VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

My bet is on alberto gonzales.

Kevin M

iTrader: (12)

The moderate liberal who railed against that decision is the one that just retired. However, if Rehnquist also retires, Bush can easily fill both posts with 2 moderate judges that fall in between them. I don't think anything major will happen once O'Connor is replaced, except possibly an overturning of Roe v. Wade. Any likely candidate though will probably say, like most of the current judges, that it is "settled law" regardless of their position. I am sad to see her go, but I don't think it's a catastrophe. However, that's mainly do to the fact that the Court's last major decision sucked ***, so how much worse can it get? Like I've hinted at before, I would be okay with seeing a very conservative judge as long as he does like he's supposed to and interprets the law rather than trying to make it up as he goes. any respectable candidate should feel that way, including the ones that were supposedly being considered to replace Rehnquist

Kevin M

iTrader: (12)

One side or the other will always be less than happy with the makeup of the Court. If things had gone differently, do you believe there'd be a lot of pickup trucks with "Support President Kerry" bumper stickers?

Salty

iTrader: (14)

The more I think of it the more I’d rather have more conservative Justices. Thing is, you need more conservative Justices to interpret the Constitution. I'm not talking about a political activist with a liberal or conservative label. Just someone that doesn't conjure **** out of thin air. Things like abortion rights, dwindling personal property laws, etc.

My point is the ruling on Roe v. Wade couldn't have possibly been deciphered from the Constitution the way many think. If you've actually looked into that very fact you'd see what I mean. Instead you had a vote from the more liberal Justices to make it stick. And the nomination of Souter, which nobody really knew where he stood politically at the time of nomination, to help make Roe v Wade stick down the road.

Honestly, if Roe v Wade gets thrown out the window then it's 110% justifiable. And I say this even though I'm pro-choice (not an activist by any means). Those that ***** about this type of potential ruling really don't understand law and how the constitution works.

Bottom line, we need Rehnquist to be replaced with a similar voting Justice and O'Connor to get replaced by a moderate-Conservative. Mark my words.

Kevin M

iTrader: (12)

I think what you are calling a "conservative judge" doesn't have anything to do with their actual political leanings, and I agree. Conservatives are still trying to get anti-abortion, anti-flag burning, and balanced budget amendments passed, and none of them belong in the constitution. Adding them as law is another matter. I expect that the leading candidates for the Court would agree with me there, even if they would disagree on the floor of the House or Senate.

With Roe v. Wade, the Court determined abortion laws were unconstitutional on 2 basic grounds. First, it was a personal liberty the government couldn't take away from you, and preserving such liberties is the primary function of the Supreme Court and the Constitution. Second, the arguments against legal abortions, by and large, come from religion, which is specifically excluded as a source of law by seperation of Church and State.

As far as "conjuring **** out of thin air"... well, in a sense that is what the Court has to do every day. The whole reason it exists is to deal with matters of law that weren't conceivable in the 18th century. Interpretation of meaning and intent is their job. Remember, everything they see has been ruled on at least twice before by other courts, sometimes 4 times. If there wasn't a controversy about it, it wouldn't get there.

Now back to where I agree with you. I also think that we need justices who will faithfully do their best to interpret the law, and leave their feelings on the sidelines. If they can do that, I don't care if Rush Limbaugh and Ralph Nader are nominated. Both would make horrible lawmakers, but in theory could function quite well as Justices.

Bottom line for me is, I think that O'Connor needs to be replaced with someone who would take her place in the minority on the recenty property rights ruling. I don't care if new Justices are very different from me poliically, as long as they make the right calls on these types of rulings.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Bush says won't base court decision on abortion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050706/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Kevin M

iTrader: (12)

Sure he won't...

But the whole "litmus test" discussion is retarded... any candidate will only be on one side or another of a given issue. A lot of people will be upset by whomever is given the nomination.

I think the Attorney General has the upper hand though. Bush likes him, but many conservative groups don't, which would make him appeal to many Democrats and some Republicans. I would absolutely not be surprised by his nomination, given the way Bush replaced other key Cabinet posts and the like.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

But what if he did?

Face it, pro-choice rights aren't nearly as guaranteed by the constitution as many think. It's the pro-choice justices that have been making it a reality. I'd think of it as a respectable run for liberals and dems rather than a right.

If Roe v Wade got overturned I wouldn't be able to fathom how many dem and liberal whiners we'd have. It would be like the Yankees winning the pennant for 30yrs in a row only to have their selfish fans go on a riot when they finally lost.

And I’ll sit back and laugh even though I’m pro-choice. Why? Because I don’t have this problem. That said i'm sure many here think I’m the selfish one. This is where you’re wrong. I’m responsible. I'd really like to see it overturned just for the drama.

Kevin M

iTrader: (12)

Bush is the elected President; he's Pro-Life, and religious. It's his prerogative to nominate who he sees fit, and I wouldn't really knock him for doing it, even though I'd rather not see it happen. It's just another example of special interest groups getting far too much attention for their particular agenda. What I do think is silly is saying "there's no litmus test" when that's BS. The only qualifier he has is that there are going to be several litmus tests, and chances are the nominee is going to fail one or two of them regardless of your perspective. No matter who gets in, there will be people moaning about it, such is life.

As for abortion, I think it would be erroneous to once again outlaw it for many reasons. I don't, however, think that particular issue is the most important one to consider when weighing nominations for the Supreme Court.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

The f***ed part is this: pro-choice should be a conservative ideal. Because, as people have mentioned, the constitution doesn't mention it. Therefore the federeal government doesn't have any sway over it (unless there's an amendment...) and so a conventionally conservative person should conservatively interperate the constituion and say that pro-choice is the only way to go. But the whole religion mixing with the right thing leaves us with conservatives voting for a liberal interpretation of the constitution ('putting in' laws that aren't there), and with liberals voting for the opposite.

Saying that the rights aren't nearly as guarenteed is funny. You're right, they're not guaranteed. But the point is, a conservative interpretation says this: if it doesn't say you can't, then you can. Just like street signs in this country. If it doesn't say 'No U Turn', go for it. If the laws don't say 'no abortions ever', then it's a personal choice.