Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS: Actually, We've Already Won (350 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Roberts appears to be a concensus selection (none)
    And it appears that Leahy didnt offer strong opposition to it.

    But regardless of this, given the state of this administration ahd what it ias doing to tyhe chances for republican wins in both 2006 and 2008. I think we need not worry to much about the makeup of the court after 2008, as it will be more likely than not that a democrat will be decideing who will be replacing the next six retiring Supreme Court justices, If you look at the ages, a considerable number of justices will be either of an age resulting in retirement or leaving their posts for other reasons. Whoever holds office between 2008 and 2012 will be looking at a court with at least five justices in their seventies. Now some of these are considered liberal, however, if they leave, there will be an opportunity to replace them with candidates with  more liberal leaning stances. Bush may get to replace two justices, the next persident will more than likely replace 4, perhaps five. We have Stevens born in 1920, Ginsburg in 1933 Scalia and Kennedy, both born in 1936, Breyer in 1938, Souter born in 39, and Thomas in 1948.

    Statistical odds, given the years of birth are that at least half of these justices will have to be replaced due to natural causes, due to average mortality rates for those years of birth, regardless of the better than average quality of care they get.

    Besides, none of these guys, except for perhaps Ginsberg and Breyer are in any way shape or form "liberals" except by comparison to other justices, and remember that even the most liberal of these justices has considerable baggage that is not all that great under their robes. Breyer played an important role in the deregulation of airlines, leaving us with the current mess we are in. And Ginzberg has made some decisions that have made feminists furious.

    Even pulling the nuclear trigger in the next couple of years will weigh in democrats favor come 2006 or 2008, as the likelihood of democratic wins in both years become more obvious.

    •  Very true (none)
      I think the Republicans have made an at least historical mistake in terms of timing. By wanting it all now, they show their worse side at a tiime they should be solidifying their power to stay in power in the branches that matter
    •  What did the Democrats (none)
      say about this guy?  Were they consulted?  Was Roberts run past them?  What did they say about him?  Inquiring minds want to know.

      "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." George Bernard Shaw

      by Shygetz on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 09:12:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually so far the info is (none)
        That the Democrats, particularly those on the judiciary comittee were consulted and that Roberts was a consensus selection. That is someonw that the Democrats on th Judiciary comittee found acceptable, though not the exact type of consesus they were hoping for: a woman or a hispanic as Leahy himself was quoted as saying.) However, Roberts, in his short judicial history has issues no controversial judgements. The only one that anyone can come up with is the riduculious french fry arrest, which is really hardly a major issue. And his judgement  was pretty much what you would expect from a strict constructionist judge. If its against the law to eat on public transportation, and you get arrested, thats it. You broke a law,and no matter how old you are, you broke a law. The judge s there to uphold the existing law not to alter the law, unless the law is overwhelmingly unconstitutional. Or at least that is their take on the law. The legislature makes the law, they interpret whether the law is being applied constitutionally.

        No one expected that Bush was going to appoint a liberal. Or even a a centrist. HE was going to appoint a conservative. Expected. Roberts is someone that DEmocrats dont necessarily like. But again, he is not the kind of Red flag nominee that is triggering a massive firestorm in Senate so far (but then again, its still early in the game) Unless some smoking gun on Roberts is located, he will get the nomination and it may end up being unanimous.

        However, Democrats are going to have to get their act together and do some serious prioritization of issues to fight and not fight.Which means that things like Roe v. Wade may have to take precedence over issues like gay marriage. Democrats are going to have to pick ther battles rather than try to fight them all at once. The needs of the many will have to outwiegh the needs of the few, and life and death issues will have to take priority over those of mere convenience. This is what has cost democrats election after election, and in fact, what has allowed Republicans to siphon off Black and Hispanic voters. There are just too many socially conservative and fiscally liberal democrats around to annoy.

        However, Roberts is just the kind of nominee that Democrats want in order for the Republicans to have to face the public in 2006 andd 2008.

        And Roberts can be seen in two lights. He has openly stated that Roe is the law of the land, which may be a mere lie. But is also makes him a rather wobbly selection from the point of view of the anti-abortion crowd.

        Roberts was among the top four potential nominees that Bush discussed with Democrats he spoke with on this issue.

        Problem is that Roberts is totally a cipher. He has made decisions that have cut in both directions. Roberts experience is basically as a partsan hack, and overall he has been far from consistant in his decisions. WHile he is a statend conservative, there is nothing in his decisions that place him outside of the modern mainstream of judges. Overall, Roberts has been a cipher, and that may proove to be a problem for either Democrats or Republicans, as most people of Roberts ilk have ended up moving to the left, towards the center, as opposed to those klike Scalia, with known strong decision prior to nomination.

        Looking at Roberts decisions he seems to be against things except for when he is not. In virtually everything, he has contradicted himself. He has been against strong government except whern he was for it, he has been against abortion except when he was for it,

        In some ways, Bush got what he wanted, a nominee so unobjectionable that he would not face a filibuster. And that means a lot. It means he is weak willed enough to be influenced by the moderates in the court.

        My guess. Bush has made his concessions to the social conservatives with this one. He is not ALL they expected, but he is acceptable to them. This leaves Bush free to replace Renquist with Gonzoles, which is what I expect will happen.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site