Replacing Justice Rehnquist


PDA






riverdog
October 26, 2004, 10:37 AM
George Bush or John Kerry will probably soon be nominating a replacement for America's latest thyroid cancer victim, Justice William H. Rehnquist, America's supreme conservative.

This past weekend (October 23, 2004), Justice Rehnquist underwent a tracheotomy in order to relieve a breathing obstruction and explore the status of his cancerous thyroid gland. He was born in 1924 in Wisconsin, America's
'cheesehead' state. Rehnquist was appointed to the Suprem Court by Richard Nixon in 1971, and was appointed Chief Justice by Ronald Reagan in 1986. Rehnquist is now the only 80-year-old justice to serve on our nation's highest court during the 20th or 21st century. Either Bush or Kerry will be nominating a judge to fill the void when Justice Rehnquist leaves the SCOTUS. I for one would not want Kerry to be nominating a Clinton or other infamous liberal to the bench.

If you enjoyed reading about "Replacing Justice Rehnquist" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BigG
October 26, 2004, 10:44 AM
I agree, but any appointment to SC is a crap shoot. Look at what a disappointment SD O'Connor, Souter, etc., are. :banghead:

Henry Bowman
October 26, 2004, 10:47 AM
Nominate me. I will not disappoint you. (Nor will I be confirmed by the Senate :neener: .)

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
October 26, 2004, 10:49 AM
The Republican Senate under Lott and Frist have proven to be utterly unable and unwilling to do what it takes to get conservative judicial nominess past threatened Democrat filabusters.

That's going to have to change if there's to be any hope for a more conservative court.

How did the Dems get the radical leftie Ginzberg onto the court? Where was the threatened Republican filabuster on that one.

riverdog
October 26, 2004, 11:24 AM
I agree, but any appointment to SC is a crap shoot. Look at what a disappointment SD O'Connor, Souter, etc., are Trust me, if Kerry gets in a Clinton on the SCOTUS will not disappoint. You'll see legislation from the bench that will make your eyes water.

BigG
October 26, 2004, 11:25 AM
You'll see legislation from the bench that will make your eyes water. Trust me, I already have. :uhoh: :cuss:

Gary H
October 26, 2004, 11:36 AM
If Kerry gets in you will see Hillary on the court. Arlan Specter will be the chairman of the judiciary committee and the liberal Republican Senators will put her over the top.

boofus
October 26, 2004, 02:42 PM
Justice Ron Paul has a nice ring to it.

Norton
October 26, 2004, 02:55 PM
This is the scariest issue facing the us as supporters of the 2nd amendment IMHO. If we lose the precarious balance that we have right now in the SCOTUS....we could be in very serious trouble.

Silver Bullet
October 26, 2004, 03:39 PM
Third-party advocates -- are you paying attention to this ?

Standing Wolf
October 26, 2004, 06:10 PM
Justice Ron Paul has a nice ring to it.

If that's a nomination, I'll second it!

R.H. Lee
October 26, 2004, 06:19 PM
Third-party advocates -- are you paying attention to this ?



Naw. They always disappear when it comes time for any heavy lifting. They don't seem to like to deal with the mundane realities.

Gordon Fink
October 26, 2004, 06:24 PM
Damned if we do and damned if we don’t … :rolleyes:

~G. Fink

Sindawe
October 26, 2004, 06:41 PM
Third-party advocates -- are you paying attention to this ?

Mr. Bush has proven himself to be no friend of our rights and liberties. The way I see it, we have a choice 'tween Lenin, Moussalini or Paine.

Dbl0Kevin
October 26, 2004, 06:43 PM
Naw. They always disappear when it comes time for any heavy lifting. They don't seem to like to deal with the mundane realities.

There you go talking about realities again......come on don't you know it's all about principals and "sending them a message". :neener:

Gordon Fink
October 26, 2004, 06:46 PM
No. It just doesn’t matter in this case.

~G. Fink

Ian
October 26, 2004, 06:56 PM
Obviously, any robe appointed by Bush will fully support the Patriot Act. If we assume that any Kerry nominee will fully support gun prohibitions, that leaves us with a doozy of a choice: black market guns or an ID/surveillance State. Can't say either prospect is appealing, but at least the gun ban will create controversy. There's no popularly understood constitutional block to complete Federal control of the markets through IDs and background checks.

Besides no politician will ever nominate a judge who would consider changing the centuries of precedent already built up. The really core of the problem is way back in the early rulings about the general welfare clause. To upend those would cause such political chaos that it'll never happen (unless the Court mysteriously becomes 51% libertarian - I'm not holding my breath).

riverdog
October 26, 2004, 07:06 PM
Obviously, any robe appointed by Bush will fully support the Patriot Act. If we assume that any Kerry nominee will fully support gun prohibitions, that leaves us with a doozy of a choice: black market guns or an ID/surveillance State. In Bush's case, the ACLU, along with the NY Times, WA Post et al will be there in force to support the 1st and 4th Amendments. In Kerry's case, the NRA and GOA et al The 1st and 4th have a much deeper case law supporting them than does the 2nd. I'm not too worried about the 1st and 4th under Bush, I'd be very concerned about the 2nd under Kerry.

