Tue 26 Jul, 2005 07:26 pm
A lot of teeth gnashing from the left over the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. My questions for the more liberal amongst the folks here at A2K:
If Roberts is seated, and he actually turns out to be as conservative as Thomas and Scalia, what does the left do when they are on the wrong side of 5-4 rulings? There is actually quite a bit more to the whole situation then the rather narrow issue of Roe v Wade, but I am interested in what the response will be. Hit the streets in protest? The country has certainly tilted right, what with both houses of Congress and the presidency held by Repubs; what will be the result if the Supreme Court takes a certain tilt to the right
With that result, do some of you think this will help the Dems in 2008 if the Court takes a rightward turn?
And last, a number of conservative nominations to the court turned out to be rather liberal in their decisions and rulings. A liberal nomination has not turned out to be a conservative(at least in the last few decades). If some of the prior Repub picks for the court had actually turned out to be conservative, the court would have turned to the right in the '90's. Think it will happen again?
We will not do the same things as conservatives have done with Roe v. Wade which are: find ways of limiting the judical ruling by passing laws that do everything but eliminate a woman's right to choose and discourage persons from exercising their Constitutional rights through intimidation, coercion and bombing. It's a record to be proud of, isn't it? Meanwhile, they claim the moral high road. Sad chapter in behavior.
I believe that liberals will actually take the higher road in protecting the rights of individual Americans. As conservatives try to remove or limit Social Security, attempt to remove environmental protections, attempt to remove the protections of the accused in a court of law, attempt to reverse the social contract between the citizens of the USA and their government by eliminating Unemployment Insurance, reducing Medicaid and Medicare, and a variety of other actions that have the powerful drooling for commencement, the populace will carry themselves to the balloting places and vote for those things which safeguard our standard of living and our way of life.
Watch first for the decision in Gonzales v. Oregon which pits the Bush administration against Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, a law that the citizens of Oregon have voted for three times. It would be curious if the originialists on the Court found that the Citizens of a State would have to bend to the will of the Federal government in this matter. Curious but not without precedent, the Bobbsey Twins voted for Bush and against the citizens of Florida in Bush v. Gore, they may see their way to do the same again.
Here we go.
Joe Nation wrote:
Watch first for the decision in Gonzales v. Oregon which pits the Bush administration against Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, a law that the citizens of Oregon have voted for three times.
Since Gonzales v. Raich hit on the same issue of federal vs. State law over the regulation of drugs I doubt Gonzales v. Oregon will be much of an issue.
It would be curious if the originialists on the Court found that the Citizens of a State would have to bend to the will of the Federal government in this matter. Curious but not without precedent, the Bobbsey Twins voted for Bush and against the citizens of Florida in Bush v. Gore, they may see their way to do the same again.
Interesting that you finished with these comments since the "Bobbsey Twins" (along with O'Conner) were the one's that dissented in Gonzales v. Raich in favor of the states and it was the left wing of the court that decided Federalism trumped the voters of the state. Being the Roberts would be replacing O'Conner I'd think we should expect a 6-3 ruling in Gonzales v. Oregon with the voters of Oregon being told to go pound sand by Stevens & Co. again.