A VC« Blackberry 7100t (continued) | Main | Off to LA »
Issues 2004 - The Supreme Court
I enjoyed the back and forth of the Issues 2004 posts that Jeff Jarvis started and I and others followed his lead on. But they stopped about three weeks ago. The Presidential election campaign isn't over yet, and so I am going to add one to the mix.
The news yesterday that Chief Justice William Rehnquist has thyroid cancer and had an emergency tracheotomoy reminded me that one issue we all should care a lot about is the makeup of the Supreme Court.
There are two justices over 80 years old, Rehnquist and John Paul Stevens. Stevens is 84 and has been on the court since 1975, almost 30 years. Though none of the Justices is a youngster (Thomas at 56 is the youngest), most are in good health.
This is a Republican court. That was evident when it cast the tie-breaking vote in the contested 2000 election and gave the White House to Bush. But it's equally obvious when you look at the appointments. Seven of the nine justicres were appointed by Republican presidents. Nixon appointed Rehnquist, Ford appointed Stevens, Reagan appointed O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy. Bush I appointed Souter and Thomas. The two democratic appointments were Clinton's choices of Ginsburg and Breyer.
While this is a Republican court, and while its Chief is a conservative, its a fairly moderate court today. The moderate wing is made up of Ginsberg, Breyer, Stevens, and Souter (two of the four nominated by moderate Republicans). The conservative wing is made up of Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. O'Connor and Kennedy make up the middle and where they go, so goes the court.
I'm fine with the court we have today. But I am worried that if Bush gets elected, we'll have a move to the right which will take us places we probably don't want to go. If Stevens retires or, god forbid, dies in the next four years, Bush is likely to replace him with someone more like Scalia than Stevens. If Rehnquist's cancer is more serious than we know, Bush will replace him with someone similar, but will also in all liklihood appoint Scalia to the Cheif Justice position. And that's a scary proposition, even if you are a moderate Bush supporter.
There are a lot of issues before the Supreme Court that are important. Issues like Civil Rights (Gay Rights), Due Process (Patriot Act), First Amendment (Free Speech), and of course the most emotionally charged of all Roe v. Wade - the woman's right to choose.
Do we want a court that is pushed to the right? Do we want a court that will move to the left? Do we want something similar to what we have today?
Those are critical questions that each of us must ask ourselves as we go into the voting booth a week from today.
Comments (8) | | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2c969e200e5502219ba8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Issues 2004 - The Supreme Court:
Posted October 26, 2004 in PoliticsComments
I think this IS an important issue -- and if you look at gay marriage referendums, voters do NOT want gay marriage. So the only way it happens is through elitist (professorial?) judges.
You claim "it's fairly moderate" today. What decisions, other than allowing Florida to be recounted for Gore, would you think a radical Leftist Court would make differently?
If it does become a real issue, it's likely to hurt Kerry-- who will likely appoint judges forcing gay marriages to be legal.
Funny how the "democrats" want more law made by the least democratic branch of government.
(PS -- I just added a long comment to your fine Preacher / Professor post. With: If the US was a company: good growth, good profits, definitely high on debt but at very good rates. http://tomgrey.motime.com/1098739476#363549)
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad | Oct 26, 2004 6:25:38 AM
Justices do not make, and certainly don't force, legislation, they enforce law. That's fifth grade stuff my man...., Can't wait for your 'long comment', please....
Posted by: jackson | Oct 26, 2004 9:44:52 AM
Yay.
Posted by: Joe | Oct 26, 2004 11:28:27 AM
Can't believe that Tom would sit here supporting a Constitutional amendment for barring gay marriage, and use this as his defense for a conservative Supreme Court. Please!
It's this sort of insanity (or silliness) which detracts our country from the truly important issues to be addressed...like the lost trust in our gov't and corporations, tolerance for other cultures and systems of gov't, and helping our citizens stay healthy. Gay marriage shouldn't even make the list of important issues and in today's world should just be summarily ratified w/o discussion. What's the BIG deal?!
Posted by: P-Air | Oct 26, 2004 2:20:10 PM
I disagree with your comment, about the importance of the appointment to the U.s Supreme Court during the next four years , effecting a person decision about who to vote for.
The reason for this disagreement is that if Senator Kerry is elected President the majority make-up of the Senate will be Republican and conservative Democrats. Although the President nominates the justice it is the Senate that confirms. A liberal nomination would probably result in either withdrawing the nomination or in the candidate not being confirmed.If Senator Kerry is elected President hew will have to redign his Senate seat which would allow the Republican governor of Ma. to appoint a Republican thus increasing the opposition .
Posted by: Robert Krakes | Oct 26, 2004 8:11:43 PM
Jackson,
So much has changed since you were in the fifth grade, but then again, I'm not surprised you haven't kept up. Anyway, the EXECUTIVE branch enforces the law, and, at least in theory, the judicial branch INTERPRETS it. 'member? Good! OK, well you may want to check out the rulings of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, or if you want a Supreme Court decision, and I hate to sound so cliche, but do read Justice Blackmun's majority decision in Roe v. Wade. You may want to take your time here as there are lots of big words in these rulings but suffice it to say that these are pretty blatant examples of how the left legislates from the bench. Legislating from the bench is the rule for left wing judges in particular, hence the utter panic taking place in crunchy coffee shops all over America right now. Lefties like you, Jackson, are shaking so hard they can barely pour the sugar straight into their lattes. Without the courts, Jackson, your beloved left is neutered and powerless, given their minority status in the Congress, the White House, and in most state governorships and legislatures. If all you did was "interpret" the law, no one would give a hoot about judicial appointments, but alas, as soon-to-be ex-Senate Majority Leader Daschle, even the lowliest judicial appointee, regardless of competence, is worthy of a fillibuster by your party.
Also a note to everyone one else: I am actively buying Bush contracts on Tradesports.com and want to encourage any reluctant lefties to put their money where there mouth is and sell me some more!
Also to the guy who compared me to Tucker Carlson: you are a moron. I am much better looking than him.
Posted by: Hector | Oct 27, 2004 12:38:55 AM
I am scared Hector, scared of what this country will become if it continues down the path that the right is taking us. I don't want to be ruled over by a bunch of crazy gun toting god freaks that think they know how everybody should think and feel.
Posted by: jackson | Oct 27, 2004 12:21:30 PM
Do you want judges to do what the Constitution charges them with - interpreting laws - or do you want them to act as a super-legislative body? Liberal judges make law. In some cases they have made good (in my opinion) law so it has probably been good for the country, but the fact is, they make law. After sitting thru a Constitutional Law class in law school, I was shocked at how the liberal judges distort the Constitution. Liberals like the end result, but I have never found a liberal who could honestly say that what the courts are doing is proper. We are not a republic or a democracy; we are governed by a 9-person appointed body.
I'd rather see conservative judges who properly fulfill their Constitutional duties, and then if the other two branches of government need to fix problems, so be it. But that introduces significant transaction costs and delays into the system, so don't expect it anytime soon.
Posted by: Alan | Oct 27, 2004 5:14:36 PM
Main RSS Feed of All Posts
VC and Technology Posts Only
