Speaking of our illustrious Supreme Court.

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by M.O.M, Jun 16, 2004.

  1. M.O.M

    M.O.M Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    2
    When their is a vacancy, and one has to come sooner rather than later, could anyone get the 60 votes to be named to the bench?
    I tend to think it is going to be extremely difficult.
    The far-left, ACLU, PFAW, Move On, etc. is fully mobilized should Bush win a second term.
    The Estrada, Pryor, and Pickering fiascos were test runs.
    The lefts march to overturn over 200 years of history on religious issues and protect abortion can be heard whenever you hear a Democratic senator or media-type blurt out the word *extremist Judge*.
    For those confused, that is what that phrase is all about.
    On the right, I don't believe that even if Bush wins a second term, they will allow another Souter on the bench.
    They will more than likely do their homework this time, as they completely failed to do with Souter.
    If their is a Kerry administration, his litmus test for nominees will be 100% pro-abortion and 100% anti-religion.
    Their will be some smokescreens about other issues, but rest assured those will be the two litmus tests.
    What will be funny if their is a Kerry nominee will be to see the fall-out once the Republican Senators fillibuster.
    You'll have the GOP doing what they call obstructionists when the Dems do it, and you'll have the Dems bemoaning the use of the strategy they created.
    Bottom line, it is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to be voted onto the Supreme Court, regardless of who is the President.
     
  2. tirk

    tirk im the lyrical jessie james

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    47,059
    Likes Received:
    21,198
    well thanks for the update. Wasn't aware of the struggles of each side although the 2 litmus tests seem to never not be the deciding issues on anything political.


    As far as who gets in...I have no clue. Maybe Eugene from The Practice?
     
  3. Jetstorm

    Jetstorm Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    29
    That's why this year's Senate elections are VERY important. A lot of old Southern Democrats are retiring this year and the GOP is expecting to pick those seats up. The problem is, only one or two of those retiring are in on the judicial filibusters. John Breaux is not the problem, although I will be glad to see Fritz Hollings of South Carolina finally get put out to pasture. The GOP is also hoping to pick up a couple of Senate seats in the Plains states.

    The litmus test will still be in effect, of course; we're just going to have to see if every single Democrat is going to line up and filibuster a judge simply because that judge questions the constitutional philosophy of Roe v. Wade.

    Also, this situation could have been avoided had the late, great Ronald Reagan (God rest his soul) done his homework on one of his Supreme Court nominations. Sandra Day O'Connor was the decisive vote in preserving Roe back in 1991. Then again, as pro-life as Ronald Reagan was, he did not make being pro-life a requirement to be a federal judge, unlike today's Democratic Party is doing in reverse.
     
  4. M.O.M

    M.O.M Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    2

    Good point on O'Connor and even better point on the Senate.
    My feelings on abortion or thus:
    Their is clearly no *right of privacy* in the Constitution. That was a figment of the Court's imagination using their personal political feelings over the Constitution.
    However, I do feel the prevailing sentiment in this country is for privacy to be protected and it would be so protected through legislation or, more effectively, lack of legislation, without Court interference.
    Personally, I oppose abortion.
    But I do not believe you can put that genie back in the bottle.
    Other than the usual suspects in states like New York and California, I think typically you won't see many Democratic candidates pushing for abortion rights, maybe in front of some select groups, but it will and has been done so in as quiet a fashion as possible.
    What you'll see are buzzwords about *extremist judges".
    I reiterate that whenever a candidate falls back on that term, the question should be asked what judge and what specific decision are you referring to or concerned about.
     
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    This situation is a consequence of the extreme polarization of the Republican and Democratic parties. Both have moved to the extreme left and right and have largely abandoned the middle. The GOP demands strict adherence to all facets of the conservative agenda and the Demos are equally in lockstep with each and every plank in the liberal platform.

    There are a lot of moderates in this country who don't feel represented by either party. There is a growing political vacuum that will be filled in time, either by a new, centrist party or, more likely, one of the established parties will move significantly towards the center.

    There are WAY too many decision makers in this country who put their political party's interests above the good of the United States itself. Supreme Court justices especially should be selected for being impartial, moderate, and largely apolitical. But those days are gone for the foreseable future. Heaven help us if we end up with a polarized Supreme Court packed with political extremists and no moderate voices at all.
     

Share This Page