Posted on 06/07/2005 4:38:29 PM PDT by nickcarraway
I always thought that Scalia would be the best choice for Chief Justice.
This decision changes my mind. I now think Clarence Thomas is the only true Constitutionalist on the Court, and so I hope Bush nominates Thomas for Chief Justice.
Way wrong. He, in effect, signed his name to the anti-constitution coup that FDR promulgated with court-stacking.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Bush will replace him this summer.
I think the point is that this particular precedent would be far-reaching if overturned. The case being narrow, it wasn't appropriate to not consider the wider effects. No?
I agree.
I hope so, but last time I checked he doesn't have 60 votes.
I just don't think conservative justices need to worship at the altar of stare decisis when that altar was created, or at least the decisions, by liberals.
At some point, you reverse bad law.
He'll only need 51. Trust me.
Exactly right. Thomas is apparently the only justice on the court who consistently adheres to the Constitution and our founders' intent.
There have been some excellent ananylsis concluding this same thing. While Scalia is true to formality it is only Thomas that actually consults the original intent or the why of the Constitution. He is our hope, but don't get me wrong Scalia's formality can right many wrongs also.
Yes, Scalia and Thomas can disagree -- but when's the last time Scalia voted with the entire liberal judge bloc against Thomas, Rhenquist and O'Connor?
I'm sure FReepers can remind me of a time, but I sure can't remember it.
Who was with Scalia in the wine shipping case? I know the conservatives were split on that one I think.
I'm pretty sure in the flag burning case, he was with the libs. Scalia has always had a weird version of a libertarian streak but also alot of stare desis in him too.
God help us. The Supreme Court sure as hell won't.
"Perhaps, but I think I'd rather see this women:
CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown "
How about both on the SCOTUS bench? I'd be happy to have either as Chief Justice.
And while we are dreaming, who should be replaced? I think the removal of Ginsberg (Ginsburg, whatever) would be most beneficial.
I can think of one case from 1990 - Maryland v. Craig in which the SCOTUS held that:
"The Confrontation Clause does not guarantee criminal defendants an absolute right to a face-to-face meeting with the witnesses against them at trial."
The majority was formed O'Connor (who wrote the opinion) and Rehnquist, White, Blackmun and Kennedy. Scalia wrote the dissent, which was joined by Brennan, Marshall and Stevens. Famously he wrote:
"The Court has convincingly proved that the Maryland procedure serves a valid interest, and gives the defendant virtually everything the Confrontation Clause guarantees (everything, that is, except confrontation). I am persuaded, therefore, that the Maryland procedure is virtually constitutional. Since it is not, however, actually constitutional, I would affirm the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals reversing the judgment of conviction.".
You simply can't help but smile when you read this :-).
The rats already beat the crap out of Thomas.
If Bush nominates Thomas it might be because Thomas is a lot younger than Scalia.
Also see:
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE v. McLAUGHLIN, 500 U.S. 44 (1991)
I don't remember this case very well but it had sth to do with failing to provide "prompt" judicial determinations of probable cause to persons who were arrested without a warrant. Anyway O'Connor wrote the majority opinion which was joined by Rehnquist, White, Kennedy and Souter. Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens and Scalia dissented. Scalia beautifully wrote:
"The story is told of the elderly judge who, looking back over a long career, observes with satisfaction that, "when I was young, I probably let stand some convictions that should have been overturned, and when I was old I probably set aside some that should have stood; so overall, justice was [500 U.S. 44, 60] done. "I sometimes think that is an appropriate analog to this Court's constitutional jurisprudence, which alternately creates rights that the Constitution does not contain and denies rights that it does. Compare Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (right to abortion does exist) with Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (right to be confronted with witnesses, U.S. Const., Amdt. 6, does not). Thinking that neither the one course nor the other is correct, nor the two combined, I dissent from today's decision, which eliminates a very old right indeed."
Thanks for the post. Interesting comments.
You're right, however in that case the majority was formed by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia and Kennedy, while Rehnquist, White, Stevens and O'Connor dissented, so it wasn't exactly along liberal/conservative lines, as Stevens wrote a very sharp dissent.
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.