O'Connor steps down (merged threads)

[scaeagles]

GD, the process that was left to allow the changing of the Constitution was the amendment process, not the judgement of the Supreme Court. In fact, it wasn't until 20 or so years after the Constitution was ratified that the Supreme Court declared themselves to be the final arbiters of what was constitutional in Marbury vs. Madison, which established judicial review.

What is vague about interstate commerce? What is vague about emminent domain? Do you believe that the founders intended emminent domain to be used to take property from one private entity to give to another? This court isn't simply interpretting something vague, they are changing the meaning. This is beyond dangerous.

I don't believe the Constitution to be vague in the least. Many who try to change the meaning have attempted to make it so, such as gun rights opponents trying to say that the right to keep and bear arms really doesn't mean the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, even though "the right of the people" in every other amendment refers to every person.

[scaeagles]

Prudence and Sac - do you not think that it is also going to be an opportunity for the left to use scare tactics about how any conservative justice will erode their rights? I find that to be particularly humorous being that the recent decisions have been voted for and ruled in the affirmatived by primarily those justices seen as left leaning, like Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer. You didn't see those categorized as right leaning - specifically Scalia and Thomas - voting to drastically change the law on private property rights.

There will be huge amounts of politicing on both sides. Kennedy, Shumer, and all the usual dem suspects will be shouting from the rooftops how extreme the nominee is.

I read something funny this morning somewhere....can't racall where...it was something like this:

"Bush nominated George Washington to the Supreme Court today. Democrats immediately attacked his enviornmental record because of his cherry tree chopping incident."

No matter who is appointed, unless it's Al Gore or Bill Clinton, they going to be attacked as a religious zealot nut who threatens the very foundation of our democracy. It won't be Bush or Rove moving the attention away from Iraq - it will be the dems in their attacks doing so.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Prudence and Sac - do you not think that it is also going to be an opportunity for the left to use scare tactics about how any conservative justice will erode their rights?

I'm looking forward to it. I will engage in scare tactics at every turn.

I find that to be particularly humorous being that the recent decisions have been voted for and ruled in the affirmatived by primarily those justices seen as left leaning, like Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer. You didn't see those categorized as right leaning - specifically Scalia and Thomas - voting to drastically change the law on private property rights.

Recent decisions have been disappointing, to say the least.

Kennedy, Shumer, and all the usual dem suspects will be shouting from the rooftops how extreme the nominee is.

Um, 'cause the nominee will be extreme.

I read something funny this morning somewhere....can't racall where...it was something like this:
"Bush nominated George Washington to the Supreme Court today. Democrats immediately attacked his enviornmental record because of his cherry tree chopping incident."

Dubya's not dumb enough to nominate a dead man. Or is he?

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Thank God for Leo

Don't you mean, "Thank Bush for Leo"? And I agree, Leo is a prince of a fellow.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Don't you mean, "Thank Bush for Leo"? And I agree, Leo is a prince of a fellow.

YOu'd probably have to thank Reagan for me, but that's OK.

Love you, too, Sac.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Prudence and Sac - do you not think that it is also going to be an opportunity for the left to use scare tactics about how any conservative justice will erode their rights?

Do you really consider it fear mongering to say that there is a very high chance the new justice WILL take away a womans right to choose? Think about it. Think about Bush and his views, his agendas. He's said time and time again he's pro-life, he's anti gay-rights and will appoint someone with these values. You think it's fear mongering and scare tactics when it's an almost certain that rights will be eroded? Do you honestly think that whoever Bush appoints will uphold R v. W and help allow people who are gay to have the right to marry (like 4 other countries that are appearing to be the new progression leaders)?

No matter who is appointed, unless it's Al Gore or Bill Clinton, they going to be attacked as a religious zealot nut who threatens the very foundation of our democracy. It won't be Bush or Rove moving the attention away from Iraq - it will be the dems in their attacks doing so.

Ummm because almost anyone Bush will appoint will be a religious zealot nut who threatens the very foundation of our democracy. This country is getting dangerously close to becoming a Christian nation with all laws and rules based upon those beliefs, and screw anyone who believes differently.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Do you really consider it fear mongering to say that there is a very high chance the new justice WILL take away a womans right to choose?

Yes. I do. It's funny how the left frequently shouts about how the right better not use a litmus test when picking a nominee, but the left has their own litmus tests. What I want is for a judge to review the law as it exists. Frankly, regardless of what thinks about abortion, RvW is bad law.

Think about it. Think about Bush and his views, his agendas. He's said time and time again he's pro-life, he's anti gay-rights and will appoint someone with these values.

The personal views of the judge should be completely out of the picture. What the confirmation process should be is to determine if the person is qualified to hold the position. Like it or not, Bush is in office. It is within his purview to nominate. If that person is qualified to hold the position, all views on both sides as to what their personal beliefs are are moot. Otherwise you have the litmus test. I have already been cringing when various conservatives have said they don't want Alberto Gonzales to be nominated because he's seen as pro-choice. While I'm not big on Gonzales, that's not the question. The question is whether the person is qualified.

And based on the recent decisions of the left leaning members of the court, I am far more afraid of left leaning judges taking away my rights. But you won't hear Kennedy or anyone talking about Souter or Ginsberg or how they took away private property rights.

You think it's fear mongering and scare tactics when it's an almost certain that rights will be eroded? Do you honestly think that whoever Bush appoints will uphold R v. W and help allow people who are gay to have the right to marry (like 4 other countries that are appearing to be the new progression leaders)?

Please refer to my last paragraph. I am not a one or two issue voter, and the nominee isn't about one or two issues to me. It's the whole enchilada.

Ummm because almost anyone Bush will appoint will be a religious zealot nut who threatens the very foundation of our democracy. This country is getting dangerously close to becoming a Christian nation with all laws and rules based upon those beliefs, and screw anyone who believes differently.

I could offer many points as to why I disagree, but that would expand this debate far from the subject matter at hand.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Prudence and Sac - do you not think that it is also going to be an opportunity for the left to use scare tactics about how any conservative justice will erode their rights? I find that to be particularly humorous being that the recent decisions have been voted for and ruled in the affirmatived by primarily those justices seen as left leaning, like Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer. You didn't see those categorized as right leaning - specifically Scalia and Thomas - voting to drastically change the law on private property rights.

Speaking for myself only:

I personally think those involved in recent majority decisions have lost their ever-lovin' minds.

(I probably score more libertarian than liberal on many issues. I was a conservative/Republican at one point in my life, then got tired of the enormous influence of the Moral Majority butting its nose into my personal business.)

But I don't think any of those issues will be relevant. I think the debate will focus almost exclusively on abortion. And regardless of my position on that issue, it's a sad day for American Jurisprudence when one's stance on abortion is the critical and deciding factor on one's worthiness to sit on the nation's highest court.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

There will be huge amounts of politicing on both sides. Kennedy, Shumer, and all the usual dem suspects will be shouting from the rooftops how extreme the nominee is.

Bush could nominate Ted Kennedy himself, and Ted Kennedy, Shumer, and all the dems would respond automatically and without pause.............."Right wing nut, extreme and dangerous to our Constitution"

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Bush could nominate Ted Kennedy himself, and Ted Kennedy, Shumer, and all the dems would respond automatically and without pause.............."Right wing nut, extreme and dangerous to our Constitution"

Only after we offered them therapy and understanding.

[Prudence]

I doubt that the Constitution will even be relevant to the nomination process. This is the opportunity the evangelical conservative Christian movement has been waiting for and one of their own gets to do the nominating. It won't be about their powers of interpretation. Like any other politician, it will be about what they're going to DO with their position.