Third Party & Independents: Archives

Misha,

Damn you’re fast!

I thought I was on top of the issues, I had the info for 30 mins before I checked on the alert.

As I just posted in Davids thread; She leaves with honor for her disent in that last horendous ruling of property rights.

“… the fight over his replacement” should be “the fight over HER replacement.”

Are we speculating yet?

Gonzales? Hard line conservative? Female?

Let the games begin….

Christmas in June!

Any chance Stephens, Ginsburg, and Kennedy will say; What the heck..time to move on?

Too much to ask for I guess.

Beagle,

“Any chance Stephens, Ginsburg, and Kennedy will say; What the heck..time to move on?”

What a sad day that would be for America.

Rocky,

I understand your disapointment that the swing vote was first to step down.
I will try to tone my comments with respect for the pain this may cause for those on the left column.
That isn’t a joke, I would feel the same if a conservative justice steped down under a more liberal administration.

At the risk of AP calling me “Saint Beagle” again, I’ll say I take little glee in anothers pain.

George:
“Let the games begin….”

I don’t think of tearing down the wall of separation between church and state as a “game”.

“What a sad day that would be for America.”

Today is a sad day for America - lose a moderate thinker, gain an ideologue for a lifetime appointment. :^(

Her replacment could change the 5-4 lock we have seen in the past.

I think this will really test any power that the “14” had over the fillibuster.

Role this one around on your tongue:

“Supreme Court Justice John Ashcroft”

:^)

Chuck,

Setting views aside, would he be deemed qualified?

I believe that bush already had several options waiting for Rehnquist to retire, the question is will he nominate someone so horrible for our country that the dems will have to filibuster and will the nuclear option again be looming over our heads?

RE: Ashcroft as court nominee.

The only way that happens is if Dubya pulls a bait and switch. Nominate someone who is sure to provoke a fight in the senate and be turned down, so that he can push through his real nominee.

Beagle,

“I understand your disapointment that the swing vote was first to step down.”

My comment has nothing to do with liberals or conservitives, it has to do with balance.
The only thing that Kerry said during the campaign that made any sense to me was his opinion on the Supreme Court. To paraphrase, He wanted to read an opinion from the court and not be able to tell if it came from a liberal or a conservitive.

Both Republicans and Democrats want the country to reflect the ideology of the party in power, and that’s just crap because the laws that are made outlive the lawmakers.

Most of the people in this country are moderates, and as the pendulum gesticates wildly to the right and the left, those in the middle are the folks that get hosed.

A swing vote in the Supreme Court is much more important than liberal or a conservitive. A swing vote restores the balance intended.

Adrienne-

I think buiding that wall, not through legislation or change in Constitution, to be much worse.

I think the founding father’s view on the Supreme Court is clearly delineated by the lifetime appointments; they never envisioned the Court as the way to circumvent the will of the people.

That people think the Court to be important, more important than winning elections, is a sign that things are way out of wack.

George:
What is it with this thought that the Court is “not supposed to circumvent the “will of the people”???
That statment only demonstrates total ignorance as to the role of the Judiciary.
When the “will of the people” conflicts with the rights and values represented (either directly or implied and inherent) in the Constitution, then it is the judiciaries RESPONSIBILITY to “circumvent” the will of the people.
I.E when the people are WRONG.
Now, we may not agree whether or not (on any given decision) that the judiciary is doing their job — but it is just ludicrious to make the statement that the “will of the people” is of a higher standing than the constitution —

Russ-

The “will of the people” is the Constitution. The way to make law is through the legislative branch, and the Supreme Court has self appointed itself powers that were never envisioned.

Why then the “lifetime appointments” if the Supreme Court is the utlimate authority in our government?

Rocky,

With all due respect, the very first thing I mentioned in my responce to you was the fact SHE was the swing vote.
In a 9 judge court the swing vote would change the balance.
I think we were both seeing the same thing, just from different political viewpoints.

“Today is a sad day for America - lose a moderate thinker, gain an ideologue for a lifetime appointment.”

Shouldn’t we at least wait until he nominates someone before starting the doom and gloom predictions?
As Misha said, its going “to be an ugly one” but instead of who offering opinions on who would be a fair and qualified replacement its automatically been turned into just more of the normal “hate Bush, blame him for everything, seperation of church and state is gone lies and the etc…”
Why? Because the hatred of Bush is so great that he now must be criticized for things he has not even done yet.

Thanks for posting this news Misha. I am very interested in seeing how this all plays out.

Hi All:

You all asked for this, Now you have it, “Whatcha Gonna Do Wit it”? If you stack the deck without regards to whom you select, life as we know it may just take a radical turn away from what we now know it to be.
Some Examples:
Free Speech, Gone
Free Will, Gone
Free Expression, Gone
Freedom to Worship as You Choose, Yeah Right
Vote, Gone

Replaced With Propoganda, Predetermination, No Art or Literature, No Candidates, and lastly the SCARIEST Of all:

No Opposition!!!

