United States Supreme Court Discussion Thread.

Yes it should. If these people are going to agree upon the constitutionality of laws or anything else they need to remain impartial the last thing we need is GWB stuffing the Supreme Court with his own lackies. And before you say "But Roosevelt did the same thing LOL!!!1" I know. And he was in the wrong, too.

 

A President should not abuse his power by putting a sychophantic yes-man on the Supreme Court. The Senate has a duty to stop such a thing.

However, you conservatives watch out. Rumor has it that Attorney General Gonzales is up for the job, and even though he is pro-life and anti-abortion, he has ruled against partental notification statutes in Texas and has admitted that Roe v. Wade is valid law that cannot be reversed.

 

There is a bit of hypocracy in what you're saying, OWM.

Did the GOP filibuster Ginsberg, arguably the most radically liberal member of the court?

Nope.

I knew that about Estrada as well. Parental notification is a must (IMHO) with the exception made for documented abuse.. Judges can be the final arbiter in cases such as that.

 

This thread is probably the best place to discuss this...

Cops Can't Be Sued for Restraining Orders

"The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police cannot be sued for how they enforce restraining orders, ending a lawsuit by a Colorado woman who claimed police did not do enough to prevent her estranged husband from killing her three young daughters."

"Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of the court order against her husband, the court said in a 7-2 opinion."

"City governments had feared that if the court ruled the other way, it would unleash a potentially devastating flood of cases that could bankrupt municipal governments."


Thoughts?

 

Seems like old law to me, I remember a case in law school where a woman called the police because she feared for her life, police didn't get there and she died. Police not liable.

It's just too difficult, it's a matter of public policy.

 

Parental notification is appropriate.

An abortion is no different than any other surgical procedure.

This is why we have judicial bypass.

I have some inside information here: Gonzales was considered to be a "liberal risk" by some of Bush's supporters after a strong initial push of support from the White House; this was why he was given the AG spot, as opposed to an SC nomination.

I'm more interested to see who will be elevated if Rehnquist steps down, myself.

A center-right candidate like O'Connor would not be a bad choice, but I guess it will depend on who steps down. If a conservative replaces a conservative, that's not a big thing, IMHO. If Stevens goes first, watch out.

Then again, one cannot accurately predict how a justice will vote once they are on the court.

Peace,

V-03

 

O'Connor, with her endless compromises and balancing tests, would seem personally suited to the Chief Justice's job. I can certainly imagine her switching sides in a case in order to keep control of the opinion (which is one of the principal--few--ways in which a Chief Justice really can become more influential).

 

Dude, she's gonna resign soon. She's got an invalid husband she loves and wants to take better care of.

 

My money's on Rehnquist to go first.

You don't do a trach for thyroid cancer all that often unless it's anaplastic carcinoma, which has a very poor prognosis.

Peace,

V-03

 

I have a feeling Rehnquist wants to die on the bench.

 

Well, most people agree that he's singularly good at the job--so, provided he remains mentally able, there's no reason why he shouldn't die on the bench.

 

Fox News is reporting that USSC Justice O'Connor's retirement is 'imminent' from an inside source they have.

I hope those politicians can act civil and not like spoiled children who aren't getting their way wen the nominee comes up. If the nominee is of upstanding character and is qualified (not about his politics, but his substance), then he should be approved without quarrel.

The Republicans did that for Ginsberg, arguably the most left wing justice on the court.

I hope the Democrats can do the same.

---

EDIT: Reuters is now reporting that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is indeed retiring....

 

It looks like Obi-Wan McCartney's crystal ball is indeed in good working order.

 

I hope the Senate can be civil, but I seriously doubt it.

It used to be that way at least before Democrats in the current Congress started something never before done in the history of this Democratic Republic: filibustering judicial nominees....

The GOP overwhelmingly approved even hard-core liberal justices such as Ginsberg, because she was qualified as an individual even though they didn't agree with her ideology.

This is one area where things should really be civil, and politis shouldn't come into it.

If the person is qualified, they should be given an up or down vote.

If a Democrat were in office, I would say the same. Let them have their USSC nominees when their time comes, as they have had in the past.

Vote them up or vote them down.

However, the minority party should not have control over the majority in situations like this. That's absurd, and it's like the behavior of spoiled children who can't have their way.... of which both the Democrats and the Republicans are guilty of.
.
.
.
.


EDIT: Here is Justice O'Connor's resignation letter to President Bush:

O'Connor resignation letter

Friday, July 1, 2005; Posted: 10:52 a.m. EDT (14:52 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Here is the resignation letter from Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to President Bush:

Dear President Bush:

"This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor.

