Archive for Friday, June 29, 2007
Bush nears solidly conservative court
June 29, 2007
Advertisement
The war in Iraq is a mess, and the immigration bill appears dead. But one branch of government is working out as President Bush planned.
It's the Supreme Court, which ended its 2006-07 term Thursday with rulings on a Texas death penalty case involving the mental health of a double murderer and two affirmative action cases.
Previous decisions this term indicate that, by installing Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, Bush already has come closer than either Ronald Reagan or his own father toward achieving the long-held conservative goal of a solid Supreme Court majority.
It could become one of his most lasting presidential legacies.
The impact of his two nominees was underscored this week by a trio of decisions. One limited the rights of citizens to sue over perceived violations of the separation of church and state. Another supported high school authorities who suspended a student over a banner they said challenged their anti-drug message.
In two of the cases, Roberts wrote the opinion for a 5-4 majority; in the third, Alito did. Earlier this year, their votes enabled the court to reverse its prior position and uphold the law banning a controversial late-term abortion procedure, one of several 5-4 rulings in which they helped to forge a conservative majority.
Thus, a strong pattern has emerged, although in some cases, the scope of rulings has been sufficiently narrow to limit their impact as precedents.
Nevertheless, the emergence of what court-watchers are already calling the Roberts Court has raised the stakes on the 2008 election. It may well determine the degree to which the chief justice will be able to maintain a conservative majority the next few years.
That's because the three justices most likely to leave the court are all members of the liberal-to-moderate bloc that was outvoted with increasing frequency in the just-ending court term.
They are John Paul Stevens, 87, the court's oldest and longest-serving justice; Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 74, whose health has been questionable; and David Souter, 67, who reportedly yearns to spend more time in his native New Hampshire.
Election of another Republican president who could replace just one of them with someone in the Roberts-Alito mold might cement the conservative majority.
Election of a Democrat who could replace any of them with a like-minded justice would bolster the court's liberal-to-moderate bloc and enable it to expand into a majority if one of the conservatives left.
This assumes that the current nine members stay through next year's election. There have been no recent rumors of retirements, and it's widely believed that Bush would have difficulty winning confirmation of another conservative justice from the Democratic Senate.
It doesn't mean he won't try.
Several weeks ago, ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg, one of the most astute court-watchers and author of a recent book about the administration's effort to push it to the right, wrote on the ABC News Web site that the White House is developing a short list of possible nominees in the event of a vacancy.
According to Greenburg, Bush told aides he wanted to nominate a woman or a minority, and his short list included several conservative women mentioned for prior openings, including Judges Priscilla Owen of Texas and Janice Rogers Brown, a black from California now sitting on the federal appeals bench in Washington.
The conventional wisdom is that the Democratic Senate would block such a nomination, bottling it up in the Judiciary Committee or preventing a floor vote.
But a prominent conservative commentator, Ed Whelan, recently rejected such thinking as "unsound," noting at National Review Online that enough Democrats are politically vulnerable in conservative states that the Senate would have to give any nominee an up-or-down vote.
Given the way Democrats are playing "hard ball" with Bush's choices for the appellate courts, that may be wishful thinking.
But Democrats probably hope the situation won't arise, leaving any vacancies up to the next president at a time when they have good reason to believe it may well be a Democrat.
- Carl P. Leubsdorf is Washington bureau chief of the Dallas Morning News.
More like this
- Two Democrats say they'll oppose Alito January 20, 2006
- Bush announces new Supreme Court nominee: Alito 21 comments / October 31, 2005
- Alito takes seat on Supreme Court February 1, 2006
- Ruling puts abortion on campaign agenda April 20, 2007
- Democrats gear up for debate as panel backs Alito's nomination January 25, 2006
Top ads RSS
- RETIREMENT COMMUNITY Pioneer Ridge Retirement Community is currently accepting applications ...
- Dance Coach Kansas Athletics, Inc. Responsible for 10 - 20 ...
- KU Office of Institutional Research & Planning
- Live On Site Manager- Self storage complex in Kansas City ...