Sounds a lot like Soviet Era Communism, Don’t it?

Could it happen here? I don’t know. But if you stack the court with young Jurists who believe that there should only be one opinion, (Afterall We Are the United States)Do you not agree?
Just Passing Gas
(JPG)

As Always,
Wayne

Russ,
The recent decision on owning property that was voted against & spoken against by Justice O’Connor is an example of a judiciary run amuck. The constitution (Bill of Rights) & the will of the people were both against the courts decision & yet the court circumvented the Constitution and the will of the people. Who was wrong? The Constitution or the people? Or possibly the court?

Perplexed

I often try to view issues from a psychological perspective, as I will on again on this topic.

Pres. Bush has but one thing to look forward to personally for the remainder of his term. That is his legacy. He ran in 2000 on being a uniter and not a divider. In light of the divisions over Iraq and SS and other issues, Pres. Bush just might surprise folks all over the country by nominating a candidate who would fill O’Conner’s shoes as a swing voter.

If I were Bush, this is what I would do, since, it would have direct appeal to historians assessment of the fulfillment of campaign promises, which is an essential part of any historical analysis of a President’s tenure.

The majority voted for Bush.

He should nominate a judge that is in line with his thinking, thereby representing what the majority wants.

David,

At this point its hard to predict what Bush will do.
If he goes with someone viewed as radical it may kill his ability to to pass any thing else in his last term.
On the other hand departing from his un-wavering views might put him in history as wishy-washy.
I expect a young(under 55)conservative that isn’t well known by the general public.
I don’t think it will be a woman this trip.

“He should nominate a judge that is in line with his thinking, thereby representing what the majority wants.”

Which by doing so, he would alienate almost half the country.
How in the hell would that help bring this country together?
I’ll be happy if he justs nominates somebody who will actually go against the norm, you know, leave their personal opinions out of their rulings.

James

I think your thought requires clarification. In the spirit of Supreme Court tradition, Bush shouldn’t nominate a justice necessarily aligned with him ideologically; I doubt the framers were intending for the Supreme Court to be shaped by the president’s cultural viewpoint, as his tenure in office lasts only four years and reflects ephemeral public opinion. President Bush should instead nominate someone based on the appropriateness of their approach to jurisprudence—essentially, that means how they read the Constitution. To Bush’s credit, he has at least said he intends to nominate a strict constructionist, rather than a cultural conservative.

Of course, a strict constructionist is often tantamount to a cultural conservative on issues like abortion (since the right to privacy—the basis for Roe v. Wade—does not exist, according to strict constructionists). So political advocacy groups are apt to draw the logical conclusions, which is why the debate will be strongly influenced by the culture wars.

To all who still don’t get it.
The “Will of the People” is not normally considered to be the Constitution, but the various measures enacted by the legislature, or voted on directly (referendums) by the electorate.
When the “will of the people” conflicts with Constitution then it is the Judiciary’s job to put an end to it.
I have often heard the phrase “how dare they — the majority voted it in, how dare they circumvent us?” when a court finds that a recently enacted statute is found to violate the principles of the constitution (state or federal).
This just shows the lack of understanding of our system.
I am also currently amazed at those of you who label any of these recent findings as “activist”
what a complete misuse of the term
I am totally appalled at the recent Private Property ruling, but they did not “inact new legislation from the bench” — they merely upheld existing legislation/regulations that should not have been upheld.
However, as I said earlier, we can debate whether or not they are doing their job, or how well they are or are not doing it, BUT their job is to INTERPRETE the Consitution — and that sometimes mean that YES the majority, just because they voted on something, may not get their way — because it means violating the Constitution, and in THAT regard, the Consititution is a higher authority (not the Judiciary) than the “will of the people”.
Get over it.

I am happy this is happening now. Let them ban Abortion and re-institute Segregation.

I suggest Alberto Gonzalez be nominated. He represents the typical Republican today.

O.K. Russ,

Now remember the “Schoolhouse Rock” tune that goes with it…..

We the People [of the United States,] in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Notice the first three words….

And if it is the Supreme Court’s job to “put an end to it” then why is their power mainly in the form of appellate review and not original jurisdiction? Shouldn’t every law enacted be within their power and not just unsettled cases from lower courts?

The fact is judicial review is a product of the Court itself and not the Constitution (Mulbury v. Madison so you don’t think I’m too ignorant). And we are giving appointed, not elected, judges way too much credit than they deserve.

And what should I be getting over???

Hi All:

I am sure that the Nominee Will be Just the Jurist “Karl Rove” approves of and is least likely to go against any of “HIS” policies.