Silver Bullet
October 26, 2004, 07:13 PM
It just doesn’t matter in this case.

1) Review what we know about Bush’s position on RKBA:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151933

2) Review what we know about Kerry’s position on RKBA:
http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=162

3) Think harder.

------------------------------

My second link is giving me some flak; if it doesn't work, try
http://www.nraila.org/ and then click on "John Kerry wants to ban guns in America"

Ian
October 26, 2004, 07:14 PM
Look how much good the ACLU, Times, and Post did in the Hiibel case. Case law doesn't matter really, only public opinion. Look at SC decisions over slavery, segregation, or FDR's myriad scemes - without a large and very vocal opposition, government power gets confirmed and upheld. Sadly, that sort of opposition to the ID State simply doesn't exist .

riverdog
October 26, 2004, 07:58 PM
Regardless, if you think an Ashcroft Justice Department likes the Patriot Act, pray that Kerry doesn't get to appoint the next Attorney General.

spartacus2002
October 26, 2004, 08:19 PM
"Justice Skunkabilly" has a nice ring to it....

carpettbaggerr
October 27, 2004, 11:13 AM
Obviously, any robe appointed by Bush will fully support the Patriot Act. Yeah? Everyone knew which way Souter would vote too, didn't they.

riverdog
October 27, 2004, 11:28 AM
Bush has indicated he would look for a "strict constructionist" as a judicial nominee to the SCOTUS. As I understand the term, it means someone who reads the constitution for what it says rather than for what they would like it to mean. In these times, a "strict constructionist" on the SCOTUS is about as much as you can reasonably ask for; to actually get one would be a blessing.

Brett Bellmore
October 27, 2004, 11:36 AM
Yeah, I really believe that Bush is going to deliberately appoint a Supreme court justice who'd reliably vote to strike down as unconstitutional most of Bush's policy initiatives. Which is what any strict constructionist would do...

My take on it is that Bush might screw up, and accidentally appoint one or two good Justices. OTOH, Kerry would be very careful indeed not to appoint any Justice we'd find acceptable.

BigG
October 27, 2004, 11:43 AM
Yeah, I really believe that Bush is going to deliberately appoint a Supreme court justice who'd reliably vote to strike down as unconstitutional most of Bush's policy initiatives. Which is what any strict constructionist would do...

That is theoretical. If such a justice were appointed any challenge to the constitutionality of whatever would have to get on the SC docket.

Gordon Fink
October 27, 2004, 11:44 AM
As I’ve said before, Kerry would appoint judges who support legal abortion, and G. W. Bush would appoint judges who do not. That is the litmus test. Neither will worry much about the Second Amendment one way or another, and both would appoint judges to the Supreme Court, rather than tap partisan members of the Congress.

~G. Fink

R.H. Lee
October 27, 2004, 12:00 PM
Kerry would appoint judges who support legal abortion, and G. W. Bush would appoint judges who do not. You are probably right, yet the federal .gov has no business meddling in, let alone subsidizing, abortion.

thefitzvh
October 27, 2004, 08:51 PM
"Justice Skunkabilly" has a nice ring to it....

Carbon fiber robes would be DAMN expensive... I ain't payin taxes for that stuff!!!



unless of course skunky agrees to shoot down ALL gun control, and let me have a buncha cool toys, and nationwide carry... Then i'd buy him the damn robes myself!!

Lone_Gunman
October 27, 2004, 10:10 PM
Third-party advocates -- are you paying attention to this ?

I am not a third party advocate, I am a conservative abandoned by the Republican Party when George and the Neo-Conservatives seized control in 2000.

I have no confidence, at all, that Bush's appointees would be any better than Kerry's.

If Bush himself really was a strict constructionist, then he might appoint strict constructionists to the SC. However, his record clearly shows he is not a strict constructionist... he loosely interprets the Constitution anyway he wants.

McCain Feingold is an example of this. If he really believed the first amendment should be literally interpretted, then there is no way he could have supported this law.

The assault weapons ban is another example. If he really believed in the 2nd amendment, he would not be "officially" on record supporting the AWB.

Don't even get me started on the Patriot act... several violations of the Constitution can be found there.

Finally, the extremists here that claim Clinton would get appointed to the SC are either just using scare tactics to get people to vote for Bush or they are just blind.

Any appointee will have to get Senate approval... so if either Clinton was to get nominated by Kerry (which wouldn't happen in the first place), they would get shot down by the confirmation process.

My final point is to consider that the majority of SC justices are liberal... and the majority were also appointed by Republicans. SC justices are not living in a vacuum. Its a lifelong post. There is a tendency for them to become liberal as time goes on.

I do not consider SC appointments a reason to support Bush over Kerry.

carpettbaggerr
October 28, 2004, 11:04 AM
Carbon fiber robes would be DAMN expensive... I ain't payin taxes for that stuff!!! And don't forget the titanium gavel......

If you enjoyed reading about "Replacing Justice Rehnquist" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!