Chief Justice Rehnquist dies

[Prudence]

And this just throws a whole new wrench into the mix.

I didn't always agree with his reasoning, but damn, he worked 'til the end and my stout Germanic heritage can't help but respect that.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Wow, just saw it on CNN. I'm speechless.

[scaeagles]

A great legal mind, no doubt. He will be missed.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Here's my question. This makes for a VERY tight schedule to get a judge appointed by the time the new session starts. O'Conner had said that she'd stick around until a judge was appointed to replace her. At this point, is Roberts locked in as O'Conner's replacement, or can Bush pick a new Chief Justice, appoint Roberts to fill Rehnquist's spot, and have O'Conner stick around to allow for a decently paced search and confirmation?

[scaeagles]

It is my understanding that Robert's nomination has now been changed to take the spot of the Chief Justice.

I have also read that should Roberts be confirmed to that position and another justice is selected to take the place of O'Connor, O'Connor could stick around on the court. However, I think her resignation means she may offer opinions only, and that her vote would hold no weight. This would present the possibility of 4-4 votes on the court until another justice is confirmed.

[Tref]

First Rehnquist and now Giligan. Two great comics in one week. Such a shame.

[scaeagles]

So I'm wondering.....with all the cries to nominate a so-called moderate to the court when O'Connor stepped down, I wonder if there will be the same cries to appoint a clearly conservative justice with the passing of Rehnquist.

I'm thinking there won't be.

And you gotta love Alan Dershowitz, who mere hours after Rehnquist passed was on MSNBC calling him a republican thug.

[Name]

So I'm wondering.....with all the cries to nominate a so-called moderate to the court when O'Connor stepped down, I wonder if there will be the same cries to appoint a clearly conservative justice with the passing of Rehnquist.

I'm thinking there won't be.


That's probably because its a given.

[scaeagles]

My point was a sarcastic one - all the concern over preserving the current balance of the court, etc, when the moderate O'Connor stepped down won't be an issue with the conservative Rehnquist stepped down. In fact, I would suspect opposition to any conservative, much as there has been from the far left - Kennedy, Shumer, etc - to Roberts.

[Name]

Yeah, but neither side really wants a balance in the courts, what they really want are justices that are aligned with their ideology. Demanding a moderate is only a smokescreen to hide this when it is unlikely that such an appointment is in the cards. Gotta look like you are for a balanced govt when the tide is going against you.

[Prudence]

As much as I am worried about individual rights, I'd really rather see a nominee who likes the Constitution. I mean, really likes it. Thinks it's a swell document and can't wait to do their part to preserve it. Not someone who's sufficiently skillful that they can spin the Constitution in whatever direction they're told. It's supposed to be an independent judiciary, dammit. Independent. Not appointed by the President and vetted by Congress for the purpose of ensuring laws will be interpreted in ways pre-approved by corporate sponsors.

Okay. I've been holding this in all weekend and I'm gonna let it out now.

I'm just sick at the thought of Roberts as Chief Justice. And it has absolutely nothing to do with him or his anticipated rulings or whether he's conservative or constructionist or whatever. This is my personal opinion shaped by my own irrational whims and biases and counts for nothing in this wide world. But dammit, that's the pinacle of the whole damn judiciary. Can't we at least pretend we respect the judicial system? Can't we do Lady Justice the honor of appointing a seasoned court veteran to be her most visible champion? It's all well and good to appoint "new guy" with limited bench time to an associate position, but must he be given the reins as well? When you have Scalia, who I disagree with on a regular basis but who I truly believe loves that Constitution, available -- and conservative -- it is Roberts who is selected to vault over those who should rightly be considered his superiors? If Roberts were a highly respected Constitutional scholar from outside whose laundry list of credentials clearly marked him as the equal of any sitting member -- then maybe. But someone so comparatively inexperienced?

