Time for a New Conservative Supreme Court!

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Edsinger, this is your thread. I've asked you several times what legislation other than Roe v. Wade you oppose.

Can you elaborate? For the sake of discussion...

I will when I get time, lets just say the rulings over the last 30 years, some of them I disagree with , but RVW sticks out as the most apauling to me..

If anyone else out there shares Ed's view regarding the courts rulings, tell us which you disagree with.

Does anyone have an opinion or guess on who will replace O'Connor?

I hope it's Janice Rogers Brown. She was just confirmed as a D.C. Appeals Court judge under the agreement that said she wasn't extraordinary, she'd be a woman replacing a woman, and she'd add another African-American to the Court. She looks perfect to me...

[edit on 7/3/2005 by djohnsto77]

What rulings are she most known for?

All I know is that she is "controversial," according to some. I havn't followed her career, so I am unfamiliar with her.

I'm not that familiar with her specific rulings either, but she's made speeches decrying the expansion of government that has taken place over the last decades and I think called much of the New Deal policies unconstitutional and turning America from a free-market capitalist society into socialism. I have to agree with her there. That's why the liberals hate her so much because the New Deal is their baby.

[edit on 7/3/2005 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by djohnsto77 That's why the liberals hate her so much because the New Deal is their baby.

You hit the nail on the head right there Liberals love their new deal.

Anyways i'm pretty sure anyone can be elected as a supreme court justice , it does not have to be a judge so though it wouldnt happen it would be cool if a non judge got elected

Below I have included a specific look at Roe v. Wade, but since that's not the primary issue here I'm leaving it at the bottom.

I think Alberto Gonzales is the next pick for the Supreme Court. I'm not entirely sure about historical precendents for putting Janice Rogers Brown up so quickly after they've just barely gotten her into the DC circuit, and it would be a risky gambit for Republicans to spring the nuclear option before 2007. It would hurt them in the mid terms, so they need to save that until they find themselves in grave danger of seeing the justices appointed by a democrat in 2008.

We also have to remember that the democrats more or less compromised specifically so that the "nuclear (or constitutional) option" wouldn't be in place when this fight came around. I think they're hoping that O'Connor's last vote will be to strike down the nuclear option if it is used to replace her with too strong of a conservative.

It's going to be much harder for the democrats to kill a Latino nominee with mid-term elections coming up, although I'm sure that Republicans wish this was happening in 2006 or 2007 instead (which might lock down New Mexico, since Democrats in the South West who open their mouths against Gonzales will do so at their peril.)
Obviously the political capital that Gonzales might give them in New Mexico, maybe Florida, and to a lesser extent Arizona is important- it leaves them more money to spend in Ohio. In a fantasy world, Republicans might even be thinking 12-20 years ahead at making the Los Angeles area turn red on that map and forcing the Democrats to start defending California.



So that does open up the possibility that they will save Gonzales for 2007 and put up some other moderate in Connor's place, but I don't know who it would be in that case- I've heard John G. Roberts' name kicked around, along with a "conventional wisdom" that the DC circuit is a proving ground for future Supremes.

In the final result, the republicans are going to have to give up something in the court if they don't want this to hurt them in the senate- and the senate is far more important, especially with the uncertainty of the 2008 race looming ahead. They'll get a slightly more conservative judge than O'Connor perhaps, but when Renquist comes around their likely to be trading a very strong conservative for a fairly moderate one.

On the other issues:

The courts in general are pretty much full of crap- any Republican can tell you that- even if he has no idea what he's talking about. Often enough, unfortunately, they don't know what they are talking about, even though they are right. For one thing, not all of the horrible court decisions are coming from the top.

As much of our trouble comes from the 9th Circuit (and other circuit courts depending on where you live- but the 9th is infamously liberal) as comes from the Supreme Court.

The 9th Circuit found the Pledge of Alliegance to be offensive- in Nedlow v Congress, but the Supreme Court overturned that, granted without actually ruling as to the relationship between the pledge and the establishment clause.

I don't remember the details of the case, but a New York court ruled a while back that anti-terrorism laws can be applied beyond their original intent (it was an easy decision for some conservatives to agree with because the defendant was a drive-by shooter, but some of us were disturbed by the precedent. It seemed very liberalesque to me when we let the court do for us what the legislature wouldn't in New York)

On the other hand, the Supreme Court, spearheaded by the libs but with Scalia joining them, did apply the commerce clause to private activities just recently- and the hillarious thing about this is that they had to OVERTURN the 9th on that one (granted only because the 9th is full of potheads and this was a marijuana case).

