September 04, 2005
Rehnquist is Dead. What Does It Mean?
It is a sad day for Chief Justice Rehnquist’s family and friends, and all who knew and respected him and his long and distinguished career. May he rest in peace.
When I heard the news last night, a picture came to mind of Bush and company convening for celebration. The picture was of celebration not over the Justice’s death, but over Pres. Bush’s opportunity to name the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the next 3, 4, or more decades.
Of course, tomorrow the President will come out subdued and somber over the death of Justice Rehnquist, and he will attempt to help the country celebrate Justice Rehnquist's life and contribution to our nation. If President Bush holds Justice Rehnquist up as a symbol of the kind of service and dedication which all hard-working, law-abiding citizens contribute to our society, it will be a great speech and touching moment.
Politically speaking, fears and anxiety will permeate the Democratic Party; indeed all Americans who lean toward social equality and individual rights against the intrusion into their personal lives by the awesome power of our federal government. It will be a day for rejoicing for some conservatives who will view the opportunity of a Bush appointed Chief Justice as a conservative windfall. If these reactions carry forward into the Senate advice and consent confirmation hearings, they will be rancorous hearings to say the least, but there is much more at stake.
Is such rancor really necessary? Are such reactions as fear and rejoicing at the prospect of Bush nominating the next Chief Justice warranted? The fact is Chief Justice Rehnquist was a conservative. A conservative will no doubt replace him. John Roberts, very much a conservative as well, will replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who was conservative on most issues but less so on others. The balance of the court in reality will tilt more to the right, but not dramatically so. The person sitting as Chief Justice does not traditionally dictate the actions or votes of the other sitting justices, and does not alone set agendas for which cases will be heard or not.
There are rulings in which O'Connor's vote swung the court toward the left. Those issues, if coming before the Bush nominated court again, may be reversed. Though she voted with a 5-4 majority in the case that gave the contested 2000 presidential election to G.W. Bush, she was on the majority side when the court upheld the right of women to have an abortion if their health were in danger.
It is this abortion issue which will be front and center in the minds of both Democrats and Republicans at the confirmation hearings. At the heart of the abortion issue is government madated morality and limiting of choice which a citizen has over their body, their future, and their role as mother vs. the empathy which other citizens have with unborn fetuses. It is a Constitutional issue, individual rights vs. the power of the state. Just the issue to make the potential of a filibuster very real. And that makes the potential of Republicans invoking the 'Nuclear Option" also very real. The nuclear option should be avoided at all costs and Americans on both sides of the fence should urge their representatives to insure that it does not take place.
The slippery slope of the nuclear option is one, which can, and very likely will take America to one party governance, in which approximately half, or more American citizens have no voice or representation in government. This is inherently dangerous for the peace in our land. Once the nuclear option is unleashed, depriving the minority party of the filibuster on judicial nominees, it will almost certainly rear its ugly head again and again on other Senate decisions which the majority party insists it must have passed, filibuster be damned.
Our nation runs the risk of moving headlong toward becoming a democracy in which tyranny of the majority goes unchecked and becomes unstoppable if we allow removal of the power to filibuster. One of the the primary checks and balance against one party rule, is the minority party. Without the filibuster, the minority's power to check majority excesses will evaporate.
Chief Justice Rehnquist's death marks a window of opportunity for those controlling the machinery of American politics. That opportunity is to either preserve the checks and balances of our government, which the founding fathers saw as absolutely a prerequisite for safe government, or unleash powers by a majority party in which the power and tyranny of the King could again be exercised against its own people and to the detriment of their liberties and unalienable rights. There is reason for anxiety and concern.
But, their is no room in the upcoming Senate confirmation hearings for hysterics, and hyperbole which entrenches the two parties to their respective divisions unable to compromise and bipartisanly serve and represent, and act as voice for all American voters regardless of political affiliation. Hurricane Katrina was deadly and horribly damaging. But with time, Americans can recover from Katrina. The same optimism may not be warranted should Justice Rehnquist's demise send our nation down a slippery slope toward tyranny.