- NOW HIRING ALL POSITIONS Come by the store and fill ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Blog: Dillons, Hyvee, And Checkers — I'Ve Shopped And Compared. See The Results. November 8, 2009 · 139 comments
- House narrowly passes health care bill November 7, 2009 · 67 comments
- Crumbling of Berlin Wall still worth celebrating November 8, 2009 · 20 comments
- Poll: Would you vote the same way today as you did for president in 2008? November 6, 2009 · 83 comments
- Blog: I Am A Stripper. November 3, 2009 · 325 comments
- Mass shooting worst ever at U.S. military base; 12 killed November 6, 2009 · 190 comments
- Killing daughter can’t be matter of honor November 8, 2009 · 33 comments
- Repossessions up amid downturn November 8, 2009 · 22 comments
- KU task force to focus on retaining students November 8, 2009 · 22 comments
- Maine repeals gay-marriage law in historic vote November 4, 2009 · 240 comments
- KU task force to focus on retaining students November 8, 2009
- American heritage: KU contributes to new Native galleries at Nelson-Atkins November 8, 2009
- Baldwin City resident finds his voice through karaoke ‘hobby’ November 8, 2009
- Voters share their thoughts on politics in the past year November 8, 2009
- KU women defeat Emporia State, 85-48, in exhibition finale November 8, 2009
- Western union: ‘Only Good Indian’ explores cultural history through revisionist drama November 6, 2009
- Veterinary service: Lawrence vet spays, neuters animals abroad March 9, 2009
- Wildcats fired up November 8, 2009
- Public invited to forum on proposal for new homeless shelter on East 23rd Street November 6, 2009
- Repossessions up amid downturn November 8, 2009
29 June 2007
at 10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Crossfire (Anonymous) says…
King George's Court Jesters Pull Some Jokes On The Last Day Then Run Away.
This Supreme Court is like a little old woman driving a luxury car through the playground.
It is sad and funny but she is killing our children.
29 June 2007
at 11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
Of all Bush's shortcomings, he has done a wonderful job with the Supreme Court.
29 June 2007
at 1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
50YearResident (Anonymous) says…
What? Bush appoints only people that are indebted to him and idolize him and you people say he is doing a great job! The Supreme Court is nothing but Bush A$$ Kissers.
29 June 2007
at 2 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jimincountry (Anonymous) says…
The supreme court appointments……….we are lucky the President's 1st choice of Harriet was successful! Now if we could get Ginsburg to resign………how sweet it would be!
29 June 2007
at 2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jimincountry (Anonymous) says…
errata: ….unsuccessful….
29 June 2007
at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…
R oberts
A lito
T homas
S calia
=
R.A.T.S.
29 June 2007
at 4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kshiker (Anonymous) says…
Oracle of Rhode —
Didn't I see you object to “name-calling” on another forum? While that was arguably a highly intelligent argument against traditional literalist jurisprudence you just made there, I'm pretty sure that would be considered name-calling when you disparage four highly-respected and learned legal professionals as rodents. Good job and way to demonstrate your intelligence and maturity!
29 June 2007
at 4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Lepanto1571 (Anonymous) says…
Reality Check:
Precedent - Precedent is an overated concept of jurisprudence. If precedent were the silver bullet of judicial opinion, bad judgements would never be overturned. You certainly would not be in favor of a return to the “precedent” established by 'Dred Scott?' Sometimes “precedent” is just bad, and should be overturned.
Re: the “make-up” of the court: What would make anyone think that the composition of the Supreme Court should reflect, of all things, the political demographics of the populace? What if 80% of the populace were Fascists? National Socialists? Marxists? I do not see what the “mainstream” of America has to do with the competence of someone to interpret the United States Constitution. In fact, the judiciary should be apolitical.
Basing judicial appointments on the opinions of the masses seems, to me, a dangerous litmus test. I would think that competence in jurisprudence would be the single most important factor in determining a Supreme Court Justice, not the shifting political opinions of the citizenry.
The real issue is over the philosophies of judicial constructionism or judicial liberalism (actually interpreting the Constituion vs mining it to find new “precedents”). Unfortunately today, political leanings are important; especially to Senators at confimation hearings who worry about how a judicial candidate would view cases where the Constitution is actually silent. While there are provisions for such cases within the Constitution itself, this is rarely heeded, which has left the judiciary vulnerable for use as a political instrument, vulnerable to the machinations of legislators, bought and paid for by special interest, seeking to accomplish through the courts what they lack the political will and courage to enact in legislation.
