posted on November 11, 2002 11:44:24 AM new
now that we have a good chance of getting some decent Supreme Court Justices confirmed. It would be very refreshing to see a 7-2 or even 8-1 conservative tilt to the court. Maybe then we'll see the court upholding and protecting the Constitution instead of creating laws.
posted on November 11, 2002 12:37:32 PM new
And you think that's gonna happen... how?
As far as I'd heard, the two most often mentioned as wanting to retire are Rehnquist and Sandra Day-Oconnor. I wouldn't think any of the others, especially the most liberal ones, would want to leave. John Paul Stevens is pretty old, but he seemed pretty feisty in his dissenting opinion in the presidential election case 2 years ago.
posted on November 11, 2002 12:51:05 PM new
You could well be correct. But the chances of one or more of the liberal Justices retiring willfully or otherwise within the next 6 years of the Bush Presidency are very high. And now that the Democrats are in complete disarray the Senate will likely stay Republican for the next couple of terms. All is well in America.
posted on November 11, 2002 01:33:51 PM new
"You could well be correct. But the chances of one or more of the liberal Justices retiring willfully or otherwise within the next 6 years of the Bush Presidency are very high."
No... I can't 'well be correct' in the first sentence and then the chance of even a 7-2 split be very high.
Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer are the core liberal members. To get 7-2, two of those would have to leave. I peg Stevens as a Thurgood Marshall type - He'll be forcing himself to go to court until he absolutely physically can't make it. He's old, he might not last. Who else do think has a very high chance of leaving?
posted on November 11, 2002 01:58:15 PM newNo... I can't 'well be correct' in the first sentence and then the chance of even a 7-2 split be very high.
Again, you're incorrect. The chances of a 7-2 split within the next 6 years are indeed very high, but not 100%. Therefore, by definition, you could well be correct. There is no contradiction in my statements.
As for your question concerning which of the liberal Justices are likely to leave, I cannot answer that any more than you can. But the odds that at least 2 or more of them will leave within the next 6 years are indeed very high. Elderly people get ill. Elderly people die. They also just get tired and want a change. Of course the odds that a few of the conservative Justices will also leave within 6 years is also very high. But since Bush will be the President and the Republicans will control the Senate, that will not be a problem.
posted on November 11, 2002 02:17:19 PM new
The odds are higher that a conservative justice will leave while Bush is in office than that a liberal justice will leave while Bush is in office. I'm surprised Sandra Day O'Connor hasn't already, since she'd said before the 2000 election that she wanted to.
Supreme Court Justices are very political people, despite what they might say of themselves. The chances of any of the liberal ones leaving voluntarily is, I think, very low. Of course, there are always accidents and, in the case of Stevens, age. I wouldn't classify the chance of accidents as "very high," although Stevens kicking off is fairly high. That's still not 7-2.
Do you have any reasoning behind what you say, or does it just sound nice to you?
posted on November 11, 2002 02:21:22 PM newDo you have any reasoning behind what you say, or does it just sound nice to you?
Just the fact that folks in their 70's and 80's statistically have a pretty low life expectancy when projected as far as 6 years into the future, not even considering possible ailments that might incapacitate without causing death. Check out an Actuarial Table and you'll see what I mean.
In other words, the odds that any individual Justice will die or become incapacitated within 6 years cannot be determined. But the odds that 2 or 3 (or more) of them will die or become incapacitated are very high. And the Conservative Justices are pretty much irrelevent given the current and likely 6-8 year future balance of power in the Senate. Any Conservative Justices who leave will likely be replaced with new conservative Justices as will Liberal Justices who leave. It's a win-win situation for us conservatives. The only possible monkey wrench that could be thrown into this equation is the possibility that a conservative judge could change his/her stripes after being confirmed and decide with the liberals. Not a strong possibility but it has certainly happened before and at some point it will again. But again, if Bush does his homework on the potential nominees that likely won't happen. And he WILL do his homework.