Posted by David R. Remer at September 4, 2005 03:10 AMLet the Republicans appoint whoever they like. Let Abortion be completely banned. Let Big Business Rule. Let Slavery come back.
Who cares?
Posted by: Aldous at September 4, 2005 04:47 AMDavid,
Unlike Aldous who sounds like he is in New Orleans, I to wonder how the Natural Course of Human Events over the last 5 no 6 days. Will the Democrats and Republicans play “Stupid” and deny All American Citizens their Constitutional Unalienable Rights or will President Bush and The Republican Leadership lay waste to the Principles that their Party was founded upon?
On my blog, Independent Pundit.blogspot.com, I asked the question “Does a wild animal have more Rights than “The Poor in America.” With the facts that has come to light about “The Working Poor” in America will our leaders admit to the Truth known by Cardinal Law or will they fail like always to get pass the Touch of Tranny. Because making every American a Millionaire just takes a swipe of a pen.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 4, 2005 08:17 AMAnnie, your lengthy comments here on Katrina did not belong. Try reading what the topic of an article is before copying and pasting subject matter having nothing to do with the topic.
Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at September 4, 2005 09:20 AMAt the heart of the abortion issue is government madated morality and limiting of choice which a citizen has over their body, their future, and their role as mother vs. the empathy which other citizens have with unborn fetuses. It is a Constitutional issue, individual rights vs. the power of the state.
While you and i are on opposite sides of the abortion issue i consider it more a constitutional issue of state vs federal rights.
Before you get all bent out of shape, according to the political compass site i am a bleeding heart liberal lining up more with Ralph Nader, the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela than President Bush, Tony Blair and the neocons. Please do not let us stereotype all Republicans as fundamentalist Christians intent on the subjugation of the working class and imposing their morality on others nor Democrats as immoral heathans intent on stealing the hard earned money from the middle class to build America into their private hedonist commune.
The foundational issue is life and, imo, neither side can claim, as Henry would put it, ‘righteousness’. The Democratic party is for the right to terminate the lives of the weakest (unborn, terminally ill, farmed) while the Republicans are for the right to terminate the lives of the most dangerous (as judged by often mistaken juries). The Democrats have used the federal government to impose their morality on the entire country and the Republicans have used the state governments to impose their morality on entire states (with an eye toward national).
Using an analogy both sides choose to remove from our society those they consider weak links and so strengthen the moral fabric of their society.
For those claiming Christian Scriptures uphold the death penalty, consider Jesus’ interpretation of those laws.. that while we were yet sinners (deserving death) He died to give the world future hope. Should we then supercede God’s revealed will?
For those claiming freedom of choice, what of those terminally ill or unborn who have no voice. Should we then supercede the unalienable right to life because they are unable to carry a picket sign or bullhorn?
As i said, i think it is a federal/states issue and so Chief Justice’s passing is a huge loss. Then while i support strengthening the chain by strengthening the links (states) in that we then are able to live together in a non-antogonistic moral climate of our choosing… might this also weaken the chain (nation) by drawing the lines deeper?
Is our society weakened by ‘melting’ various cultures into suburbia or are they more weakened by divisions such as China Town and Little Italy? Are the Amish weakened by their voluntary separation? Is our society weakened? Will Greek and Latino Festivals or Oktoberfests lose flavor in the absence of cultural neighborhoods. Do we want a melting pot soup from our disparate cultures or a smorgasbord of varity. Is the America we want to live our children a washed-out sheet or a colorful tapestry?
If you are for choice, then stand by your ideals and allow real choice. If you are for life, then stand by your ideals and allow life to all created in God’s image— worthy in your eyes or not.
jo, good arguments. Appears to me however, that it does not become a states vs. federal issue until RvW is overturned. The 14th Amendment stipulates this. It was a states vs. federal issue when Roe v. Wade was heard by the supreme court. The Supreme Court in ruling on RvW, settled that issue. The states have no rights which supercede those of federal law applying to the nation as a whole.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2005 09:47 AM“Politically speaking, fears and anxiety will permeate the Democratic Party; indeed all Americans who lean toward social equality and individual rights against the intrusion into their personal lives by the awesome power of our federal government.”