29 June 2007
at 4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…
kshiker,
I've never objected to name calling, you lying idiot.
29 June 2007
at 5:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
drewdun (Anonymous) says…
Shorter rt: “far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…far-left…”
shorter kevin: “Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…Clinton…”
29 June 2007
at 5:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
erod0723 (Anonymous) says…
Bush has abused his privileges as president and now we are stuck with a court which alarmingly appears to consider civil liberties secondary to the will of the worst president in memory.
“”Roberts and Sammy “The Fish” Alito are way far right of the American mainstream, and everyone knew it.”
Translation = They follow the Constitution.”
How is keeping people from challenging the separation between church and state, which is found in the constitution, following the constitution? How is limiting the freedom of speech following the constitution? This court is determined to follow Bush blindly, with the result that we will soon live in a totalitarian state where the government can detain or spy on any citizen or occupant of this country without consequence… oh wait…..
29 June 2007
at 7:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
erod0723 (Anonymous) says…
Ferd the terd,
you are an idiot if you think there is no separation between church and state in the constitution. How bout you look up Amendment Numero Uno. It is historically been the right that has trampled on the rights of citizens… Hmm lets think… civil rights … suffrage… same-sex marriage. Here are the things the right cares about: lowering taxes so that you can buy another house, boat or plasma screen tv, infringing on the rights of others because it's “not natural”, trying to force Jesus down the throats of all Americans. The (Im)Moral Majority was one of the single worst things to happen to our country in the 90s. It's venom is still harming the citizens of this country to this day.
29 June 2007
at 7:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Crossfire (Anonymous) says…
I wonder what “X-Tex Governor Kill-em-all George” thinks about the decision not to go forward with the execution of the insane Texas man convicted of murder.
29 June 2007
at 7:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Crossfire (Anonymous) says…
What do a bunch of old south Klansmen have to do with this?
…oh wait, The Dixiecrats would have liked the courts hit and run decisions.
29 June 2007
at 8:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
erod0723 (Anonymous) says…
If you look at the political beliefs of the dixiecrats with the republican party at the time, you will find startling similarities. If it was the democrats were vile as you imply, why were MLK, Malcom X, and Medger Evers supportive of Democrat candidates?
29 June 2007
at 8:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Crossfire (Anonymous) says…
The Dixiecrats were the same as the KKK, who hid behind sheets, and would be a member of what ever political social or religious group they could shield themselves behind.
29 June 2007
at 9:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Lepanto1571 (Anonymous) says…
Erod:
Amendment 1 to the United States Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Please explain where in this amendment to the Constitution one would find that Church, or any religion for that matter, is to be eradicated from affairs of State. In fact, it is obvious to the casual observer that it was designed to afford an unprecedented protection to a multi-denominational citizenry. Since the vision for America was that of a pluralistic society where Catholics, Lutherans, Methodist, Baptists, Jews and all others were going to reside in a melting pot together, this was not only genius, as no such thing existed in a post-reformation Europe, it was also prudent to prevent the citizenry of a fledgling nation from tearing itself apart through wars and conflicts of religion, as Europe had known continuously for about 250 years at the time of the drafting of the US Constitution.
It was further designed to provide protection to the government and the people by disallowing the establishment of a national church/religion akin to the national church of the country we were revolting against, with a king (George III), and the easy imposition of tyranny, as its head.
It took until the 20th century for the judiciary to plumb the Constitution and invent a “separation clause” to begin the eradication of religion from the public square. “Separation” of CHURCH (a word that doesn't exist in the Constitution) and state, as we understand it today, was not a thing that was in the minds or vision of the founders as witnessed by their extensive writings and their reference to religion as a necessity in the sustenance of a virtuous populace: the key ingredient in maintenance of the very liberty they were attempting to create.
29 June 2007
at 11:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Nice post Lepanto!
Where ya been?