Do you understand that I quite literally weep for the court? That in my heart lies a seed of dread that this truly marks the end of a era? That the highest court in the land will no longer serve as that most remarkable third anchor in our series of checks and balances, but will toss off all pretense and embrace its new role of enforcing the will of the latest power bloc?

Yes, it's melodramatic. I'm sure life will continue as always and we'll sock away funds into our meagre 401(K)s and plot our tax deductions and plan kitchen remodels and argue over graduation standards and tsk tsk at kids these days -- just as if nothing were happening at all.

But I will watch Justice O'Connor weep and my heart will weep with her.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Wow, Prudence. I can't give you more mojo at the moment so let me just say that what you posted was moving and elequent. You nailed it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I wish all the justices were moderates, caveat being that my definition of moderate is someone who actually forms their opinion based on the facts presented in the court and its Constitutionality rather than their own "conservative" or "liberal" biases.

[scaeagles]

Prudence, I am actually with you. I think that Scalia should be elevated to that position. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I think the man is brilliant. He has ruled in questionable ways recently, such as the recent interstate commerce ruling related to marijuana, but overall, I think he's incredibly intelligent and a true Constitutional scholar.

If moderate means ruling on the Constitution as written, then I'll take moderate. In my opinion, though, the so-called conservative justices are the ones who have looked to original intent more so than "moderate" or "liberal" justices. My problem is with justices that seem to think the document is "living, breathing" and can change with the times without an amendment process - such as the meaning of eminent domain. I'm still sick over that.

[CoasterMatt]

That needs to be published as many prominent places as you can put it, Prudence.
:snap: :snap: :snap:

[Prudence]

Man that had been fermenting for awhile. I wish I had other fantabulous places to post that, but alas, y'all on the LoT are pretty much it. It's probably too vitriolic for my local paper.

I just....I care. You know? We're taught this ideal in high school civics and then we grow up to discover that the dominoes fall one by one to the increasing power of corporations. Are corporations evil? Corporations should be neutral. They're not people. But they're the primary influence. Regular people don't carry out their civic duty and thus relinquish their power to the few.

Duty. It's a duty to vote. It's the responsibility that comes with living here. It's part of what makes this work. We crow over purple thumbs on the news -- success! -- but can't be bothered to take half an hour and vote. Hell, now they mail ballots to your house. Could it get easier? You don't even have to get in your car, remember where your polling place is, and wait in line -- much less worry about dodging snipers and car bombs. Sometimes you even have choices! That's right, you get to make your own choice, not check the one box given. You can even write in candidates! Yes, you can literally vote for whomever you want for political office.

But do we? It's just a local levy, we say. It's just a primary. What difference does my vote make? And then....

And then we have people who don't actually represent us. Then we don't respect our politicians. We call them crooks and theives....and then we re-elect them! Lesser of the evils? Name recognition? Or maybe this entire country has changed its mind and I'm the odd one out?

And this all means something to me. I'm thinking about starting a family. I'm wondering if it's time for me to engage in that most basic of human instincts and I realize I have a choice to make. I potentially have the opportunity to choose where my child is born -- and where that child where be a citizen. I get to choose my nest and dammit, I want that nest to be as close to that high school civics ideal as mere mortals can achieve.

I want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The people. Each and every voice polled and counted to select those who will represent our interests at the national level. I want to feel like I've done my part to contribute to the national debate. I might not always be in the majority, but over all floats this magical document, written by men as flawed as any of the rest of us, that helps ensure the minority is never utterly squleched by a majority, that protects the rights of the popular and the unpopular alike.

And I don't want it to become just another museum relic. Some of us already suspect that the politicians in the legislative and executive branches might not consider us regular folk their primary constituency. But the judicial branch? That was special. You didn't have to have a war chest or adhere to the party platform.

And I'm afraid that will change. I'm afraid we'll collectively abdicate our power to direct our representation and DC will finally be nothing more than a high stakes club I'll never be big enough to enter. I'm afraid that the Constitution is like a fairy -- and if we stop believing it will die. I want to clap my hands and shout "I DO BELIEVE!"