This is over much an oversimplification, and generally wrong. If you look, for exampl,e at perhaps the three biggest individual rights cases in the last supreme court term- the Kelo case (emminent domain), the Raich case (medical pot), and the FEC case (campaign finance reform)- Rehnquist came out on the side of individual rights over government regulation. What we need in replacing Rehnquist is a conservative who is willing to stop government power, instead of giving it a blank check to do anything it wants under the “commerce clause” as modern progressive juriprudence would have us do.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at September 4, 2005 10:35 AMMisha, it is difficult to understand why you would say fear and anxiety would not permeate the Dem. Party and left leaning folks in this country. I am surprised. I presume your contention is that the folks on the left will welcome Bush’s two appointees?
Hello! Does political reality exist?
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2005 10:56 AMDavid, I cut and paste too much of your quote here- what I was focusing on is the statement that “indeed all Americans who lean toward social equality and individual rights against the intrusion into their personal lives. I guess my point was that I expect Bush to appoint someone in the mold of Rehnquist, who because of the examples I posted in my short comment, had a juriprudence that was often more restrictive of the unlimited power Congress wants to give to itself.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at September 4, 2005 11:08 AMHaha! Sure, Misha. Because the Bush administration and the GOP Congress have a history of wanting more restrictions on executive and legislative power…
Posted by: American Pundit at September 4, 2005 11:47 AMHi All:
Let the Republicans appoint whoever they like. Let Abortion be completely banned. Let Big Business Rule. Let Slavery come back.Who cares?
Posted by: Aldous at September 4, 2005 04:47 AM
Is it just me or do others feel this way also?
IMHO
Aldous:
I agree with most of your statement, However you seem to almost always seem compelled to throw something in that makes you sound like a complete moron, I am talking about your constant bashing of republicans as not being patriotic enough during this war. You have No Idea how insulting your comments are in light of the fact that when I retired(02Jun 05) after 20 years active duty military service, I was usually the lone DEMOCRAT. That being said, How do you explain that? I’ll tell you how, the repugnicans are just as patriotic as the Dems. So get off your high horse and cut that rhetoric out, it just isn’t true. The real Kicker that was so over the top in your post “Let Slavery Come Back” is So patently ridiculous it doesn’t even have merit. I am sorry for these comments, However In my Humble opinion they needed to be said.
Wayne
Posted by: wayne at September 4, 2005 12:02 PMAldous, I’m a fan of your offbeat brand of irreverent sarcasm. And when you get serious, you’re always worth listening to.
Posted by: American Pundit at September 4, 2005 12:25 PMAhh, thanks Misha for the clarification. Yeah, folks who want to protect individual rights and protect against undo intrusion by the gov’t., fall on both sides of the left-right divide, depending upon which infringements they fear the most. And they tend to be pretty hypocritical from a purist stance, championing some intrusions and not others, like the Dem’s on Abortion and Guns, or Republicans on Abortion and Police Power.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2005 01:16 PM
The U.S. is at step [4] and [5] of it’s 3rd cycle, and about to restart the cycle at step (1)
___(1) oppression, totalitarianism (e.g. abuse of eminent domain laws, unfair taxation, legal plunder, violation of the 1st Amendment, etc.)
___(2) courage, responsibility, revolution and/or civil war
___(3) liberty, abundance
___(4) selfishness, complacency, fiscal irresponsibility
___(5) apathy, dependency, fiscal and moral bankruptcy; return to step (1)
How can we get back to [3] without revisiting a repeat of [1] and [2] ?
Is a return to tyranny inevitable ?
There was a time when it seemed unlikely.
But, now we’re no longer looking invincible.
