Posted on 11/04/2006 5:00:12 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
For weeks, commentators have speculated that significant numbers of conservatives, alienated by over-spending, the Iraq War, and other perceived GOP disappointments, will stay home on Election Day, giving one or both Houses of Congress to Democrats. But for those who care about reforming the Supreme Court, sitting this one out may soon look like a mistake of historic proportions.
For the past several weeks, there has been a rumor circulating among high-level officials in Washington, D.C., that a member of the U.S. Supreme Court has received grave medical news and will announce his or her retirement by year’s end. While such rumors are not unusual in the nation’s capital, this one comes from credible sources. Additionally, a less credible but still noteworthy post last week at the liberal Democratic Underground blog says, “Send your good vibes to Justice Stevens. I just got off the phone with a friend of his family and right now he is very ill and at 86 years old that is not good.”
Normally, this news might be too ghoulish to repeat publicly. Nevertheless, with the election just days away, it is news that should be considered. It points out what could be a once-in-a-lifetime chance for the 20-year movement to recast the court with a constitutionalist majority. It would be a cruel twist indeed for conservatives to “teach Republicans a lesson” next Tuesday, only to be taught a lesson themselves within months when new Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) leads a Democratic majority against the most important Supreme Court nominee in decades. Conservatives whose mantra is “no more Souters” should bear in mind Robert Bork’s fate after the Senate changed from Republican to Democratic hands in 1986.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
You're talking politics. I'm talking constitutional law. Two different concepts.
Nominate someone qualified and when rejected nominate his dog, his cat, his canary until the Senate gets a clue and then try another qualified candidate. If rejected try his horse, goat, two sheep.
He could make a recess appointment. He could leave the seat vacant.
Never give up. Never ever ever give up.
There is an argument which I will mention. If the President failed to make a timely nomination, since the text of the Constitution says 'he shall nominate', then, in theory, he could be impeached for failure to perform a constitutional requirement. Of course, that will not happen. If they hated him enough to want to remove him, they would use a more powerful argument.
I used the word "friend" loosely. The last actual time she had me over, she was wearing an oh-so-clever "Wax Bush" shirt. Just before the 2004 election. We are no longer actually friends, LOL, and I try to avoid her.
It's not only Stevens, it will also be Ginsberg as well. Mark my words.
How's that GOTV effort thing working out for you these days? Blackbird.
EXcellent post! I hope you don't mind, I copied it and sent it out to my personal frients in an e-mail. Well said!!!
1) There will be no Democrat majority.
2) This will be of no consequence to the House of Representatives, only the Senate which Rove has packed with RINOs.
3) Bush still needs to come up with a nominee more solidly conservative than Harriet Meiers.
I'd welcome Stevens stepping down but let's not get overly dramatic here.
GOD HAVE MERCY ON OUR LAND AND MOTIVATE ALL CONSERVATIVES TO VOTE AND TO VOTE SANELY.
BTTT
Oh yes, I did. I even added that to my "animations" on IncrediMail, too. It was allllll good! Thank you.
If this does occur, first of all, let me wish Justice Stevens a healthy life for however long he is still here.
If this occurs, President Bush should nominate either Janice Rogers Brown or Miguel Estrada.
You are absolutely correct. Another thing in our favor is that the youngest judges on the high court are the conservative justices. So if the laws of mortality holds, the court will tend to be more conservative when vacancies occur.
He need merely nominate someone qualified. If Congress fails to confirm - well - that is their affair.
I thank him for his service to this country, as bad as it may have been, and I wish him a speedy retirement.
That's fine. Even with a rat Senate any Bush appointment would be an upgrade.
How would he have known about the future Reagan administration?
With regard to a rcess appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court ...
Assuming the nominee gets at least 50 votes in the Senate (so that with the VP's vote he or she would be confirmed) ...
Yes, I would recommend that the President make the nominee into a recess appointment, and nominate the candidate to succeed himself, and for the Republicans in the Senate to try to figure out how you conduct hearings of a sitting Supreme Court Justice.
The Founders CLEARLY considered the number of votes that should be reqired for confirmation, and CLEARLY decided that a simple majority was the right number.
The Founders also realized that the Senate might muck things up, and so allowed a safety valve RE recess appointments.
BUT ... the idea that Supreme Court decisions might be made by a court including one or more recess appointments "under the gun" as it were, and beholden to the U.S. Senate, well ... that contradicts the intended independence of the judiciary.
Yes, there is precedent ... e.g., Teddy Roosevelt put Oliver Wendel Holmes on the Supreme Court via a recess appointment, and also nominated him for a permanent position, and he was subsequently quickly confirmed.
But ... there is no precedent for the filibuster of a recess-appointed justice.
This is what it all comes down to. A conservative(read that constitutionalist) Supreme Court is now possible during this administration. it will be on now like donkey kong.
I think all the conservatives in jersey have moved down here to the south. Hope kean wins though,but i dont underestimate the corruption in that state.
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.