Posted on 09/08/2005 1:52:07 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Democrats must insist that the Senate not vote on John Roberts' confirmation to be chief justice until after Sandra Day O'Connor's successor is also named. The Senate needs to evaluate both picks together in assessing their impact on the Supreme Court, now and for years to come.
Also, Democrats need to make clear that since President Bush has already picked a conservative in Roberts for one vacancy, the other selection needs to be a more moderate Republican in the mold of O'Connor. Otherwise, a court that currently reflects a moderate mainstream view could become one that would be significantly further to the right and hostile to basic civil rights and civil liberties.
Since the last appointment to the Supreme Court 11 years ago, the justices have decided a number of important cases involving the proper role of government in our personal lives, the responsibility of government for protecting the general welfare and our continued commitment to the values underlying the rule of law. During that period, the court's majority, often by 5-4 votes, has resisted the assault (once led by Roberts) on a woman's fundamental reproductive rights; recognized the importance of affirmative action to the democratic purpose of public education; excluded government from the bedrooms of consenting adults; knocked down repeated efforts of some to inject religion into the activities of government; ended our internationally embarrassing execution of mentally retarded and juvenile offenders; and reaffirmed that not even the president is above the law.
Beyond the issue of whether these moderate decisions will be overruled, there also are important national issues that likely will come before the court in the next few years. For example, some conservative scholars have argued for the court to significantly limit the scope of Congress' spending power, claiming that federal aid for disaster relief is unconstitutional. The new justices also will have pivotal roles in deciding key questions concerning the scope of the president's powers as part of the war on terrorism.
The key question is whether the president will attempt to replace the moderate mainstream represented by Justice O'Connor with a right-wing nominee such as Justice Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, who interpret the Constitution in a way that will produce decisions that are fundamentally inconsistent with how the public views the role of its government, both in our private lives and as trustee of our general welfare and national values.
Just as it would have been unthinkable for the Senate, after the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, to confirm a Supreme Court nominee whom it knew or suspected would have cast the deciding vote to overturn Brown, it should be equally unthinkable for the Senate now to vote to confirm a nominee who is unwilling to state unequivocally that he or she accepts as established that Roe v. Wade protects a woman's fundamental right of choice or that Grutter v. Bollinger correctly upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action in public education. For a Democrat to do so should be a career-ending vote.
The crucial question for the Senate must be whether the two picks for the Supreme Court together make it more likely that these and other key precedents concerning civil rights and civil liberties will be overruled.
John Roberts is unquestionably more conservative than Sandra Day O'Connor. With one conservative nominated, the Democrats must do all that they can to insist that the remaining nominee be more moderate.
The importance of what is at stake cannot be overstated. Roberts is 50 years old. Assuming that the second nominee is around the same age and that these justices remain until they are 85, like John Paul Stevens, they will be on the court until the year 2040.
The Senate must know who these two justices will be before proceeding further with either of them and must ensure that together they will not endanger our basic freedoms for decades to come.
Coleman and Chemerinsky are professors of law at Duke University School of Law in Durham, N.C.
Elevating an Associate Justice to be Chief Justice is rare, having happened only three times. The usual practice is to appoint as Chief Justice a person not already on the Court. So, in no sense was Scalia "passed over".
"... a court that currently reflects a moderate mainstream view could become one that would be significantly further to the right and hostile to basic civil rights and civil liberties." So, in the LIE beral mind, supporting the continued slaughter of partially born, alive human children is 'moderate' and mainstream. Not a pretty sight to see how close to correct that perception is! Sadly, America has degenerated very far under democrat and liberal sludge 'leadership'. When murdering the alive unborn is elevated to the level of 'civil' rights and 'civil' liberties, 'civil' is a degenerate level now tagged as mainstream and thus 'normal'.
I already know what they think! In fact, I could have written this tripe for them as they are ENTIRELY predictable.
The ONLY way to get to them is to IGNORE them!
Roe vs Wade was 5-4 I believe, not 7-2.
But I see what you mean: Ginsberg ultra-liberal (er, mainstream) replaced White, almost a conservative.
Roe was 7-2 back in 1973.
The court had 4 judges willing to overturn it at the time before Byron White's death, Casey v. Planned Barrenhood. Renquist and White were the two original Roe dissenters and they were joined in Casey by Scalia and Thomas
But I see what you mean: Ginsberg ultra-liberal (er, mainstream) replaced White, almost a conservative.
Yup. She tipped it 5-4 to 6-3.
Poppycock! The senate has no role in shaping the court - only in approving the nominee according to his qualifications.
Translation:
We lost the election, but we insist that a rabid Marxist be appointed to the court so our communist agenda can be carried out.
In other words, the President should forget about principles and use a "ideology quota" to maintain these professors legal theories in the future.
Yeah, but 2 years before that, didn't Thomas replace the raving lunatic Thurgood Marshall? Even today's Stevens doesn't compare to the ridiculous activists from the 60s courts.
True. But after Thomas we got Souter (I believe in replacement of Powell) which went from a moderate-left to hard left seat.
Then what do you use to line your bird cage?
By all means, let's not buck any trends here. So what if it only happened three times? Who cares? What does that have to do with steering a runaway court back on track, or risking it all on an unknown entity?
Scalia was passed over in the sense that most believed Bush would tap Scalia for the CJ position. Hint: Conservatives had no complaints about a Scalia or a Thomas court, but suspected it would be Scalia in the end.
Let me ask you this, how many times has a virtual unknown been nominated as for an AJ position only to have the nomination changed to a CJ nomination midway through the confirmation process? Could it be less than three times? Hmmmm? Heck, how many times has a president nominated a virtual unknown to the CJ position?
I freely admit that I am very critical of Bush for conservative reasons. What rationale do you use to justify your enthusiastic cheer leading for President Bush?
The Senate should quit their whining, do their damn job, and vote on Roberts.
Ideology is NOT a yardstick for judicial fitness!!!
If the Republicans would quit caving in to these childish, baseless outbursts from the left, the left would evaporate.
The only effect of naming the 2nd nominee, would be to afford the baby killing left an opportunity to defeat both.
"most believed Bush would tap Scalia for the CJ position" -- What evidence do you have for this assertion?
Nevermind, go back to sleep.
Is that the best you can do, troll? Back to DU with you!
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.