Just Passing Gas

Wayne

PS:
And, for those of you wondering or have an inclination to question. Hi all, Hi All, Just Passing Gas, Just Passing Gas(JPG), As Always, Wayne or the generic wayne or Wayne can all be attributed to me.

George
The case in question is Marbury v. Madison, not Mulbury. Marshall had the leeway to invoke judicial review because of the Constitution’s lack of clarity on the powers of the Supreme Court. Article III, section 2 defines the extent of the court’s power—“all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority”—and Article VI defines the Constitution and all laws in pursuance thereof as the “supreme law of the land”. It is not a reach to suppose that the Supreme Court is given the power directly pursuant to Article III to evaluate cases based upon the pursuance of legislated law from the Constitution. That is the essence of judicial review.
Besides which, the idea of judicial review implies a self-regulating, self-limiting government. If the Supreme Court declares a regulatory law unconstitutional, is it not limiting the power of government? By extension, is it not attempting to protect the rights and liberties of the people? Certainly, that is not a reach. Theoretically, our representation in Congress should defend our interests and represent our viewpoints, but if they fail to do so—and if such failure stands in violation of the Constitution—then the Supreme Court and inferior appellate courts are the people’s recourse.
Moreover, if a law stands in violation of the constitution—if, for example, Congress were to pass legislation outlawing firearms of any kind, and if the President were to sign such legislation—where would we be WITHOUT judicial review? Aye, that is a very extreme case, but I think it illustrates the point.

This somewhat “surprise” resignation is interesting in light of the fact that Rehnquist cannot be far behind. That is obviously two appointments the confirmation of which can go on forever.

Question : Does the resigning justice stay on board until the confirmation of a successor. If not, can the Supreme Court make any rulings without it’s full compliment of members or, are all rulings held in abeyance until all necessary appointments are confirmed.

Russ,

And when Justice Kennedy uses the opinions of forign countrys as the basis for a ruling, we the people should “just get over it”?

Steve,

She will stay on the court untill her replacment is confermed

steve smith,

“Question : Does the resigning justice stay on board until the confirmation of a successor.”

O’Conner indicated that she would stay on until a successor was found and confirmed.

Beagle,

I wasn’t trying to beat you up. With all the new folks on watchblog, I was just clarifying my position on the matter.

Beagle,

“when Justice Kennedy uses the opinions of forign countrys as the basis for a ruling, we the people should “just get over it”?”

I am neither for or against using other countries rulings. Sooner or later America will have to realize that like it or not we are part of the larger world community.

Rocky,

I know that.
As hard as it is for some to believe, I respect those on the left even if I seldom agree on the issues.
Thats why I love this site, viberant but respectfull debate!

Rocky,

The purpose of the USSC is to settle arguements about our laws based on OUR constitution.

However, I have no problem with Kennedy moving to france to work on their laws. ( Grin).

The idea of using the opinions of foreign countries as bases for rulings has points running for and against it. Against it, we have the idea that the Supreme Court should make rulings based on (and only on) American law. That’s how and why it was created. While it may be advantageous for the United States to recognize that it is part of a larger world community, the Supreme Court is not the proper institution through which such a recognition may be achieved. Certainly, domestic law should not be beholden to the whims of the international community; if it does, then the idea that America is losing sovereignty gains credence, which is a concept I gather most Americans oppose, and which is definitely foreign to our Constitution.
On the other hand, gleaning ideas from foreign opinions can be productive in making rulings on issues of our own. If other nations have encountered issues similar to those we encounter in our legal system, I see no reason to reject their insight inasmuch as it is applicable under our own laws. Does that seem unreasonable?

Xan,

The place to debate and consider the ideas and opinions of foreign countrys is in congress, where laws are written and voted on, not the courts.

Beagle

Perhaps I’m not making my point clearly enough. In the sense that the Supreme Court should not use British law as precedent for a decision in Americn law, I agree with you. However, I do not see the harm in the Supreme Court examining instances where there are similarities between our law and foreign law. Nations with laws very similar to our own are apt to invoke judicial controversies similar to our own, and they are thus apt to produce opinions that our courts can use for additional perspective on our own law. Certainly, the courts would be remiss to rely solely on foreign law as a basis for a decision, but transferring logic in foreign law to our own seems simply to be a mechanism of research, as long as the logic IS FULLY APPLICABLE to our own law.

Perhaps I’ll check some of Justice Kennedy’s opinions to get perspective on where you’re coming from…

Xan,

Look no futher than the last majority opinion that Kennedy wrote, it wasn’t based on foreign laws or rulings, just views and precieved opinions of those in foreign countrys!

Beagle

I’ve found at least two cases in which Kennedy makes remarks on foreign opionon: Lawrence v. Texas, famous for stricking down anti-sodomy laws, and the one to which I believe you are referring, Roper v. Simmons, which illegalized the execution of juveniles.