So my point is that plenty of bad decisions come down from the courts, but the blame doesn't always go to the Supremes. And of course from time to time they do right. The Supremes saved the pledge, at least temporarily, from the 9th.


Then there is the Roe v. Wade case

Roe v. Wade was not the crushing moral blow that fundementalist Christians make it out to be. The ruling does provide considerably more leeway for the passage of laws relating to the second and especially third trimester.

The primary problem with the court's opinion can be found in the first item enumerated in section VII, where the court explored the what justification there might have been for anti-abortion laws, which the court claimed had no historical precedent.

The first item raised is that women who may have abortions are more likely to engage in "illicit sexual conduct". The court dismissed this out of hand, probably because in 1973 the stakes were not viewed as being nearly so high. At that time, it would have been an unwarranted invasion of privacy. AIDS being what it is today however, it is likely that this specific point of the decision could be called into question- the government now has an interest in preserving the life of the citizenry which is perhaps served by leaving the obvious consequences of sexual activity (pregnancy) in place.

en.wikipedia.org...


Forgive me for not sourcing all of my info- I closed a few windows before I meant to. Nothing here is verbatim or even close though, just clean wikipedia research with my own spin on it,

[edit on 3-7-2005 by The Vagabond]

I'd truly be shocked if Bush gave Gonzalez the nomination...he's simply not a reliable conservative in the model of Scalia and Thomas that Bush has already said were the justices he most admired.

I think Gonzalez got the A.G. job for good for the 4 years and Bush won't move him.

I predict Janice Rogers Brown or the other woman from Texas whose name has bandied about will be the nominee.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I'm not that familiar with her specific rulings either, but she's made speeches decrying the expansion of government that has taken place over the last decades and I think called much of the New Deal policies unconstitutional and turning America from a free-market capitalist society into socialism. I have to agree with her there. That's why the liberals hate her so much because the New Deal is their baby.

You know, the vast majority of people supported FDR and that danged ol' New Deal program. I know its easy to take pot shots at it now, but back then, during and after the Great Depression, a lot of folks agree, it saved them. My Grandpa (who was an FDR New Dealer) said that if his dad had ever known he'd support the Republican party (Reagan), he woulda strung him up.

[edit on 7/4/05 by EastCoastKid]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I'd truly be shocked if Bush gave Gonzalez the nomination...he's simply not a reliable conservative in the model of Scalia and Thomas that Bush has already said were the justices he most admired.

I think Gonzalez got the A.G. job for good for the 4 years and Bush won't move him.

I predict Janice Rogers Brown or the other woman from Texas whose name has bandied about will be the nominee.

No disrespect to your opinion, but your view on Gonzalez is very much contrary to what the rumor mill says Bush thinks of him. Plus as I went into so much detail about above, Bush can't just throw in any hardliner and win without the nuclear option, and I believe that the Republican Party would probably reap the whirlwind in 2006 if they used the nuclear option to replace a moderate justice with a strong conservative. O'Connor is a moderate, Gonzalez is a moderate- no upset to the status quo and fallout (no pun intended) in the senate. Afterall, if the reps lose the senate in 2006 Bush isn't going to get a dang thing done for his last two years and that's going to be good news for a Democratic presidential candidate- especially Hillary, because an impotent Bush administration makes the logical counter-hillary nominee (Rice) that much weaker.

Janice Brown is much more logical to appoint when the more conservative Rehnquist resigns, which hopefully will be shortly after the 2006 election. The only way I see it going differently is if Bush wants to put a Latino up there in the runup to 2008.

[edit on 4-7-2005 by The Vagabond]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
You know, the vast majority of people supported FDR and that danged ol' New Deal program. I know its easy to take pot shots at it now, but back then, during and after the Great Depression, a lot of folks agree, it saved them. My Grandpa (who was an FDR New Dealer) said that if his dad had ever known he'd support the Republican party (Reagan), he woulda strung him up.

Sure, plenty did support the New Deal programs, but a sober view of the economic data from the Great Depression era reveals that they really did NOT help the economy, the Great Depression ended only after World War II began.

And also, popularity does not equal constitutionality.