"It has been a great privilege, indeed, to have served as a member of the Court for 24 terms.

"I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the Court and its role under our constitutional structure."

Sincerely,

Sandra Day O'Connor

 

WOW.

This is the worst possible choice for retirement in terms of a battle; she is center-right and a supporter of Roe.

I hope the senate can be civil DM, but abortion will take the center stage and dominate the nominations.

It's going to be brutal.

More later.

Peace,

V-03

 

As much as I wish he would, Bush isn't going to nominate another Justice in the mold of Scalia who I think interprets the Constitution the way it is supposed to be interpreted: as it is and not as he wishes it were.

 

From YOUR point of view.

I want a new Justice who will interpret the constitution as it is, not as they think it SHOULD be, not as they think it would be if they had been on the bench for 200 years.

The constitution currently protects abortion rights. I hope the new justice doesn't decide to ignore the rule of law. I kinda hope its this Gonzales. Torture memo aside, he seems to at least respect the rule of law.

What many of you don't appreciate is that the constitution was written with the Americanized system of common-law in mind.

 

The constitution currently protects abortion rights.

Please show me exactly where it does that, OWM: not your wishing it was in the document or making some stretch of an interpretation which wasn't the intent, but where it actually gives such an implicit right.

I would have no problem if it was done approprately, as in the Congress passing such a law legalizing it, even if I didn't agree.

The same goes for gay marriage and so on.

Not that this is really an issue to begin with as Roe v. Wade - as bad of law as it is - will never get overturned.

There is a process to Amend the US Constitution to convey rights. The Courts are not supposed to amend it themselves to include rights that do not exist within the document.

 

NEWS FLASH: President Bush to speak to the nation at 11:15 a.m. EST

 

Which means now.

 

The President asked for a: 'fair hearing, fair treatment of the nominee and a fair vote'... all of which sounds very fair to me.

 

We'll see how fair it gets. He calls for a lot of things and then turns his back on them.

 

Here at the law school all my liberal classmates are real worried and shocked.

However, Branthoris is right, my crystal ball was on the money. I knew it would be O'Connor. And I am not worried.

I have faith in Bush for some reason, maybe its cause Clinton has been greasing the family for awhile. The Democrats have been waiting for this moment. Furthermore, Bush will not nominate anyone who will overturn Roe. He just won't. The GOP doesn't even want to win that fight, they just want to be able to rally the support of the religous right. You put a theocrat on the bench and the next President of the United States will be Hillary Clinton.

Bush will pick Gonzales, or someone who is moderate and fair. It will piss of conservatives, but what does Bush care? It's legacy time.

Why do we need a Souter or a Scalia? Why not a moderate fair person whom we all agree is moderate and fair? What I want is a justice who believes in the rule of law, and who won't go on a bout of judicial activism to overturn past cases because of political beliefs. I want a fair and neutral jurist who will interpret the law as it stands today, not one who will try and turn back the clock to the dark ages.

 

What I want is a justice who believes in the rule of law, and who won't go on a bout of judicial activism to overturn past cases because of political beliefs. I want a fair and neutral jurist who will interpret the law as it stands today, not one who will try and turn back the clock to the dark ages.

Was Brown v. the Board of Education an activist ruling? After all, it overturned past cases because of political beliefs.

By using your argument, the Justices who served on the Court in the 1950s shouldn't have been allowed on the bench, because they overturned the law as it stood at that time.

There are many who argued at the time that Brown was "turn[ing] back the clock to the dark ages".

Kimball Kinnison

 

The Constitution...is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson

Yes, Thomas Jefferson knew the ramifications of an oligarchical judiciary. The same type of judiciary which has presided over this nation over the last 40+ years.

That's right, OWM, the USSC invented law that you wish to defend: in lawyerly fashion, they twisted the document to invent rights which the document does not speak of. Was not slavery abolished and the rights of blacks to be free men and women placed within the document?

Was not women's suffrage placed in the document to convey rights which did not exist beforehand?

I suppose you would say they were Unconstitutional before those Amendments were created when they were not.

Is there any right to marriage conveyed within the document? NO

Is there any right for termination of unborn pregnancies stated within the US Constitution? NO

It's interesting to see the real hysteria out there about this, and there is the genuine fear that the progressives will lose control of being able to legislate their politics from the judicial bench without being able to be held accountable to the people.

Let the legislature legislate.

Let the judiciary review.

---

It's rather late for me in the day as I work nights... time for me to retire to sleep (I can barely stay awake).

I'm sure the nomination will be coming in short order.