Things are starting to truly look disturbing, as government continues to grow to nightmare proportions, ignore and exacerbate our many pressing problems, as they grow in number and severity, and refuse to tackle any tough problems for fear of risking re-election.
Even if the Democrats win back the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress (which is highly likely), will it change anything ?
I don’t think so. The system is broken.
The two main parties simply take turns being irresponsible and unaccountable.
And, when one party has the majority, the minority party engages in petty partisan squabbling and sabotage to make the majority look bad. So, the end result is that both parties merely guarantee that each party gets their turn at being irresponsible and unaccountable. The result is a nation in rapid decline, unable to deal with the staggering magnitude of its’ fiscal and moral bankruptcy.
Posted by: d.a.n at September 4, 2005 02:43 PMDavid R. Remer wrote: …The same optimism may not be warranted should Justice Rehnquist’s demise send our nation down a slippery slope toward tyranny.We’re already sliding quickly down that slippery slope now, considering:
- recent abuse of eminent domain laws,
- election fraud, government for sale,
- big money influence on election and government (90% of elections are won by those that spend the most) by a few with vast weatlh and power,
- graft, pork-barrel, waste,
- main parties blocking 3rd parties access to ballots and debate,
- refusal of government to deal with tough problems for fear of risking re-election,
- pandering,
- plunder of entitlement systems & pensions & PBGC insolvency,
- fiscal irresponsibility,
- unfair and oppressive tax system,
- the falling dollar, printing more money & subsequent inflation and economic destabilization,
- refusal to secure borders for hope illegal immigration will create new tax payers and increased populations,
- insufficient and selective law enforcement,
- increasingly unaffordable and unreliable health care,
- presidential pardons for convicted criminals (even those that pled guilty),
- corporate/investor fraud (baby boomers lost trillion$ in the last recession),
- falling incomes, global pillage (not global village) & the race to the bottom,
- energy vulnerability and no energy plan or serious leadership to reduce dependency on oil,
- rejection of term limits by both parties,
- rejection of campaign finance/election reform by both parties,
- violation of the 1st Amendment,
- shrinking middle income population,
- increased poverty,
- top 5% of wealthiest have 59% of all wealth, the bottom 60% only have 5% of all wealth,
- continuous growth of the National Debt,
- continuous growth, every year, of the government to nightmare proportions (while voting themselves raises and cu$hy perk$),
- perpetuation of the myth that we can all live at the expense of everyone else,
- incarceration and execution of innocent people,
- perversion of the laws to do the very things the laws were supposed to prevent,
- and increasingly apathetic voters who feel it no longer matters who they vote for, as they watch both main parties simply take turns at being irresponsible, unaccountable, and sabotaging each other, without regard for the welfare of the nation.
Yup…looks like we’re pretty far down that slippery slope already.
Government may soon be (if not already) at the point where it provides no net benefit to society?
David,
Politically speaking, fears and anxiety will permeate the Democratic Party; indeed all Americans who lean toward social equality and individual rights against the intrusion into their personal lives by the awesome power of our federal government.
In what century did the democrats or liberials ever concern themselves with an individuals rights? I must’ve missed that one.
I hope Bush does finially appoint a true conservitive to the court. There hasn’t been one for the last 50 years.
Wayne,
From one retired serviceman (Msgt USAF)to another,
Thankyou for your service to our country.
Look at that. Ron is already hoping for a bigger judicial activist. I suspect you’ll get your wish. Nominating the most wacked out wacko right-wing judge will make people forget about the deficit and Katrina and Iraq, and bring the discussion back to “values” and “character”.
Posted by: American Pundit at September 5, 2005 08:14 AMAmerican Pundit,
Is the future fate of America of any real interest to those only here long enough to ‘get theirs’ and run?
Posted by: jo at September 5, 2005 11:03 AMWayne and Ron,
Thank you both very much for your service and sacrfice to this nation and her people.
Posted by: jo at September 5, 2005 11:05 AMjo wrote: Is the future fate of America of any real interest to those only here long enough to ‘get theirs’ and run?
