O'Connor steps down (merged threads)

[BarTopDancer]

Let the womens rights revocation begin

[Prudence]

Somehow I sensed this was the topic of this thread.

I'm so disappointed. I thought she'd hold out longer.

[scaeagles]

Well, I'm sure there will be many thoughts about this when Bush eventually nominates a replacement.

It will be interesting to see how the previous compromise on appellate court nominations come into play. I have a feeling that dems will probably try to paint almost any nominee as "an extreme circumstance", which is why I was against the previous compromise.

I will say something in light of recent decisions - I want someone who will interpret the constitution. Not look to foreign law. Not continue to expand the meaning of interstate commerce. Not expand imminent domain to allow the theft of private property to give to another for private use.

Should be interesting to watch and discuss.

[Ghoulish Delight]

This will be interesting. O'Connor was, especially recently, a swing vote on the court. If Bush has any sense of the concept of balance, he will try to find someone similarly moderate and balanced rather than someone who will push Bush's social agendas through. I may not have agreed with many of O'Connor's decissions, but at least she generally proved that she was thinking for herself.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

If Bush has any sense of the concept of balance, he will try to find someone similarly moderate and balanced rather than someone who will push Bush's social agendas through.

Sadly, nominations have become all about what we think the person will push as far as a social agenda. It should not be that way.

Nominations should be about interpretting the constitution. Period. Is the person nominated qualified to do this?

In reference to some recent decisions, this has not what has been happening at all. Certain justices feel the need to look to foreign law for guidance. I think all here would agree that various clauses of the Constitution have been grossly misinterpretted lately. Thomas is very conservative, and I doubt he supports growing and using marijuana. He realizes (and I am still horribly disappointed with Scalia over this), however, that the case before them had nothing to do with interstate commerce. Several judges (again, disappointed with Kennedy) think it is acceptable to take my property and give it to some other private individual or corporation. Honestly, Souter, Ginsberg, and those who have ruled in the majority on these issues (particularly the private property case) have done more to set back our rights than at any other point in my lifetime, and perhaps even in history.

I want judges who know the constitution and care to take into consideration the intent of the framers. I doubt many of these recent decisions fit within that. The Constitution is not a living, breathing document. Sadly, the current court appears to be making it such by redefining emminent domain and further removing rights from the states. If it is living and breathing, then it is permissable to interpret the meaning based on the whims of the current justices, and nothing is sacred or protected.

Give me someone who will push their own personal social views to the side and rule based on the constitution itself. We can't take anyone else like Breyer who thinks we should look to foreign law to help us in deciding cases. I doubt many who think that it is not a problem would consider it such should we look to foreign law to help with decisions on abortion, since the US is one of only five countries (or so) that has basically no restrictions on it.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Thomas is very conservative, and I doubt he supports growing and using marijuana.

Heh.

Kenneth Rogers, 47, of Westport, was arrested earlier this week and is held on $250,000 bail on suspicion of attempted murder, solicitation of a crime, and conspiracy.

Rogers is chairman of the Mendocino County Republican Central Committee

Rogers also faces a marijuana cultivation charge.

Ev'body loves the chronic. Or Long Dong Silver. Or both.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

If Bush has any sense of the concept of balance, he will try to find someone similarly moderate and balanced rather than someone who will push Bush's social agendas through.

Ha! As if Karl Rove would pass up this golden opportunity to distract the country away from Iraq. No, you can expect a scares-everybody-left-of-the-extreme-right nominee and an ugly battle where Democrats, and moderates, will be painted as "obstructionists" at every turn.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

This will be interesting. O'Connor was, especially recently, a swing vote on the court. If Bush has any sense of the concept of balance, he will try to find someone similarly moderate and balanced rather than someone who will push Bush's social agendas through. I may not have agreed with many of O'Connor's decissions, but at least she generally proved that she was thinking for herself.

Were there calls for Clinton to appoint a conservative judge when he picked Ginsberg to replace the conservative leaning Byron White? I don't think so. Should he have to maintain the integrity and balance of the court as it existed? Ginsberg and Byron White have very little in common with the exception of pro-civil rights positions.

I would also argue that Breyer, the other Clinton appointee, who replaced a very libertarian Harry Blackmun, did not necessarily maintain the status quo that was there when he replaced him. I can almost promise that Blackmun would not have ruled in the same way as Breyer on the private property issue.

Presidents are elected. One thing Presidents do is to appoint judges. There is no requirement nor a moral obligation nor precedent that says he should appoint someone with a similar political leaning. Clinton did not, nor should he have been expected to.

[BarTopDancer]

yup

(though I conceed that Sca has a better title, and I wouldn't object to my thread being merged into this one).

[Ghoulish Delight]

I can't agree entirely with that.

Firstly, I think the Constitution was left purposely vague so as to allow for its interpretation to evolve with time. Reviews of the various correspondance between the framers have revealed time and again much more precise and restrictive language being traded in private, almost all of which became vague and open to interpretation by the time it was integrated into the actual document. I think that was on purpose. After all, if we go strictly by what's in the document, and what was strictly meant by the terms they used, only white, male property owners would be guaranteed any rights at all. Certainly that was their initial intent, however, fortunately, they were smart enough to realize that their initial intent was clouded by the context of their own times and created a document that allowed us to expand its protection as our collective conscience grew.

As for looking to foreign law, I can't concede that it's entirely irrelevant. The Constitution is not all-encompassing. The Court has to make rulings on issues that are so drastically new and different than anything the original framers could possibly have imagined that not every answer can be contained within that document. While the intent and wording of the Constitution should certainly always be the first stop for a decission, when the simple ideals expressed their fail to provide enough guidance to decide and (especially) codify more complex issues, it pays to see what others in the world have done. An international dialog between the our Constitution and others is no threat to the document. When blazing new Constitutional territory, it pays to see the results of past attempts, even internationally, to help clarify the issue. It's not threat to our own Constitution to have a dialog with the world, as long as the results of that dialog are subsequently checked agains the Constitution.