Posted on 02/02/2006 1:12:50 PM PST by dson7_ck1249
The 58-42 vote for Judge Samuel Alito to be the 110th Supreme Court Justice could very well culminate in a detrimental change in the role and operation of the Supreme Court.
Progressives think that this is because Justice Alito will replace the so-called swing vote of moderate Justice Sandra Day 0’Connor. No, the risk is that the bitter partisanship associated with his confirmation could undermine the Court’s independence and authority.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
You have heard of FDR, right?
I'm glad to hear someone address this. I think the vitriolic tension in DC is harming the entire democratic process and in the long run, could, if we're not very careful, lead to the end of our democratic experiment of government by the people.
Aren't we in the boat we're in because of this Court's so-called "independence"?
I for one do not want to be ruled by Black Robed Thugs.
What about him?
Well, read the article...as Horace Green reminds us, the way our government is formed it's three branches that check and balance one another. But clearly, we would want the Court to be independent, because in my mind the alternative is a puppet Court, led by one of the other two branches, thereby corrupting the Court's objectivity. I too don't want to be ruled by Black Robed Thugs, but I don't want my laws interpreted by Congressmen or a President. If the system is working properly, Congress makes the law, the Court interprets it and checks it with the Constitution and the President sees that it gets done. Just my take..
exactly how was she a "swing" vote when we only had 3 conservatives on the bench when Alito was sworn in.
You mean long-term consequences like maybe having another Justice that believes in the Constitution? Why do you try to make it seem as if it's the Republicans doing the divise stuff? Did you totally miss the SCOTUS "debates" and the foulness of the Democrats as they did their best to smear good men and women? I would argue that the long-term consequences are more likely to be to harm the public trust/conception of the Democratic Party rather than the Supreme Court.
She was considered the swing vote because it was generally her vote that decided the most controversial and hotly contested decisions. When Alito was sworn in, the 4 Justices who generally voted along conservative lines were Scalia, Thomas, Roberts (and before him Rehnquist) and Kennedy.
That's the way I understood it, I could be wrong (about who the conservative justices usually were) but I know that O'Connor was certainly the swing vote, hence the uproar about her spot being taken by a conservative jurist (his first vote notwithstanding).
Maybe we should take off the rose-colored glases, and focus clearly on the real problem: The federal government is in total default on its obligation to uphold the constitution. Pubes and Dums are mostly deck-chair shufflers on the Titanic.
I hesitate to call Kennedy a conservative.
This is BS. Sounds like the libs still don't ;understand that they have to win elections to be able to make the rules. If you are a looser then STFU, or at least put some ice on it.
No, not long term consequences like having a Justice who believes in the Constitution (although that's probably not the best way to say that...I'm sure activist justices "believe" in the Constitution as well, they just have the wrong conception about how it's to be interpreted, but I know that's what you meant). That would be considered a short term consequence, since it's effective immediately (you see how that works?). The long term consequence would be the damage done to the public conception of the Court and how its Justices gain a seat on it due to the bitter and negative mechanism by which they are appointed. If the public begins to believe that the Court is a partisan tool, then the Court will lose that which is to be its unique claim to authority.
No, I certainly did watch the hearings for Alito (and Roberts) and was thoroughly disgusted at how plain it was that the liberals had nothing substantial on which to base their complaints...but that's the point, mine and the article's, that these smear tactics that are completely partisan in their motivation is what is going to bring down the public's (and the future nominees') perception of what is to be a bastion of truth, justice and objectivity.
It's only partisnship when it is conservitive, otherwise it is the democratic way.
okay.
did you read the article?
Shame it isn't like the old days when the Republicans voted for Ruth Buzzy.
Between the creation of the Supreme Court in 1789 and the Civil War, the court found only two acts of Congress to be unconstitutional The court was not political for over a hundred years. When FDR hit the scene everything changed. The battle lines were drawn over New Deal legislation and the court started voting in blocs simular to what we see today. A sort of crisis even developed when he tried to pack the court with partisans with radical legislation that would have added another six justices. He ended up packing the court WAY to the Democrat side anyway down the road due to the ages of the justices.
I'm just saying we survived that, it's been the same in its ebb and flow ever since, and we will survive it today. Its just gonna be that much better right now because of the slant! Viva la Bush
I didn't think there was very much vitriolic partisanship at all. I heard some angry screeching from the massachusetts contingent (crybabies), otherwise I thought it went very well indeed.
Point taken.
The article (and I, piggybacking off of it) is simply hazarding a suggestion that perhaps the process as become too political. FDR was a long time ago, and there certainly has been an ebb and flow, you're right...but what the article is doing is speculating and projecting. Obviously it's just one man's opinion...so you're free to take it or leave it (the beauty of FR)
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.