Posted on 11/06/2006 8:37:23 AM PST by ConservativeGadfly
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17869
The Rumor About John Paul Stevens by Sean Rushton Nov 04, 2006
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.
The rumor should focus the mind not only on whether the Senate will remain majority-Republican, but by how much. In 2005, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) was able to force Democrats to abandon filibusters of numerous Bush judicial nominees by threatening use of the Constitutional Option, which would have ended such filibusters. Democrats threatened to "go nuclear" in response, shutting down Senate business. Instead, a face-saving deal was reached in which moderate Democrats agreed to drop the filibuster, effectively paving the way for the filibuster-free confirmations of John Roberts and Sam Alito.
With 55 Republican senators, the majority needed for the "constitutional option" was never a sure thing. But with significant Republican losses on Tuesday, it will surely be buried, leaving Senators Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.) and Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.) free to return to filibusters, including against Supreme Court nominees. Schumer is reported to have assured Democrats that Bob Casey Jr. -- despite running as a moderate Senate candidate -- would be supportive of Democratic efforts to block constitutionalist judicial nominees. "There's no worry on judges," said Schumer. "And judges is the whole ball of wax." Other supposedly centrist Democratic candidates including Harold Ford Jr. (Tenn.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Jim Webb (Va.) have refused to rule out filibusters against judicial nominees.
Even if the rumor turns out to be unfounded, it is worth repeating because it crystallizes the reality that there will soon be another high court vacancy. Senators elected next Tuesday to six year terms will, assuredly, vote on the confirmation of at least one new Supreme Court justice before their term is out.
This week in Indiana, Montana, and Nevada, President Bush raised judges as a key reason to elect Republicans to the Senate. By all accounts, it has been and continues to be a favorite applause line among Republican crowds. Judicial confirmations were key to tight Senate races in 2002 and 2004.
Conservatives should not forget the issue this Election Day, when the victory of a generation may be at last within their grasp.
I will guarantee to all here ever since GW was elected that there will never be a true conservative SC when he leaves. This is too vital to the elites that run this country & own the CONgress. Conservatism isn't in their interest.
"She was just tying her tennis shoes."
Huh?!?
I hope that a big win for us tomorrow renders these cut-and-run "conservatives" irrelevant in the future.
Yeah, I saw that post. I wouldn't trust it. Nor do I trust these rumors. As much as I like the idea of Stevens stepping down, I don't see it happening. I'd be willing to bet he stays until he dies and he hasn't looked particularly ill to me.
Dude, is that necessary? I'm not a fan of Stevens either but I'm not going to wish damnation on him.
Stevens also served in WWII as a Navy code breaker.
There was a picture of her with her head down during a hearing. It was attributed to her being very tired because of medical treatments.
I said it was because she is "Ruth Buzzy" and was just tying her tennis shoes.
(Jokes lose their effect if you have to explain them.)
Gees that sounds something like Pancreatic cancer or leukemia. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
If it turns out to be Justice Steven's though I have to admit that I always thought he'd retire feet first from the bench. I also felt he thought his duty was to be an activist on the bench under the cloak of "Supremacy".
bookmarking
it seemed more of an observation rather than a judgement.. to me anyway.. thats about how it looks to me too
His military service is admirable. But it has nothing to do with his eternal soul, does it?
Steven's biography says his religious affiliation is Protestant. I have read his opinions (disastrous as they are) on homosexuality and abortion. If those opinions reflect his actual core being (and I believe they do), he has absolutely no relationship with Christ.
Jesus said He was the truth, the life, and the way, and that no one went to the Father except through Him.
Stevens doesn't have much time.
This is the biggest unspoken reason to maintain GOP Congress majorities. Stevens will not make it two more years and we HAVE to have a Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito type responsible conservative constructionist Judge to replace Roberts, not another radical activist liberal Justice who thinks the Constitution is written in pencil, not in stone.
First of all,let me wish Justice Stevens good health.
But it's still time for him to go.
I'd lvoe to see an "in your face" kind of nomination liek Roy Moore, but he'd never get confirmed. The President ought to pick Janice Rogers Brown or Miguel Estrada. Let's see the Dimmycraps do tehir stuff on the first African American woman to be nominated or the first Hispanic.
Yes I've been following that also. Her health is not good. It's quite possible that Bush will be nominating TWO Judges for Supreme Court, and we know what kind of Judges he'll put up. Six years and not a single lib or stealth moderate gutless wonder like Kennedy or O'Conner. If the GOP can hold on to Congress, which I believe they can, when Bush leaves office in Jan of '09, the SC would have a 6-1-2 make up, with six constructionist conservatives, one milk-toast "please like me" moderate (Kennedy), and two remaining liberal activists; Breyer and Souter. That would do a LOT to restore America's values and Constitutional protections that have been stripped away and abused by SC liberal activism of the past 20 years.
Conservative judges are more modest - they believe that they uphold the law while activist judges beleive that they are the law. A big difference. This is what is at stake. The people throwing a temper-tantrum by not voting will oversee the abolishment for all practical purposes of the First, Second and Fourth Amendments and the enshrinement of "rights" for criminals and terrorists.
Yes it would. Any conservative who isn't voting Republican tommorrow or hasn't already, is a joke and their values mean nothing. Their shortsightedness that the balance of the SC will be decided in the next two years is amazing, but I think that group of people is largely fictional. REAL conservatives want this country the way it was founded. CONSERVATIVE and NO MORE liberal activist Judges. NO retreat from war. CLOSED borders, LOW taxes, and AMERICA FOR AMERICANS.
And I really appreciate them doing this, as it has energized Republican voters.
Heck, the past 40 years.
It is too bad that every GOP Senate candidate did not bring up the SCOTUS issue in all their races. It is a winning issue as are tax cuts, national security. How the voters could not see that the Dems would revoke all attempts at a new Court, new tax cuts, and our national security advantages is beyond me. I hope these new polls actually reflect that there is a Big Mo to Pubs in the races Tues.
And they will learn that lesson very painfully if they end up tipping the scales the Dems way.
But I don't actually think that's going to happen. 'Teaching a lesson' is nice talk, but when the rubber meets the road, conservatives are not dumb. They won't go down that path.
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.