Justice Sandra O'Connor Retires

Remove all ads!

I don't see why the liberals would want that. Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life. If two new conservative judges were appointed (and keep in mind with the exception of Breyer most of the older justices are liberal as well), then the Supreme Court could go conservative for the next generation. Think about it - if two strongly conservative judges were appointed who were in their 50s, along with Thomas who is still in his 50s, they would have three strongly conservative judges on the bench for the next 30 years or so. For the immediate future, it would mean at least 5 out of 9 strongly conservative judges on the bench. That's why I said I'm of two minds on this issue. I don't want the Supreme Court to go off the deep end in either a liberal or conservative direction. Balance is key. I would take another moderate like O'Connor before someone who was either overly conservative or liberal. I think that is the best way to maintain impartiality.

 

I really don't believe Bush will get through all conservative justices -- he will need to make compromises and the status quo will remain.

 

But if Bush gets to pick two or three, then he can stack the odds in Conservative favour for a long time...

 

I would be happy if they discarded all of the liberel versus conservative talk and just nominated someone who allows the goverment to do only what the COnsitution says it can do -- original intent would sit just fine with me.

 

That would be conservatism. You didn't even make it out of your own sentence

 

I do not think so -- I said to discard that sort of talk. I know that conseravtives are regarded as being behind original intent, but I hop ethat the debate would be about original intent versus a living document instead of liberel versus conservative -- that just has too much baggage.

 

I thought that Liberal and Conservative were two different interpretations of the Constitution?

 

I think they would be very accurate terms, yes -- but right now the words "liberal" and "conservative" are mostly associated with "Democrat" and "Republican."

If we want our Supreame Court to work at all, we have to get away from viewing them with politics and just pick the best person for the job -- I do not know if that is even possible any more.

 

Not when the Democrats are suggesting someone that they want, thus forcing the Republicans to select someone that will piss them off...

 

Well, looks like we know who's the conservative's top choice.
From the Wash. Post (Conservative Caucus's Choice for Top Court Is Cast in Stone):

 

Actually I wouldn't have a problem with Gonzales at all. While he can be described as conserative, he is a moderate conservative, and is definitely qualified for the position. That's all I'm really looking for - moderate (and either moderate liberal or moderate conservative is fine) and well-qualified.

 

Well, Gonzales passes the `moderation' test, granted. This is why most liberals would apparently vastly prefer him to other candidates Bush might have in mind However, I think the problem with Gonzales rests in the "well-qualified" test. I am no expert in these matters, but it seems to me that so far his actions/opinions as WH counsel/AG are not based so much on law, as on the desire to please his political backers. (See all those torture memos, etc).

Anyhow, latest scuttlebut seems to indicate that he will not be picked (if you can believe newspapers ).

 

Ah, the "C" word. "Original intent" is an interesting subject. Alexander Hamilton was one of the main defenders and architects of the Constitution before its ratification in 1788. He drafted the bulk of a series of essays, which became know as the "Federalist Papers." Yet, once he became Secrectary of the Treasury, he argued for the creation of a National Bank. The powers for the national government to establish a national bank were nowhere to be found in the original document. Thus, he argued - and very persuasivley - for something called "implied powers," which would grant him the ability to create such a bank.

On the other hand, we have Thomas Jefferson. He was not involved in the creation of the orginal document, but was the first to suggest the Bill of Rights, which was soon added by James Madison at his insistence. Yet, Jefferson argued against the national bank, and the idea of giving the Federal Government too much latitude in its use of the "implied powers" clause.

Both were members of George Washington's cabinet, the first cabinet in the history of American government. In the end, Hamilton's argument carred the day, not only with congress, but with Washington was well. The crux of Hamilton's argument was that the Federal Government had the power to grant itself rights outside those specifically listed by the Constitution, when it was "necessary" for the government to act in the "public good." This gives the national government "fairly" broad powers to act as it sees fit to serve the public, at least in Hamilton's view.

So, what is the real intent of the framers of the Constitution? Jefferson, who was not one of its framers, would have wanted the Constitution to be followed by the national government to its precise meanings; yet, Hamilton, who was one of the framers, wanted to see the document as something more flexible in its meanings. Once the "necessary and implied" powers clause was accepted, Jefferson used it during his own presidency. The Louisiana Purchase is an example of how Jefferson saw the government having the ability to purchase large tracts of land in the West, although the Constitution made no provision for such a purchase by the government.

"Original meaning," regarding the Constitution, is really in the eye of the beholder - who wants access to power, and who wants to deny access to power. Thusly, for years Republicans have argued for "orginal meaning," mostly because they did not have access to power and wanted to prevent the opposition from having greater access to power. Conversely, now that they have power, they are not so keen on being restricted by the "parchment boundries" of the orginal document. Hence, the reason that the judges on the Supreme Court really hold the power, and are the real gate keepers, regarding those who have access to power, and those who do not.

 

So the Republicans would have to nominate Roy Moore to piss off the Democrats? I like the sound of that...

 

Seems like we'll find out tonight - or early tomorrow morning for the Europeans:

Bush to Announce Decision at 9 PM Tonight

 

Exactly. Sticking to existing precedent is a double edged sword. In regards to abortion, good. In regards to gay marriage, not so good.

 

Well, I've heard that Judge Robert's personal hero is Chief Justice John Marshall. In fact, he supposedly touches Marshall's staute, which is in the Supreme Court building, for luck whenever is enters there. To be sure, Marshall is one of the most admired of the founders. But Marshall was a chief opponent of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison during Jefferson's two terms as president.

Marshall on Jefferson:

"He is the most ambitious and I suspect, the most unforgiving of men. His great power is over the mass of people, and this power is chiefly aquired by professions of democracy. Every check on the wild impulse of this power is a check on his own power and he is unfriendly to the source from which it flows. He looks, of course, with ill will towards an independent judiciary."

Jefferson:

"The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance is gaining ground step by step...Let the eye of vigilance never be closed."

Was Jefferson wrong? Perhaps, the question should not be, will the next Justice follow the intent of the Founders? But, did the founders ever intend for the Supreme Court to have the unchecked power that it does today? Jefferson would have opposed the entire notion that only nine people could decide issues that effect so many Americans. And worse yet, from a Jeffersonian viewpoint, they are not elected by the people, and are in the postion for life.

[ July 23, 2005, 04:35: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]