Answer: No. And, actions speak louder than words.
Government talks a lot, but mostly comes up short on action, and still somehow remains unaccountable.
One thing they can act on quickly is voting themselves raises (in fact, make them automatic) and perk$.
It’s hard to be hopeful about Supreme Court appointments, since there’s more potential for damage, than progress, which makes one wonder about the entire institution, and wisdom of lifetime appointments.
But, few in government will ever support term limits, or reforms. They mostly, like jo says, based simply on track record, simply care about getting theirs, filling their pockets, and then fleeing from the damage they’ve done, knowing they’ll never be held accountable. And even if they are ever held accountable, or get convicted, they can get a presidential pardon (even after pleading guilty, like Dan Rostenkowski who was pardoned by Clinton). Hell of a deal, eh? Government wreaks of influence by big money, special interests, special privileges and perk$, arrogance, desire to grow government ever larger, legal plunder, fiscal irresponsibility, and perversion of the laws to do the very things they’re supposed to prevent (such as recent Supreme Court decisions to seize peoples’ property via abuse of eminent domain laws … a supreme example of legal plunder).
So it seems a bit futile to now, suddenly concentrate our focus on just one more appointment to an already perverted legal system.
I’m not saying all judges are bad. I’m saying the system is broken, and it doesn’t matter who you appoint, or who we vote for.
That’s why Americans are apathetic.
They’ve been had so many times, got all worked up during each election, but see that it was all for nothing, as things only seem to get worse, government continues to grow and grow, bankrupt the nation, and become increasingly irresponsible, unaccountable, and arrogant.
Thus, most Americans don’t have any idea, nor give a damn about the background and personality of the Supreme Court justices.
_________________________________________
Ron and Wayne, Thank you, and all service men and women for your service and sacrfice to this nation. Sadly, it must be extremely frustrating and infuriating to see government waste and irresponsibility that clearly endangers fellow soldiers.
d.a.n.
It is not just our politicians, judiciary and corporate execs filling their pockets with gain from the backs of American working class. Regular every day Middle class and Upper Middle Class are doing the same and retiring (early if possible) in foreign lands. Our government accurately REFLECTS and REPRESENTS the people.
Public schools, colleges and universities have taught for decades that only the strong survive, that people deserve what they get. Our government has the character and values of its people. Our society is broke, not just the system.
Posted by: jo at September 5, 2005 01:06 PMOur society is broke, not just the system.jo, Yes, sadly, I really have to agree with you. We’re all responsible. It’s our entire society. Voters are complacent, apathetic, tolerate it, and vote for pandering politicians that promise them what ever they want from the national treasure. We are fiscally and morally bankrupt. And, it is mostly rooted in laziness (sloth). Laziness is a natural human tendency, but it’s immoral to completely surrender to it. Why is it a natural tendency? Because it is the opposite of work, and work is pain. Thus, it is easier to plunder the hard work of others, resulting in many undesirable results: greed, corruption, tyrrany, oppression, secrecy (i.e. reduced transparency vital to discourage corruption), perversion of laws to commit legal plunder, and perpetuation of the myth that we not only can, but have the right to live at the expense of everyone else.
When does the plunder stop?
Only when plnuder becomes more painful than work and legitamate enterprise.
Thus, unfortunately, things will have to become much, much worse, before they’ll ever get better.
And, based on history, and recent events, it seems that we are, sadly, doomed to repeat history:
_____________________________________
The U.S. is at step [4] and [5] of it’s 3rd cycle, and about to restart the cycle at step (1)
___(1) oppression, totalitarianism, legal plunder (e.g. perversion of eminent domain laws, etc.)
___(2) courage, responsibility, revolution and/or civil war
___(3) liberty, abundance
___(4) selfishness, complacency, fiscal irresponsibility
___(5) apathy, dependency, fiscal and moral bankruptcy; return to step (1)
_____________________________________
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
