I’ve told him all of that before, and it didn’t make an impression then, either.
As you know, we in MA have already been through the stages **Bricker ** thinks are still upcoming. We (collectively, but not unanimously) have been confronted with the issue, weighed it for ourselves, experienced the results, and are now comfortable with it. The rabble-rousing stuff has been tried and has backfired - and, not incidentally, memories of Romney’s spitefulness about it, specifically dredging up an old, unused antimiscegenation law to serve as a rear-guard action, may keep him from even trying to get re-elected next year.
You mean soon… as in before the next session begins? I didn’t see that in the article you linked to. Can you quote the particular sentence(s) of interest?
If true, I wonder if a president has ever had to appoint 2 justices at the same time (other then Washington, of course, who presumably had to appoint 9).
Bricker, perhaps a more appropriate place to vent your outrage at the world’s steadfast refusal to universally acclaim your superior brilliance would be the Pit instead? Damn world, what do *they * know anyway, grrr…
WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP! Siren on Drudge’s front page, he’s got the Rehnquist news too. It will be announced “tonight”. Probably just before six for the newscasts.
I do hope Rehnquist retires. With all due respect, sir, you’re too old in in too poor health. The nation can survive with someone else taking your place. The nation is hurt by a SC justice, especially justice numero uno, who can’t be on the job 100%.
We are, I fear, on the brink of a Dark Ages in this country.
Seriously. Throwing the Court so deeply to the Conservative side will enable the entire Fundamentalist / Evangelical White House agenda to be fulfilled in short order. Or, not so short order, since Jeb Bush will be annointed President of the United States in 2008.
I’m kind of grateful I am still permitted to speak freely about this. Just wait folks… in a year or two these messages boards will be a thing of the past. :mad:
I must point out that in the Kelo case, the judges that made the right choice for individual rights were Thomas, Scalia, and O’Connor.
What conservatives want is a textual literalist judge. If that’s what they get, I have a hard time seeing how that’s a blow to liberty, since the constitution has a pretty good record for preserving it. It might mean the end of Roe V. Wade, but then it’s always been shaky law. It also wouldn’t be the end of the world, since the states would still be free to allow abortions.
But you honestly think a judge like Thomas or Scalia would ever want to censor political speech on a message board? Or support the elimination of rights for minorities or women? That’s just over the top. What a conservative judge might oppose are things like Affirmative Action and Kelo. And that’s fine with me.
On the other hand, if Bush nominates some right-wing reactionary like John Ashcroft, I’ll be yelling epithets from the rooftops right beside you.
Gonna be a drag, sure. But not that bad. The Pubbies want the support of the God Goons, but they are not going to sign a suicide pact. Every time a new poll comes out, you can hear their Nixons pucker up.
Or we cold be on the brink of a new Age of Aquarius. The FDR Presidency had a really conservative Court to deal with, but they still got all sorts of great and useful legislation passed on behalf of the people of the U.S.
If a troglodyte Court overturns Roe v. Wade there will be a great energizing of progressives in the US and the balance of power will shift to the left very sharply. If the Court doesn’t overturn Roe v. Wade, there’ll be a more gradual shift in power as the center backs off from the extremes of the trog right.
The only thing that worries me is that the Pubbie leadership has learned that you can steal elections. They may try to institute a PRI-style system where they retain power through corruption, electoral fraud and warmongering … pretty much what Bush is using today, but far more blatant and pervasive. Then it won’t matter where the political center is or what people think. The Pubbies will simply be in power because they are in power.
Conservatives like Liberals did not examine the constitution in a vacuum and came to the conclusion that textualism is the best interpetation. They looked at what rulings they liked and decided that was the way to interpet the constitution. They in general want to enshrine their values in law and a limited reading of the constitution allows them to do so. While the constitution does protect liberty it is not a comprehensive list of rights that are protected nor was it ever intended to be. Many things that are deserving of protection are not written into the constitution but correctly can be interpted from the whole of the constitution.
We forget how young and volatile our republic truly is. I’ve often wondered, since the early 1990’s when President Bush Sr. was in power, if we have ever truly recovered from the damage done by the Civil War. The potential for deep and damaging fracture lines between groupings of states has not been so great since the 1860’s.
A shaky Federal law is stronger than a handful of state laws. Were Roe V. Wade overturned, I could see teenagers being arrested for crossing state lines to obtain state-sanctioned abortions. Since they’re not residents of the state that sanctions abortions, the state they reside in has outlawed them and they would, I am wagering, be in violation of the law for being a resident of said state, but obtaining an abortion anyway by crossing state lines. It is not much of a stretch to imagine such. I can drive to Virginia and buy fireworks. Heck, I can buy tons of fireworks in Virginia. I can set them off in my driveway, too. Make a big loud show. I could that is, if I were a resident of Virginia.
Can I drive my car back to New York where I live to use them? I can not. Why? Because I am allowed to drive to Virginia but I am not allowed to drive to Virginia to obtain fireworks that are legal in Virginia and then drive back to New York State where fireworks are illegal and set them off. That’s a crime. Do state troopers routinely hang just over the state line, waiting to do spot checks on certain vehicles that were parked a mile inside the next state’s border at a Fireworks shop? Yes they do.
I am fearful that the similar state’s powers will be quickly enacted to cover abortions. A woman living in Ohio can drive over to Pennsylvania for work every day ( doubtless quite a few do ) but what she can not do is get an abortion in Pennsylvania while showing a residence in Ohio- if the laws are left to a state-by-state patchwork of control and regulation and Ohio has outlawed abortions for residents of its state.
Shaky or not, as it stands now, women own their bodies by Federal law. As it will stand by next year, States will own women’s bodies and each state will get to determine what is permitted or not permitted to be done with those bodies. A wholly horrifying and unacceptable…and unAmerican way to rule the citizens of states.
What pains me about an overthrow of Roe V. Wade is just this. We’re not talking fireworks or truckloads of cardboard boxes. We’re talking about ownership of one’s body and those states that are largely dominated by conservative or evangelical legislatures will leap at the chance to drastically re-write law.
Actually, yes I do. Judges like Scalia who are dedicated to pure and linear interpretation of the Constitution word for word as written, opposed to interpretation and expansion of the concepts and ideals of our Constitution might well be glad to shut down outlets of free speech that are deemed to be seditious. I can easily see that argument being made, and sailing through a Court that has become overwhelmingly Conservative.
He won’t. He’s not very smart but his people are way too smart to do that. They’re so smart that they’ll hint that Ashcroft wasn’t " allowed on the short list because he’s just too darned conservative to make the short list". A blatant lie of course. The man draped cloth over the exposed breast of a work of art in a government building, for god’s sake. He’s just exactly as conservative as Bush wishes to have on the high Court. However, my guess is that people like him are going to be used to pacify liberals.
" Look, we might well have gone with Ashcroft cause we adore the man and everything he stands for but no, we’re willing to work with you Liberals and give you someone much more moderate, much more mainstream. " I dunno if we can find Liberals who actually believe that line of thinking, but that is the line of thinking already being displayed in public comments and well-sourced quotes in the media regarding the short list process.
Really? What court cases are you basing that asertion on? Maybe you’re basing that on how Scalia voted on Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman– two flag burning cases. No, that can’t be, since Scalia voted with the majority, upholding that burning a flag is protected by the 1st amendment.
I’m afraid your opinion simply does not stand up to the facts. A strict reading of the 1st amendment is pretty clear: “Congress shall make no law…” Nothing about sedition in there.
Frankly, you often post gloom and doom scenarios that are so out of touch with reality that they seem to come from some cartoon version of the universe.
