I remember talking with Lee on why he was going to vote for Kerry instead of Bush and he said it was mainly due to social issues and the possible appointments to the Supreme Court. I laughed and said that no one is retiring and that he should calm down because even if someone does get appointed, I don't think that Bush would get a right wing judge approved.
Well with two judges gone, I'm starting to get pay a more attention to what is going on right now. The Terry Schibo debacle makes me a little worried as well as how to redefine the Right to Privacy, which this court will probably have a good chance to redefine in the upcoming years. This also applies to State vs. Federal jurisdiction which flows into tort reform, gay rights, and gun laws. And then add on the Abortion issue that I thought was put to rest, but apparently this could get overturned. Am I over-reacting due to CNN and MSNBC or should I really be concerned?
7 comments:
you should be concerned. this is what bush's hard core conservative backers wanted. they paid good money for this situation and bush needs to pay the bill. the religious freeks even prayed for it. what the fuck was that all about?
rights will go out the door. which is sad. the shivo case was a debacle and is merely an indication of what a conservative government will push through. think about it...all 3 branches are run by the same party with the same beliefs? has that ever happened before? granted, the legislative and executive wings will most likely swing soon enough, but this court will most likely stay this way for what...at least 10 years? bad news indeed.
jon and you other nerds that paid attention in CCPI....what exactly are the responsibilites of the chief justice? other than swearing in the pres, i mean? i just assumed it was a tenure thing but then w swtched roberts from a regular nominee to the chief...what? why? and i guess, more importantly, why does it matter? and has anyone ever used a question mark to end every sentence in a paragraph before?
Curr,
Chief Justice gets to decide who writes the main opinions of the court for each side of the arguement. I still don't know what this means though since each person votes, but whatever.
The only thing is that both O'Connor and Rehnquest are so called conservatives, so all we have to hope for is that Bush doesn't appoint someone more to the right of these two. Its making me a little nervous that Roberts isn't even attempting to answer any questions on where he would stand.
The shivo case though was ruled correctly by the supreme court which was encouraging, basically pushing it back down to the states and the individual, but I'm worried what might happen now with two new judges and their views on these types of issues.
One thing I did like about Roberts today though was his statements that he won't make law from the bench, which is very important.
"All 3 branches are run by the same party with the same beliefs? Has that ever happened before?"
Wow. Short memories. Try US, 1993-94; 1976-80; 1960-68.
And I really believe that - sorry, Chris - the legislative branch willstay R for a while. Look at all the gerrymandering now! There's only like 30 competitive districts. And - at least in 2006 - the D's have more questionable seats to defend than the R's.
Anyway, this is not the point of Derek's post. There is no such thing as a "right-wing" judge, at least in the same manner as "right-wing politicians". Most conservative judges are constructionist and more states-rights oriented.
Take, for example, abortion. No matter what the media says, abortion will not "go away" if Roe V Wade is overturned. It will leave that decision back to the states. Roe V Wade decided that abortion is a federal right - so that is the court imposing its morality on the country. That was a liberal court (the Warren court) imposing its views on the US - which is what people are incorrectly scared about with the so-called "right-wing" court.
Abortion - if Roe V Wade is overturned, and that's a big if - will still be legal in CA, MD, etc. etc. States like OH, IA, etc. can decide whether to ban or not.
Take the other issues - gay rights? State matter. How can the supreme court set restrictive laws in this country? Guns? Well, they probably will nix restrictive gun control laws in some states.
Look at the most recent decision - Kelo v New London, which ruled that a town can seize private property from a private owner for the express use by private entities (business)....
Who supported that ruling? It was the liberals on the court (Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens) and not conservatives (Thomas, Scalia, etc.)
Just food for thought.
Man Eric that was good. Need more of it.
Yup, never saw Bush appointing conservative judges. I *never* saw that one coming (SDOC had been slated to be put out to pasture for awhile). Next thing you'll tell me is that Liberace was gay! :) Sorry, couldn't resist...
That's not the point Jay. Agreed that it was obvious, but I didn't expect to see two judges leave.
SDOC? What am I missing?
Post a Comment