In Lawrence, he used examples of litigation and legislation in Western law—not simply American—to refute a point made in an earlier Supreme Court case, Bowers v. Hardwick, which held a statute in Georgia similar to that of Texas was constitutional. The point (more or less) in Bowers was that Western civilization in generally frowned on homosexual activity, like sodomy, in the form of law. Kennedy used examples in Parliament and in the European Court of Human Rights to shed doubt on the assertion that Western civilization actively frowns on sodomy through its mechanisms of law. In this case, Kennedy simply responded to an earlier assertion about multinational culture with examples from multinational culture. Moreover, the primary basis of the ruling was the idea of the right to privacy, which the Supreme Court originally recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut. Whether or not they conjured a non-existant right is up to the reader, but the point is Kennedy’s opinion here responded only to an earlier (and very possibly illegitimate) comment on international jurisprudence.

As for Roper, I am rather more inclined to agree with you that perhaps he placed too much emphasis on the “weight of international opinion”. Nonetheless, he made this critical point in his opinion: “The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions.” His opinions do evince a trend of increasing concern for the opinions of the international community as bases for rulings rather than sources of insight, however, and in that respect I begin to agree with your concerns.

Find the opinions here:
Lawrence v. Texas
Roper v. Simmons

Xan,

I thank you for checking facts.
You seem to be well educated and will be a welcome addition to this site if you visit often.

Xan-

Thanks for the correction on the name and for your arguments for judicial review. I stand by my original point, however, that the Supreme Court has exaggerated its role in Government. The fact that the Court does not have original jurisdiction except in very rare circumstances, plus the appointments (lifetime at that) verses elections are to me clear indications that this Court is way beyond what even Marshall intended when he went after Madison.

A change in a Supreme Court Justice should not be this big an event in our government.

But what do I know….

“The fact is judicial review is a product of the Court itself and not the Constitution (Mulbury v. Madison so you don’t think I’m too ignorant). And we are giving appointed, not elected, judges way too much credit than they deserve.”

Judicial Review may not be expressly defined in the Constitution, but it is a logical extension of the powers defined therein.

Whenever a case comes before a court, that court must determine how the law applies to the case. If there are multiple conflicting laws in effect, the court must determine which of those laws is dominant, and therefore applies to the case at hand.

Of course, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and therefore is dominant over all others. So, if a law conflicts with the Constitution, a court can find that the Constitution applies, and the offending law doesn’t. If you assume that a particular court will rule the same way on that law every time, that effectively makes that law unenforceable within that court’s jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court, as the ultimate appelate court, has jurisdiction over the entire country. That means that, if it rules once that a particular law conflicts with the Constitution, any further action under that law is pointless (as it can simply be overturned by appealing all the way to the Supreme Court).

The Constitution doesn’t necessarily give the Supreme Court (or any other court) the right to strike a law from the books, but that is the net effect of the powers that ARE given in the Constitution. Judicial Review is just a practical application thereof.

Beagle

Thank you for the pleasant welcome to the website!

George

I’m not going to claim to know exactly what was going through the framers’ heads when they drafted Article III, but here is my take. The Supreme Court was probably made appointive to be purposely distant from the people. The distance of the Court from the people permits it to make rulings that do not necessarily reflect public opinion, but rather reflect the word (and, for some jurists, the spirit) of the law. Moreover, the lack of original jurisdiction might indicate that the framers only wanted the Supreme Court to intervene in the most serious of cases that could not be settled in lower courts (and that thus might have critical, national implications).

Nonetheless, I do see your point that the role of the Supreme Court might not be as Marshall or the framers intended. They drafted the Constitution for a nation in which information traveled slowly, the population was small, and so on and so forth. Though there is good evidence of adaptibility in the Constitution—the looseness of the wording in the Bill of Rights is a classic example—there are other contingencies for which the framers could not account, and that is evident in the circus we’re bound to have around this appointment.

Hi All:

IMO
The Supreme Court of the United States of America, Never rules on Laws per se, And never passes legislation. That is why we have elected reprentatives in the two Houses (Congress & Senate). No, they only step in to make a ruling when such laws and legislation is challenged by the people, through the courts system. All cases heard before the Supreme Court are cases the Lower Courts have sent to them. The Justices have to make a choice then: 1) Take no action 2) Send it back to a lower court w/wo instructions 3)Issue New Ruling 4) Hear the case, issue ruling.

The Supreme Court Of The United States, doesn’t ever look into cases pending or act before laws and legislation are enacted. In other words they are hands off, pick and choose as they see fit, render rulings and opinions only if and when they are asked and sometimes they remain mute.

JPG

As Always,
Wayne

I do think this is a battle over Roe V Wade. I support it’s overthrow. I don’t think it would change all that much except turn the issue back to the states. In the end, it would seem that abortion would be legal in roughly the blue states, and illegal in roughly the red states. It would be nice to let the people decide.

Craig