along, infuriated conservatives with her decisions on abortion, gay rights, church and state relationships and racial quotas. On the other hand, she has been rock-steady on two fundamental conservative principles -- federalism and property rights.

[Pukin Dog]

An easy prediction.

More people will think the author a genius if he is right, than will remember him to be an idiot when he is wrong.

[ThePythonicCow]

It might be that Roberts has the temperment and skills to continue to influence Kennedy's vote. Roberts certainly seems like someone who could do so.

This is one reason I am glad Bush selected a "sensible" and persuasive conservative with a track record of gaining the confidence of liberals, rather than an outspoken one on the mold of Scalia. Until we can crack the "gang of five" liberal judges on the court, we are depending on being able to continue to influence Kennedy.

Roberts might just be the man for this job.

[Archon of the East]

Like I have said before, I believe Roberts will be a bump to the right from O'Connor and the next opening will only be replacing a Conservative with another conservative (hopefully). That leaves the retirement of I believe Stevens, if we get there as the choice to sway the court back to what is closer to how our Constitution should work. Overall IMO we haven't arrived here over a short period of time nor will we return to a Constitutional govt overnight. We need a steady sustained move back towards Classic Liberalism.

[NeonKnight]

I think Roberts will be writing a great many opinions, both majority and minority. Roberts is young, aggressive, and ambitious....I tend to think the older justices will defer to him a great deal more than this auther seems to think.

Roberts is a leader, a researcher, and he seems to understand the law.

[kennedy]

Stevens and Ginsburg are the most likely liberal Justices to step down, but neither will voluntarily do so while Bush is president. The only other opening Bush is likely to fill will be Rehnquist.

If Hillary or another liberal Democrat is elected in 2008, then the Court will continue its left wing path for another generation.

[AntiGuv]

Kennedy didn't follow O'Connor on gay rights, but the other way around. The rest is accurate.

[Redgirl]

Hopefully Roberts will defer to the constitution, versus the coin-flip/Ouija board method O'Connor must have used to make some of her rulings.

From what I've heard about Roberts, he seems like he will be an originalist. That's what I'm hoping for.

[Archon of the East]

You are more than likely right on, though Stevens may. That is why It is soooo important to keep the conservative movement going slow and steady for the next 20 years or more.

[Tarkin]

she has always sided with the state. In that case she proved to be more "conservative" than Antonin Scalia.

It's actually true. I recall a case (which involved federal highway funds) in which she wrote a lone dissent arguing that the fed. govt. could not force the states to lower the legal drinking age by reducing funds for states that had a lower one.

[Malesherbes]

I agree. Stevens was born in 1920, i.e. 85 years old. He would be 89 at the end of the Bush Administration. He should go now.

[lrb111]

Rehnquist is the partial architect of the Roberts nomination. Roberts was his choice. If ehnquist lasts until the first part of '08, look for him to step down then. Before an election that might result in a dem in charge of nominations.

[CHARLITE]

"If Hillary or another liberal Democrat is elected in 2008, then the Court will continue its left wing path for another generation."

That and a whole host of other unacceptable moves toward socialism which is intolerable. We all have to make sure that we prevent any liberal Democrat from getting into our White House......EVER!

Thanks for your comments, kennedy!

Char

[strategofr]

"We need a steady sustained move back towards Classic Liberalism."

agreed. We need to set aside half a year of a high school history class for study of the Constitution. I myself am embarrassed about how poorly I know it.