|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 5, 2005 22:06:45 GMT -5
www.intheagora.com/archives/2005/06/feddie_says_reh.htmlI don't think anyone will be surprised if Rehnquist retires at the end of this session, although nothing has been said in public channels about that. Anyway, I found the above URL to contain an interesting view into what might be going on behind the scenes in a Bush administration that has been quietly preparing for a likely vacancy in the court at the end of the month. Count me in the camp that believes Bush will appoint someone who will uphold Bush's conservatism. I do not agree with his ideology, but I have to accept the likelihood that he'll appoint a like-minded individual. I'll get behind any nominee with a head on his shoulders, who is an intellectual rather than a conservative activist (they do exist). I wouldn't be overly enthused with Scalia as Chief Justice because of his politics, but I could accept it because I respect his intellectual ability. Michael McConnell is perhaps more acceptable because he strikes a softer note on the political side while maintaining a level of intellectual rigor.
|
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jun 5, 2005 22:29:10 GMT -5
I would be scared of a supreme court with Scalia as chief justice and a conservative activist - or Bush apointee with seemingly little experience and intellect to recommend him/her. The Democrats have won the critical victory in fedreal judgships meaning that Bush probably won't be able to promote one of his own federal judges to the Supreme Court bench. I definitely do not buy the Clinton rumors - that seems very short-sighted and it doesn't seem like that is the job Clinton wants anyways - he has his eyes on SG of the UN and that is no secret. If Democrats were willing to draw the line in the sand over Federal judges and demonize Frist changing the rules as "the nuclear option" and in the process make him look like a rather tactically weak Senate Leader it is hard to imagine a Bolton-on-the-bench candidate getting approved or being approved without it being a serious issue in mid-term elections.
|
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Jun 6, 2005 9:24:26 GMT -5
With Rehnquist stepping down, there's a seat on the Court for a staunch conservative. McConnell is an excellent compromise choice, but Dubya needn't make a compromise nomination at this point. Yes, the Chief thing is an issue, but I think he could nominate Scalia to the spot on a bet that it would split the forces arrayed against his nominations (i.e.: whom to oppose more, the new guy or Scalia's elevation). I suspect that the nominee will be for Associate Justice, someone young, and relatively conservative. Judge John Roberts of the DC Circuit could be such a choice. |
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jun 6, 2005 15:45:11 GMT -5
I think that McConnell is where the court is heading - both sides are underpressure to come up with a solution and both parties have incredibly low approval ratings in the senate. If this gets worse it could become a government shutdown-type situation where both parties are involved in a tactical race to the bottom, but the party that wins the day is the one that can define the debate in its own terms and not be perceived as the most out of touch with the mainstream. I don't think that W has the political traction right now to pass a conservative associate justice given that he is involved in a veto battle over stemcells that puts him in the akward position of arguing with Sen. Hatch, who is undergoing treatment for Hotchkins disease, his social security plans have turned out to be very hard to sell, Sen. Frist got out-flanked by the Democrats in the battle over federal court nominees, this is not to mention domestic policy - in which it appears that the US will be needing another supplementary appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan soon.
|
|
david
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 157
|
Post by david on Jun 6, 2005 20:11:47 GMT -5
Kennedy would be way better than Scalia. Scalia as CJ is truly a scary thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 6, 2005 20:16:43 GMT -5
Kennedy would be way better than Scalia. Scalia as CJ is truly a scary thought. There is no way Kennedy would even be under consideration in this administration. Out of the folks currently on the Supreme Court bench, only Thomas and Scalia have a realistic chance of consideration. I actually view Thomas as more risky than Scalia simply because Thomas has not produced much and has a knack for falling asleep during oral arguments. Scalia could also care less about oral arguments, but I have at least some confidence in the intellectual rigor of his work because he generates opinions and has voiced his ideology/approach on numerous occasions. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. |
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jun 6, 2005 22:25:53 GMT -5
If the choice is only between Scalia and Thomas - then by all means select Scalia. Thomas not only has uncanny sleeping abilities I have taken a few con law related courses and have yet to read a meaningful majority or descenting opinion written by him.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 7, 2005 15:37:10 GMT -5
Beyond all the posturing in the media and in this thread, the issue for any nomination to the Supreme Court is abortion and related life issues. Make no mistake about it, abortion is THE issue. Liberals can swallow a conservative if he/she is lukewarm on abortion. But they are too dependent on the far left to accept anyone who does not support the "pro-choice" position. Likewise, conservatives willl not accept anyone who is not clearly pro-life and who is committed to life issues. If Bush nominates anyone who is not 100% pro-life, he is toast.
I do not think the liberals will go to the wall to oppose Scalia as Chief Justice because that would not change the makeup of the court.
I look for Bush to nominate someone who is clearly pro-life to fill any vacancy. The liberals will do everything possible to block it without acknowledging the real issue - abortion. The Senate will be faced with a fillibuster that will result in an action to do away with filibusters for judicial nominees and the Republicans will get their way. If the first new Supreme Court nominee is for a replacement for Reinquist, the makeup of the Supreme Court will still not be affected since a conservative will be replacing a conservative.
It' going to be messy but Bush will get his way - as he should since he was elected partly on this and he has the right to proceed. If the Democrats want their people on the court, get Democrats elected.
|
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jun 7, 2005 16:25:47 GMT -5
Let's not forget though that the fillibuster was almost destroyed by the Dems in the 1960's during the debate on LBJ's civil rights and welfare proposals - they stepped back from this precipice by realizing that they might not be in the majority in both houses at some point and might lose the right to fillibuster bills and decisions absolutely anathema to their beliefs. It seems short sighted of Bush who has nothing to lose because none of his domestic staff or the VPs office will be running for re-election in 2006 or 2008 cycle - weighing risk/reward this way Bush has nothing to lose by making sure that his proposed candidate for SC cannot at least be a conservative that is perceived as a compromise candidate. Keeping the fillibuster rule is key for the Republicans because it seems unlikely that anyone besides Renquist will be quitting the bench in the next 3 years - a senate with no fillibuster rule 2 congressional election cycles and one presidential election cycle later has to look like a pretty risky mid to longterm option despite its current utility. I don't doubt that the litmus test for the bench will be abortion, however I don't think that there is anything to be gained by Bush by proposing someone who is very far right - instead someone who is right of middle and 100% on abortion seems like a safer bet.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jun 7, 2005 16:32:08 GMT -5
I don't think Democrats will "duck" the issue of abortion...if anything they will rally the troops with just such a call.
While there is a strong, unified pro-life movement in the US...I don't think the related but decidedly different movement of vehemently ANTI-abortion activists is as vast or solidly unified as it imagines. If anything, the Schiavo case certainly exposed the tender grey underbelly of what extremists would have you believe is a black and white/good and evil issue.
Simply put, the Schiavo case proved that the vast majority of Americans -- and a surprisingly high percentage of conservatives (polled in the mid 60% I believe) -- are VERY wary of the US government getting involved in moral and personal medical decisions.
While they may not want to use euthanasia, stem cells, abortion, etc personally, they also wish to make that decision as an individual and a family...not have it impossed from a centralized govt.
With this in mind, I think it could be extremely detrimental and shortsighted of the Republican party and the Bush administration to "go to the wall" on an issue that could very well splinter their own party. Especially now that moderate Republicans and fiscal conservatives are chomping at the bit to regain control of the party...
|
|
