Posted on 07/13/2005 3:48:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Edited on 07/13/2005 4:11:42 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
With O'Connor's retirement, Rehnquist's possible retirement this summer, and hints of the possibility that Ginsburg and Stevens may be retiring within his term, President Bush has an historic opportunity to reshape the court. This is the opportunity that we've all been fighting for. Most of us are counting on the president filling these vacancies with solid conservatives who respect and abide by the Constitution and we will be sadly disappointed if the president appoints squishy moderates.
Sadly disappointed? Did I say, sadly disappointed? Hell, we'll be up in arms!
But that's just my opinion. Before we go much further in this discussion, I'd like to get yours. Please answer the following FR poll question, then come back and post your opinion.
Assuming a potential supreme court nominee is qualified in all other respects, which of the following concerns should be the deciding factor:
Acceptable to minority party
Maintain balance of court
Must be moderate
Must be mainstream
Gender/race/ethnicity
Friendship/loyalty
Pro life/marriage
Must be originalist
Other
Pass
Interesting responses, to be sure.
I'll hold off on my vote for the time being.
I know you said,Assuming a potential supreme court nominee is qualified in all other respects, which of the following concerns should be the deciding factor:
You're a member of the CP?! Tucking this knowledge away for future reference.. :o)
I'll like to see those screen names..
Originalist.
Semper Fi
I voted marriage and family although I think i should have voted Originalist. I think I am both!
Yup same here.
The biggest thing that bothers me about Bork is his assumption that the right to bear arms is a "Collective right", or in laymans terms, the government can require anything it wants in order for you to have that right. And as such I would never consider him a viable SC candidate.
Originalist IS conservative, BTW...
I voted originalist too Jim.
While the War on Terrorism has been a positive for Bush, in the way he's handled it, the Supreme Court is what most people who voted for Bush pinned their hopes on. That's particularly true in 2000.
While I don't think this is make or break for Bush, an awful lot hinges on his selection.
Fasten your seatbelt.
Along the lines of Clarence Thomas if you please.
Certainly is.
Orig. Thank you.
Originalist! There should be no more monkeying around with the original intent..........living document be damned!
I think you should run a poll about who should be the next Chief Justice. Of course, that poll should list Thomas and Scalia - but please include Ted Olsen in that list too.
Just a thought but you might want to put the meaning of Originalist in the poll for those that can't or won't do the search thingy.
The Fry Cook Rule
Assume you are the manager of your local McDonalds. You want to hire a new fry cook. You want a yes answer to two questions: Do you understand the job? Are you willing to do the job?
Exactly the same questions apply to a new Justice for the US Supreme Court. Do you understand the Constitution? Are you willing to enforce the Constitution?
Jim, my friend, this is just a home-grown way of saying that the criterion for hiring a Justice or Chief Justice should be "originalist," no more, no less.
Congressman Billybob
Not knowing much about Bush in 2000, I voted for him in the primary based on his promise to appoint Judges who would actually consult the Constitution.
Getting originalist Justices on the Federal benches is THE most important domestic issue in the USA.
GWB, keep your promise.
By contrast, a political decision made by either the executive or legislative branches is just that, political. Those decisions are made based upon whatever logic, history, sociology, or other considerations that move the executive or legislative politicians. In cases like those having distinctly different interest or ideologically driven supporters (abortion, church/state implications, and the like), the questions for justices and judges would not be the same as those propelling the executive or legislator who apply the interests of their constituents with their own in determining which efforts to support or oppose.
The hope and expectation is that executives and legislators would answer the question of whether the proposed act is useful, fair, intelligent and productive of the common good.
Contrariwise, the question for a court, especially the Supreme Court, would be: Is the executive or legislative policy in compliance with the organic doctrinaire limits imposed by the Constitution, treaties or legislation that comprise the supreme law of the land. In our tripartite system of government with the three branches sharing equal constitutional power, the underlying philosophy that permeates the different roles, the concept is that the person who would vote, let’s say, against the right of abortion (to choose a hot-button issue) if he or she were a legislator, would uphold it as constitutional if sitting as a federal judge or Supreme Court justice. To legal purists, this is more than a nice technicality; it is an essential ingredient of the exquisite design in the Constitution of a balanced government.
That notwithstanding, it has been clear throughout our history that most presidents have attempted to tailor their court appointments to correspond to their own political philosophy in hopes that close and contentious issues that come before the court will be decided in a manner consistent with the administration’s political desires.
That said, every judicial nominee seeks to assure the Senate committee examining his or her acceptance that, irrespective of their own political history and philosophical orientation, once they were serving on the court they could decide the cases objectively and without any favorable inclination or influence of their subjective opinion.
Constitutional purists would consider a president’s attempt to play politics with judicial nominations an offense against the fundamental design of our Constitution. But, as disappointing as it may be to the jurisprudential purist, virtually all presidents have put their assumptions about a potential judicial nominee’s political views and their likeliness to support the president’s views at the top of the list of qualifications they consider. And, it is not likely that presidents,and in particular, this president will change that predisposition in the future.
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.