And now I'm just rambling. I don't know why I care now, at this stage of my life. I'm really tired and I'm stressed from overloads at work and school and I just don't even know. I don't know where we're going. It's not a living breathing document. It's a document. We do the living and breathing and we give it life. And I'm afraid that we'll underestimate its importance and let it die.

I totally need to shut up and go to bed now.

[PanTheMan]

(Let me Just say, Think Roberts is controversial?.... Just Wait... It Gets Better...Our AG, Gonzales...Just wait till we open His closet when he is nominated for the OTHER spot ;) )

[PanTheMan]

I wish all the justices were moderates, caveat being that my definition of moderate is someone who actually forms their opinion based on the facts presented in the court and its Constitutionality rather than their own "conservative" or "liberal" biases.


Well, we ALL have bias. In Interpreting meanings of things such as laws, and documents, that bias will come out. It is who we are. However even given that Humans are far from perfect, I still am glad we are in Charge, and haven't turned the Supreme Court over to a Super Computer.

What gets me, is that both sides find it quite alright for "Their Side" to take an activist approach to the bench. While even going as far as threatning the life of "The other side" or taking that life.

[sleepyjeff]

However even given that Humans are far from perfect, I still am glad we are in Charge, and haven't turned the Supreme Court over to a Super Computer.



DIEBOLD for Chief Justice ;)

[PanTheMan]

DIEBOLD for Chief Justice ;)


Not By My Last Hanging Chad...

[Prudence]

So how is it that no one at these hearings asks an actually relevant question. Like, say, asking the nominee for their opinion on the dormant commerce clause. Something all wacky and constitutional.

[scaeagles]

I would suspect it is because they all know that Roberts is more schooled on the Constitution than they are. They don't want him to make them look stupid, and most of them treat this an opportunity for air their own moralistic platitudes in front of the camera.

[Prudence]

Dammit, they have staffers. Set those smarmy suck-ups to work and come up with some cogent questions to make them look good on the telly.

[scaeagles]

Come on, Prudence - you expect any hearing to be about substance? Not gonna happen. They would much rather have a sound bite of themselves thinking they sound clever. They would much rather try to spring some sort of trap to enable themselves to portray him in an unflattering light.

[scaeagles]

I want to clarify that it is members of both parties that are guilty of it.

My favorite trap sprung on a nominee was set perfectly by Orin Hatch during the Ginsburg confirmation hearings.

Hatch asked her if a company that employed 30 people, none of whom were a minority, could be seen as having discriminatory hiring practices. Ginsburg answered that yes, it was logical to assume that such a company was being discriminatory in their hiring practices. Hatch responded by pointing out that the law firm she headed up had 30 employees, all of which were white. He then let her off the hook by saying he didn't believe she was practicing discriminatory hiring practices, and suggested she might want to examine her view again.

[Prudence]

Come on, Prudence - you expect any hearing to be about substance? Not gonna happen. They would much rather have a sound bite of themselves thinking they sound clever. They would much rather try to spring some sort of trap to enable themselves to portray him in an unflattering light.

I know, I know. But I keep hoping. There are so many of them -- surely one of them wants to sound like they have a clue.

[scaeagles]

A little bit of meat I took from a transcript -

My own Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona asked Roberts about the increasing use of foreign law by judges to interpret the Constitution.

Roberts: ".....there are a couple of things that cause concern on my part about the use of foreign law as precedent. Looking at foreign law for support is like looking out over a crowd and picking out your friends. You can find them. They're there.It allows the judge to incorporate his or her own personal preferences, cloak them with the authority of precedent. And I think that's a misuse of precedent, not a correct use of precedent."

Good question, outstanding answer.

[Morrigoon]

Oooh, that actually is a good answer.

I don't know about Roberts though... something about him disturbs me, and I can't quite put my finger on it. He says all the right things, but then, so did Bush when he was running for office...

[PanTheMan]

If he is a Twisted kinky Catholic like me, we are in for some good times......good times...