O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court

Great. Now this is the intellectual direction this thread should be heading towards. Much better than the last few pages.

gasp...gulp...swallow....

So, dad, I'll chuck myself back over the fence and apologize to old lady Hatchfield...no, bad start...

cough...odd how listening to Ella Fitzgerald while apologizing is like crossing one's fingers behind one's back and nixing it...no, no good....

Duh. It is embarrassing to find one has been sending reports back from the wrong planet. I do apologize, to foxfyre, lash, a few other folks who have been hitting me on the head listening for an echo or some trace of consciousness, and to you dad.

That ought to get me that bike.

Hurray!!! Bernie's back!

It may only be temporary. In any fast-draw situation, I can whip out my two-barrel moral indignation faster than the average eye-blink, and I know it. It's a temptation. Like owning a large military, you just want to take it out for a spin now and again in front of the neighbors.

My neighbour has something he likes to take out for a midnight spin once in a while. His mother finally got blinds for his room.

Me, too.

jn bm

Hey, topic!

TOPIC! Over here ...

Back in the mid 30's, FDR attempted what was described as a 'court packing scheme' to install up to six justices of his choice on the Supreme Court. His choice was for judges who would be strict Constitutionalists instead of what he perceived to be excessively overriding the legislative branch and doing social activism. (He must really be rolling in his grave now.) He wanted to retire the old judges and thus have the ability to appoint his own. The Senate Judiciary committee did not want to change the Constitution.

It just goes to show that the more things change, the more they are the same. (Edits to remove extraneous phrase and correct awkward syntax.)

This cartoon was printed June 15, 1937.

Foxy - with that thought in mind, you'll enjoy this article by William Kristol.

Reversing the Bork Defeat
With a Republican Senate, President Bush has the chance to succeed where Reagan failed by getting a conservative constitutionalist confirmed to the Supreme Court. by William Kristol
07/01/2005 8:30:00 PM

ON OCTOBER 23, 1987--a day that lives in conservative infamy--Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by a Democratic Senate. Now, 18 years later, George W. Bush has the chance to reverse this defeat, and to begin to fulfill what has always been one of the core themes of modern American conservatism: the relinking of constitutional law and constitutional jurisprudence to the Constitution.

The restoration of constitutional government has been the one area in which modern conservatism has had the least success. From Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, conservative economic policies have been (more or less) pursued, and, when pursued, have been vindicated. From Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, conservative foreign policies based on American strength and American principles have been--when pursued--remarkably successful. One might even say that, in both economics and foreign policy, the degree of conservative success has been far greater than anyone would have imagined in 1980.

But in the area of constitutionalism, conservative goals have been thwarted, and the key moment of failure, from which conservative constitutionalism has never recovered, was the Bork defeat in 1987. For the last 18 years constitutional jurisprudence has continued to drift away from a sound constitutionalism based on the written Constitution and a proper deference to popular self-government in many areas of public life. Bork's defeat was both a cause and a symbol of this continued downward drift. Now, with one of the two swing votes on the Supreme Court stepping down, George W. Bush has a
chance to begin to make constitutional history, as he is certainly attempting to do in foreign policy and, to a lesser degree, in economic policy.

There are two pieces of good news to keep in mind as President Bush ponders his choice. The first is that, by contrast with the situation in 1987, the Senate has a Republican majority. The second is that President Bush can choose from among many, many well-qualified conservative constitutionalists. Although President Bush is understandably fond of and loyal to his attorney general Alberto Gonzales, it's simply a fact that Gonzales does not have the stature of several other possible candidates. I now believe that, though tempted, President Bush will leave his attorney general in his current office.

The president has the luxury of choosing among such candidates as Michael McConnell, probably the leading constitutional thinker of his generation, now serving on the 10th Circuit; J. Michael Luttig, who has served with great distinction for 14 years on the 4th Circuit; the remarkable Janice Rogers Brown, with almost a decade on the California Supreme Court and a recent confirmation to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; as well as other federal and state supreme court judges--some of whom happen to be women (if that matters), and all of whom have strong credentials.

