Posted on 10/02/2004 12:06:51 AM PDT by FairOpinion
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The winner of the presidential election could reshape the Supreme Court and could have a long-lasting impact on important issues such as abortion, gay marriages and church-state separation.
Political and legal experts said the next president could make several appointments over the next four years and could shift the balance of power on the closely divided court, which generally has been controlled by a 5-4 conservative majority.
Although the Supreme Court has not emerged as a major issue in the campaign, President Bush (news - web sites) and his Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), have expressed sharply contrasting views on the type of judges they would appoint.
Bush said at the Republican Convention in New York that he supports judges who strictly interpret the law, while Kerry has vowed to appoint judges who "protect our rights and liberties."
"The makeup of the Supreme Court could well be one of the next president's most lasting and far-reaching legacies," said Ralph Neas of the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way Foundation.
The conservative Family Research Council agreed. Its president, Tony Perkins, said the court's future composition was very important, even though it has been overshadowed as a campaign issue by the economy and the government's war on terrorism.
Bush has cited Justices Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites), widely regarded as two of the court's most conservative members, as models for his appointments.
In contrast, Kerry in a recent Time magazine interview cited his Senate vote to confirm Scalia as one of his regrets. Referring to the November election, Kerry said, "The Supreme Court of the United States is at stake."
Although no one knows for sure whether there will be any vacancies over the next four years, legal experts said the odds of a retirement appear to be increasing, given the advancing age of the three oldest justices.
MOST STABILITY SINCE 1823
The last change in the court's composition took place more than 10 years ago with the confirmation of Justice Stephen Breyer (news - web sites). It has been the longest period of stability since 1823.
The experts said the most likely candidates to retire over the next four years would be the oldest justices -- Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), 84; Chief Justice William Rehnquist (news - web sites), who turned 80 on Friday; and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites), 74.
"If and when someone leaves, politics will have a lot to do with it," Washington attorney Tom Goldstein said. Rehnquist and O'Connor would be more likely to leave if Bush wins while Stevens would be more inclined to depart if Kerry wins.
"I would think that all three will be around for a couple of years. They are not anxious to walk away from their job," said Goldstein, a court-watcher who has argued cases before the justices.
Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas are the court's most conservative members, O'Connor and Justice Anthony Kennedy (news - web sites) are more moderate conservatives who often cast the decisive votes.
The court's more liberal faction consists of Justices Stevens, David Souter (news - web sites), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Breyer.
Possible Bush choices for the Supreme Court include federal appeals court judges Michael Luttig and J. Harvie Wilkinson of Virginia, Samuel Alito of New Jersey, Emilio Garza and Edith Jones of Texas and John Roberts in Washington.
Kerry's choices for the Supreme Court could include federal appeals court judges Sonia Sotomayor of New York, Jose Cabranes in Connecticut, Sandra Lynch in Boston and David Tatel and Merrick Garland in Washington.
Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky said the nominees that either Bush or Kerry select could depend on what happens in the November elections in the Senate. Any Supreme Court nominees must be confirmed by the Senate.
This should be another very important reason for conservatives to get out and vote for Bush.
Don't throw your vote away, which may help Kerry.
Bush needs every vote!
The USSC, Kerry's notion we should be run through a "global test", and the issue of the world court should be enough to re-elect Bush to another 4 year term. Bush understands each one of these will be a major setback to this country if that SOB Kerry gets elected to the White House.
I agree. Bush should be leading by 80% to Kerry's 20%.
People still don't understand the "clear and present danger" Kerry represents to the very existence of the United States, as a sovereign nation.
If we can't even get judges approved to a federal court of appeals (remember Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown?), I can only imagine the impossibility of naming judges to the USSC.
You're wrong.
While sKerry IS a threat, his election will likely trigger the Second Civil war. THAT is the only thing I see than will save the Land of the Free that our parents knew.
Republicans are just as power-hungry and just as likely to infringe on our rights. Who pushed the CFR? Who signed it? Who fought for, passed, and signed the more totalitarian aspects of the Patriot Act? Who is responsible for the increasing size of government in the last 4 years?
Don't get me wrong: I'm voting for Gee Dubya. But you REPUBLICAN koolaid drinkers had better deal with the "mote in your own eye" as well.
Yeah, but you know this is a scare article to get the base out to vote.
"They're gonna take away your right to abortion and bring back Jim Crow! Booga -booga- booga!!!!"
There's no chance in hell that a Republican Senate is going to pass a Supreme Court nominee sent up by a President Kerry, not after the disgraceful way the Democrats have handled Bush's major appointments. Try getting cloture from a Republican filibuster. Just try it.
And Bush will have almost as difficult a time getting one through if he lacks 60 Republicans.
The most likely scenario is that the High Court may have to slog through for a few years with eight or seven justices if one dies or retires.
People are stupid. I hate to say or think that but I am starting to think it's true. Who makes up the Democrats? Rich elitist snobs, uneducated, clueless people that don't know their a$$ from a hole in the ground, a fair number of misguided but otherwise decent people, "victim" citizens (minorities, women, etc.--those that fall for the rhetoric), criminals, foreigners.
Who makes up the Republicans?? Christians, Small Business Owners, family men and women, people that respect the Constitution, military, and those that just want the government to stay the hell out of our lives.
This is THE reason to vote. This is AS IMPORTANT as the WOT. The WOT defends American, but without the freedom as delineated in the Constitution, what's to defend?
This high court nomination issue is the biggest reason to vote for Bush. The thought if a Mass. liberal appointing 2 or 3 supreme court judges is truly scary.
I can't recall the name(s) of Bush's SCOTUS appointees, even though that was trotted out as the most important reason to vote for him over Gore. There were "two or three" impending retirements four years ago, and yet I still count nine people in robes every October when the Court convenes.
And so many decry the left's use of "scare tactics"...
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.