[ edited by mrbusinessman on Nov 11, 2002 02:29 PM ]
posted on November 11, 2002 02:38:29 PM new
How about looking at the Supreme Court membership instead? The liberal members of the Supreme Court are fairly young (with the exception of Stevens), in Supreme Court Justice years (somewhat akin to dog years)
Stevens - 82
Rehnquist - 78
O'Connor - 72
Ginsberg - 69
Scalia - 66
Kennedy - 66
Breyer - 64
Souter - 63
Thomas - 54
[ edited by donny on Nov 11, 2002 02:40 PM ]
It looks like they all have one foot in the grave. If I were a liberal on that court, I would leave willfully right now to avoid the "otherwise" option.
mrbusinessman,
Don't ever try to ascribe meaning to my comments. I am just fascinated with your sentence structure and making an effort to assimilate into the group while working with limited data. Sometimes I make sense.
posted on November 11, 2002 03:51:13 PM newMrbusinessperson: "Maybe then we'll see the court upholding and protecting the Constitution instead of creating laws."
Which laws created AFTER the Constitution, (written by our white forefathers/foreracists/foresexists) do you feel shouldn't have been added?
Would you repeal black people's rights to vote and generally live as human beings without fear of slavery?
Would you repeal women's rights to vote? That is fairly new so maybe that COULD be repealed.
Would you repeal the abortion law? Where would you like all the bloody coat hangers sent? After Bush gets his share, of course!
I am thinking secession is the answer to conservatives prayers! Why not give the Southern states back to the KKK males or maybe ministers like Swaggert or Robertson? Notice I didn’t say women; they never counted, unless it was to make babies, mint juleps or beds. We could give it back to the kind of men [term used loosely] you see on TV, the ones looking like Neo-Nazis with thick Southern accents, spouting what women should do with their bodies. The Northern states could go on with innovation thinking.
Maybe the North would pass the ERA, so women could have the same rights white males do. Maybe we could add an ERA for men of color too!
Email address Mrbusinessman, please! I need to file it away.
posted on November 11, 2002 08:48:57 PM new
Guess who appointed two on the most "liberal" justices to the SC in the 20th century ?? Nixon and Eisenhower.
"Liberal" and "Conservative" take on wholly different meanings in the judicial system.
One thing that judges are forced to do that politicians don't is to consistently live with their rulings.
What may appear to be a "liberal" or "conservative" ruling when consistently applied as the law demands becomes neither liberal or conservative.
"States rights" seems like a conservative judicial agenda until the issue before the court deals with a state taking a "liberal" stance on an issue.
A "conservative" states rights justice should not apply the Second Amendment to states, so would rule that a law in New York that outlaws hand guns in NYC would be upheld by a states rights judge.
A "liberal" justice that leans towards a strong and broad First Amendment agenda (eg flag burning) would also have to be against campaign contribution limits.
Someone's ox sooner or later gets gored regardless of how a justice is labeled.
[ edited by Reamond on Nov 11, 2002 09:00 PM ]
posted on November 11, 2002 11:12:04 PM new
That's very true, REAMOND. For instance, after this Supreme Court ruled about the Florida Recount when it should not have and when several of those court justices had their own kids presenting the Bush/GOP side before the court, that is a dark stain that will stay with them for the rest of their lives and their family's lives. Since it happened, I've listened to one after another discussion by US Constitutional Professors from famous colleges and think tanks and every last one of them agreed what a wrongful thing that they did that will mar their names in US history. They compared what they did as onerous as the Supreme Court that handed down the Dred Scott Decision a century and a half ago. Their names are still blackened to this day and held low in educated people's esteem.
posted on November 12, 2002 01:34:41 PM new
I didn't Know Bush had been elected for another 6 Years!!! The "Liberal" Justices Retiring...doubt it...maybe if Bush wins Re-election. Actually O'Connor is Considered somewhat "Liberal" (at least in Republican Minds) because of some of her opinions made during her Current Tenure, But Thomas has come thru in Flying Colors (Pun Intended).
The "Liberal" Justices Retiring...doubt it...maybe if Bush wins Re-election. Actually O'Connor is Considered somewhat "Liberal" (at least in Republican Minds) because of some of her opinions made during her Current Tenure, But Thomas has come thru in Flying Colors (Pun Intended).