Sounds like what you just described is called “politics”. I’m shocked, SHOCKED, that politics would enter into this process. Both sides have been so civil up to this point.
And I have no doubt that Bush would like to overturn Roe v Wade if the political ramifications for doing so would be slight. So, in fact, he actually is being pushed by the moderate wing of the party to not go that far.
I’d give a lot to have a bug planted in the Oval Office for the last week, and over the next couple of weeks. The lobbying – or the lack of it – by certain groups would be very instructive.
True, dat. Although I’d pretty much take any given week to be that proverbial fly on the wall.
All the while denouncing judicial activism, of course.
Here’s another idea. Bush could pick someone very extreme. An Original Intenter that has been off the radar. He knows that he’s going to have another fight on his hands over the Chief Justice replacement, so, he might think, why not have it now? The dems will be in a tough spot. Do they go balls to the wall now, and then again when Rhinequist retires? Or do they give themselves the advantage of putting on a reasonable/defferential face now, so they can wage the major battle over the Chief Justice slot and not be written off as being obstructionist?
It’s going to be a very interesting, very ugly next couple of months.
Does anyone no if there is a more definitive timetable on SCOTUS judge nominations? Can the slot remain unfilled indefinitely?
The ol’ IOKIARDI play at work, of course.
And I find the idea of Alberto Gonzales being a SC justice to be creepy as hell – yes, lets appoint a guy whose greatest accomplishment to date has been finding ways to justify the use of torture, why don’t we? Though IMO the rejection of Gonzales by the religious right for being “too moderate” shows just how twisted those folks really are…
This pick is so complicated. Because it is O’Connor and not Rehnquist, the fringes of Roe v. Wade are in play.
It will be fun to see how the would be presidential candidates of 2008 that serve in the Senate will behave during all of this.
I think about half of them are running for president.
Frist is obviously going to push to the right, but what about Santorum? He has to win re-election in PENN in '06 before running for President in '08. I wonder if he’ll take to the sidelines a bit? I just can’t see that happening.
He reminds me of John Edwards (circa 2003). He has a better chance to win the party nomination than to win re-election.
So, I think because of so many political implications of the pick, Bush will try to split the baby and nominate a very conservative justice who has a deep respect for stare decisis. Maybe a classical conservative (remember us?) who want slow, incremental change.
Rove sure knows which fights to lose. The whole charade around a federal constitional marriage amendment culminating in a fizzle at the federal level was a rope-a-dope to set up the state level frenzy.
Per contra, had a federal amendment gotten through both houses, not only would the right have been ungalvanized, but the battleground over ratification would have played out in state legislatures, not referenda the presence of which on the ballot had the effect we all remember.
If only Daschle had been smart enough to say: Sure, we’ll give you an amendment, and then we will rally against ratification, but let’s put it out there and see who salutes…
Uhmm, no. If Roe is considered judicial activism, then getting rid of it is restoring the status quo ante. There are plenty of conservative judicial activists out there, and Bush surely would go against his “originalist” philospopy if he could, but correcting an instance of judicial activism cannot be considered judicial activism except in some Alice in Wonderland type of world. The legislature is still free to allow abortion, even if the courts don’t find a right to an abortion in the constitution.
An example of conservative judicial activism would be if the SCOTUS decided that a fetus is a human being with a right to life. Then, the legislature could not allow abortions.
Do you see the difference?
Could you tell us more about Garza? The Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilio_Garza) doesn’t say much, other than that he was appointed to a District Court by Reagan in 1988 and to the Court of Appeals by Bush I in 1991.
One factor hasn’t been mentioned in this thread – politically speaking, wouldn’t O’Connor’s replacement have to be a woman? (Just as Thomas’ successor would, presumably, have to be black.) Or is it enough to have one woman (Ginsberg) remaining on the court?
A legislature could decriminalize first-degree murder if it wished.
You are describing a state of anarchy but if it makes you feel better to make that argument, go ahead. Frankly, I find it beyond silly.
Laws against murder are the most fundametal laws of a civilized society. W/o them, you don’t have civilization.
But even then, surely the “right to life” means you have a right to protection from the state against murder. No?
In purely constitutional terms, no.
Why? Is there now affirmative action required for the SC? Does that mean that Rehnquist will have to be replaced by an old man? How about by the best jurist available?
Perhaps - but not against one class of society and not other classes. The legislature could not decriminalize the murder of blacks.
If a conservative activist court found that unborn children are human beings, and protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, then that would end abortion.
(As an ardent pro-lifer, I like that end… but not at that price. The Fourteeth Amendment does clearly state it refers to all persons, but it was never intended to apply to the unborn, and such interpretation would be a terribly activist step.)
That seems an odd analysis from you. Why couldn’t murder statutes protect some classes and not others, so long as the classes in question aren’t racial or proxies thereof? All the legislature would have to do is come up with a rational basis for their statute, and it’s off to the races.
Note: I disagree with this analysis at every step, but I don’t see how you can. Enlighten me.
In political terms, I said. When Thurgood Marshall retired in 1991, it was politically inevitable that Bush I would appoint a black judge to what Lyndon Johnson had effectively made the court’s “black seat.” (According to the rumor mill, Bush immediately told his advisors, “Find me an oreo,” or words to that effect, but I digress.) I mean, imagine the backlash if he’d replaced Marshall with a white judge! When Reagan appointed O’Connor in 1981, he effectively created a “female seat.” Appointing a female successor would be likewise inevitable – but in 1993, Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg, so maybe one woman on the court will be considered enough.
I think we’ve moved beyond the idea of a “female seat”. The natural course of things will provide for plenty of women justices. For some time now there have been as many (if not more) women graduated from law school as men. It’s a whole 'nother world than when O’Connor was nominated.
As long as the classes are not protected, the rational basis test would apply, yes.
Call me crazy, but I’m having trouble coming up with a rational basis to decriminalize murder only as against a particular class. I’ll be happily educated, though - what might it be?
Bricker, could you tell us more about Judge Garza?