Does anybody expect Bush to pull a stunt (i.e. nominate another woman or histpanic)? How much weight to you guys really think Dubya's gonna give to the religious right? That, after all, is one of their biggest pet peeves. Liberals on the bench!

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Sure, plenty did support the New Deal programs, but a sober view of the economic data from the Great Depression era reveals that they really did NOT help the economy

The New Deal was not as much about helping the economy, per se, as it was helping the little guy get up on his feet again.

My own father railed against it as a crime against the USA. (Social Security) The funny thing is this.. he railed against what actually saved us at one time. He died when I was five. It was very unexpected. He left us with plenty of bank. The problem was my mom remarried and gave that pryk control of our bank. He blew it. At the end of their marriage, when I was in the 11th and 12th grade, mom was depending on those social security checks my brother & I got every month - to pay the rent and whatever else. I can't help but wonder what my dad would have to say about that. That system he attacked actually fed us when our mother gave our "lunch money" away.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Janice Brown is much more logical to appoint when the more conservative Renquihst resigns, which hopefully will be shortly after the 2006 election. The only way I see it going differently is if Bush wants to put a Latino up there in the runup to 2008.

You'd think so, but many Washington political thinkers now think the opposite after the experience Reagan had with Bork...amazingly Scalila was an easy choice who sailed through the Senate and Bork was the harder one and many analysts say he should have appointed them in the reverse order.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Does anybody expect Bush to pull a stunt (i.e. nominate another woman or histpanic)? How much weight to you guys really think Dubya's gonna give to the religious right? That, after all, is one of their biggest pet peeves. Liberals on the bench!

Bush has a lineage to think about. He's not really a lame duck. Through his father he's part of a revolving door government that has been around since the Nixon administration.
What he does still has major implications for JEB (capitalized because it's not his name, its initials), not to mention for several of his Nixon/Ford vintage cabinet officers who will likely want to come back under future Republican presidents.

So yes, I do think he'll pull a stunt, and I think it's going to be a stunt that used to sell Kellogg's cereal out of a van in Mexico City.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
So yes, I do think he'll pull a stunt, and I think it's going to be a stunt that used to sell Kellogg's cereal out of a van in Mexico City.

Very intersesting..

You still didn't address the pressure the religious right will be applying to Dubya to appoint a judge opposed to Roe v. Wade.

Edsinger do you want add some substance to the debate?
So far you have thrown around some meaning less labels and taken another swipe at abortion.

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Janice Brown is much more logical to appoint when the more conservative Renquihst resigns, which hopefully will be shortly after the 2006 election. The only way I see it going differently is if Bush wants to put a Latino up there in the runup to 2008.

You'd think so, but many Washington political thinkers now think the opposite after the experience Reagan had with Bork...amazingly Scalila was an easy choice who sailed through the Senate and Bork was the harder one and many analysts say he should have appointed them in the reverse order.

With all due respect, I think those analysts may have drinking problems to rival even mine.
Bork was a conservative nominated to replace a moderate. (Lewis Powell's seat was the one up for grabs).
That made it possible for Ed Kennedy to play so heavily on the horrible changes that could come about with him on the court.

To appoint Janice Rodgers Brown to replace moderate O'Connor would be somewhat analogous. I think it could blow up in their face just as much as Bork did.

It is worth noting that Bork was up 55-45 Democrat controlled senate, but the fillibuster fills this role in the current state of things. We're talking nuclear option and supreme court case, with O'Connor's vote likely being a decisive factor in rather or not Janice Rogers Brown is allowed to replace her. Hence you don't want a strong conservative up for Brown's seat. You want another moderate, preferably one who carries other, less tangible advantages, such as currying favor with Latino voters.

Originally posted by xpert11
Edsinger do you want add some substance to the debate?

Ed mentioned earlier he would throw some stuff out there when he had more time.

What do you think about all this?

Originally posted by EastCoastKid


What do you think about all this?

The american legal/political system is certainly differnt. I think there needs to be a balance a mixture of political views from the moderate ends of the political spectrum. I dont think people who want to regulate society should be appointed bearing in mind that if so called liberals hadnt had there way you would be married at 12. Husband would keep a mistress and five kids hidden behind societys curtain not two mention any kids the wife has had that have differnt patrnal fathers.

If your a women dont bother turning up at the ballet office or getting an education.
Do you really want people in that mould anywear near government?