Most of the Democrats will fight any strong candidate. It won't matter if that candidate doesn't have a paper trail, because any nominee will have to make his or her general manner of constitutional thinking clear to the Senate--which thinking will almost inevitably provoke opposition from the left. But such opposition, however vociferous the rhetoric, will not be unstoppable. Indeed, looking at the current Senate, I do not believe that there are 40 Democratic votes to sustain a filibuster against an objectively well -qualified conservative nominee. And in any case a filibuster would be very difficult for the Democrats to defend.

George W. Bush's has been a Reaganite presidency in the areas of foreign and economic policy. He has impressively adjusted Reaganite principles to deal with today's challenges. Now he has the chance to once again follow Reagan's lead by nominating a jurist as impressive as Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. And now he has the chance to surpass Reagan--by getting that nominee confirmed.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/785iwcii.asp

Every time I hear Bork speak now, I feel deep regret that he was barred from serving on the High Court. It was truly a loss for the entire country.

Topic nothin.........I was just enjoying the melt down. See what happens when I leave New York for Salem, Oregon of all places and just for the week end? Every body has a fuking conversion experience and before I know it, I'll be swimming around with a bunch of converted nice people....... Yuck! Still, it's good to get humble occasionally. Bernie did need a little slapping around, so thanks y'all. Now me, I never get arrogant. (snicker)

Good job you guys, no kidding. Now back to work.

Darn, missed you by two weeks Lola. I'm headed out there later this month. And never fear, your arrogance is always lovable.

Just to get things going again:

O'Conner's leaving marks the end of an era of the Court protecting and expanding the rights of the individual.

The Court that forms in October under Chief Justice Scalia, (Rehnquist -he of the arm blazoned gown- will announce his departure soon), will be a 6-3 machine for many years. If such things as the Miranda decision, Roe vs Wade, even, I believe, Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka came before such a Court, those decisions would not be affirmed. A challenge to the Voting Rights Acts of 1964 would be upheld and the law rejected as duplicative.

As long as originalists, as Scalia describes himself, are writing the rulings there will be no finding that the State has any responsibility to inform a citizen of their rights, nor does there exist a zone of privacy, much less a right to privacy, pertaining to oneself other than those precluding searches, and, despite the 14th Amendment's wording, the Court's decision in Plessy v Ferguson would be upheld as reflecting the original intent of the people at the time of it's passage. Scalia has already said that he couldn't have ruled that the 14th Amendment covered the right of women to vote, he says it didn't in 1868, it doesn't now. The people have to pass Constitutional Amendment in order to secure their rights according to him.

In other words, if you can't show that yours is a majority opinion, you have no opinion.

As to what blacks were supposed to do to secure their rights already covered by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, Justice Scalia has not said, but I think he would agree that the Voting Rights Acts of 1964 are redundant to the Fifteenth and are therefore unnecessary, all black people have to do is ask the States of Mississippi, Arkansas and Georgia to allow them to vote unrestricted. No need of Federal intervention, right?

Joe (Hang on, it's going to be a bumpy ride)Nation

Lovable arrogance, that's a distinguished accomplishment. Thank you, Foxfyre. Your arrogance is lovable too. You'll be in Salem? It's a sleepy little town, pleasant but slow for my taste.

I haven't time right now to comment on the topic itself....but I will when I get home. I'm busy helping my daughter make up her mind about what to do for the rest of her life. We're thinking journalism.

A picture is worth ten thousand thousand words.

That's excellent, au.

Au, nice find. I have been really stunned and saddened by the O'Connor news. I haven't even been able to think about it, the repercussions seem to scary.

Thats mere trivia, what I remember most was the ultra conservative campaign during the 50's "Empeach Earl Warren" that went on billboards alsongside "Eisenhower is a Communist Sympathizer" Does anyone else remember Robert Welch and the support he got from William F Buckley Jr? I am sure Welch would love Bush 43.