30 June 2007
at 12:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Lepanto1571 (Anonymous) says…
Hey Marion,
Longtime. Been busy taking care of family and health matters. I come up and read from time to time, but with such a regulated format, I find it difficult to light the fire as compared with the old BBS format where you could start a thread, get personal, pile on, say anything you wanted, and jump neck deep into the miasma of democracy in all its chaotic fun. This is a little too bulky, lumbering and regulated for my taste, but what are you going to do, heh?
I did check back in with you guys back in December at RCT, I re-registered and everything; but by the time I got around to having time to post, you had closed down the store!
Anyway, good to make contact again. Take care.
30 June 2007
at 12:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
Lepanto: “In fact, the judiciary should be apolitical.”
That's really the problem, isn't it? A conservative majority will not mean an apolitical court, any more than it would mean that the Supreme Court would stop working off of precedences, or interpreting the constitution as opposed to simply enforcing it. The constitution is a sparse document, so without interpretation, the main thing the court would be doing, largely, would be saying that this particular matter is not the courts or the governments business. Understand, I would love it were this to happen, but its not going to by a conservative majority. What would happen is that the conservative agenda, which is my no means either factually, morally, universally, or fundamentally correct, regardless of the large loosely organized group of people that would like us to believe that it is, would be the new type of interpretation, precendence setting/searching, etc. You can't honestly believe that such would not be the case, can you?
It's good to see you here, by the way.
30 June 2007
at 6:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yankeelady (Anonymous) says…
A previous post observed that the conservative posts way outnumber the rest of us, (moderate to liberal). And I agree that the actual mix is probably fairly even, The same thing happened in the last couple of elections cycles. The majority of the right gets out to vote while a lot of the rest of us sit on our butts because we are too busy. We need to get out the vote to change things. We got here thru lack of motivation.
30 June 2007
at 7:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Crossfire (Anonymous) says…
Lepanto: “In fact, the judiciary should be apolitical.”
9 honest Judges without a political agenda making decisions.
Isn't that what the court was supposed to be?
30 June 2007
at 7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
Yankeelady: “The majority of the right gets out to vote while a lot of the rest of us sit on our butts because we are too busy.”
Here, I'll fix this for you. “The majority of the right gets out to vote while a lot of the rest of us sit on our butts because we are too lazy.”
30 June 2007
at 9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…
Many if not most of the conservatards are Non-Lawrencians who troll here from remote locations to start fights and spew hate. “Cyber Quantrills,” I call 'em. Thanks guys, enjoy the sticks!
30 June 2007
at 9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yankeelady (Anonymous) says…
Jonas—whatever the reason, there has to be a way to get people to realize that voting should be as much a part of their routine as working, shopping, whatever. How to get them informed and out to vote is the real issue. And how to get more information than the sound bites the media doles out to us.
30 June 2007
at 10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
yankeelady: Believe me, I agree. I'm open to suggestions. Myself, I'm pretty much drawing a blank. I've voted in the last four election processes, and will continue to. I also consider myself a moderate, but I pretty much motivated myself for all of that, so I don't know about other folks. I think a large part of it is simple hopelessness. Looking, for instance, at a forum like this one, you get two diametrically opposed, yet eerily similar sides. The only things they don't share are the specific ideological agendas that they promote and blindly defend. I think too many of the middle folk see the political sphere in the same way.
I don't have an answer. I'm pretty much just setting up my life to minimize my dependency on the government, and I vote for gridlock: get the floor mixed evenly enough and, at the least, neither side can gain enough of an advantage to actually do anything.
30 June 2007
at 8:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
Yawn. Using political terms, even if unchanged in name, from over a century ago is meaningless. I might as well call you a Tory. (Tori? Hell if I can remember)
30 June 2007
at 9:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pelliott (Anonymous) says…
well, my hope is that the supreme court will surprise all of us, they might interpret some issues far differently than how many of us think we can stand but if they stick to the constitution and the amendments there is a lot of surprises for many political sides. Legal decisions often veer away from a popularity poll from the hill. Wise of Bush to trust lawyers to be the only unblemished legasy of a failed administration. Actually risky chance of that, there is a lot of follow the dough in that administration. i hope not though.
1 July 2007
at 5:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Crossfire (Anonymous) says…
Quantrill and his followers were Democrats.
Hussein and his followers were Republicans.