Will Rehnquist Announce His Retirement Tonight?
According to the Drudge Report, Chief Justice William Rehnquist is scheduled to announce his retirement tonight: http://www.drudgereport.com/
This is news that everyone expected to come about, in light of the ill health of the Chief Justice, whose opinions, although I have disagreed with over the years, I have grown to respect. Justice Rehnquist has had a philosophy, not an agenda, like Scalia and Thomas, in my opinion.
What is most serious, and has the most dramatic of all consequences is that Bush will be able to fill two vacancies in the U.S. Supreme Court. Our nation and the laws of this country will surely change, with the shift in the balance of power. Bush has already gone on record saying that he will make his own choices, leaving little room to believe that he is interested in selecting Justices who will unite and not divide this country as they will surely do in the court system. Bush is consistent in that he is the President, in charge of this country, and he will do it his way, period.
To me, these vacancies, and their impact are surely the most scary of all possibilities that can transpire during Bush's presidency, impacting on own own individual and civil rights in dramatic ways.
With two U.S. Supreme Court vacancies, can the center really hold with Bush as the President who nominates the successors?
This leaves me more worried about the future of this country than ever. What about you?
Thank you for your minds.
This is news that everyone expected to come about, in light of the ill health of the Chief Justice, whose opinions, although I have disagreed with over the years, I have grown to respect. Justice Rehnquist has had a philosophy, not an agenda, like Scalia and Thomas, in my opinion.
What is most serious, and has the most dramatic of all consequences is that Bush will be able to fill two vacancies in the U.S. Supreme Court. Our nation and the laws of this country will surely change, with the shift in the balance of power. Bush has already gone on record saying that he will make his own choices, leaving little room to believe that he is interested in selecting Justices who will unite and not divide this country as they will surely do in the court system. Bush is consistent in that he is the President, in charge of this country, and he will do it his way, period.
To me, these vacancies, and their impact are surely the most scary of all possibilities that can transpire during Bush's presidency, impacting on own own individual and civil rights in dramatic ways.
With two U.S. Supreme Court vacancies, can the center really hold with Bush as the President who nominates the successors?
This leaves me more worried about the future of this country than ever. What about you?
Thank you for your minds.
13 Comments:
I am not worried, as I said before with the Sandra Day O'Connor resignation, because I think Bush will appoint a moderate at best. Even if he doesn't, history shows us that most conservative judges tend to grow moderate.
All that being said, there are really only two types of Supremes: strict historical interpretation, or modified according to modern times. I think Bush will probably try to nominate the first, and not the second.
Just remember, the Supremes don't write the laws (at least they're not supposed to). They merely interpret them. The ones who write the laws are in the Congress. They are the ones we need to be concerned about, IMHO.
Saurkraut, I wish that what you say could be correct, but Bush has done nothing in his track record to indicate that he would even consider appointing a moderate, either through his cabinet or judicial appointments.
To me, as a woman, in particular, I am am piggy-backing on this post from below, this could have dramatic effects for women and their rights, and we may go back to the late 50s. God forbid, we see separartion of people on the basis of race or religion again, but I am looking at the mentality of this President and where he is heading in this country. It is scary.
I will frankly admit, I can't stand Bush. There is so much wrong, I don't know where to begin. But there is only so much he can do, unless he is able to pass new laws that would restrict our freedoms. That would require the collaboration of Congress. Then, it would require a Supreme court that would be willing to rule against constitutionally guaranteed rights.
I believe that the only thing that is potentially in jeopardy would be abortion. Even then, it would be remanded to the states, not banned outright.
Or is there something in particular that you are thinking about?
I know that many people will say that I am upset over nothing, that I don't yet know who Bush will nominate, etc., etc.
I accept that I must try to take an optimistic view and I'm doing my level best to do that. But I truly believe that Bush will TRY to appoint people that he hopes will overturn abortion rights, and some other rights that I value.
If his appointees turn out to be moderates, I believe that will be an accident, not his intention.
I'm moving to Tristan Da Cunha.
Great. Now The Shrub gets to put two on the court.
And saurkraut, keep this in mind. Bush is in the pocket of the right wing evangelical movement. He failed to protect Terri Schaivo. Abortion is still legal. Birth control is still legal.
The evangelicals are demanding that Bush give them something. So far, he has not delivered to them anything.
Jeb needs them for his presidential bid. He has failed them in Floida. It is up to his brother to bring home the bacon.
And this is a perfect time to do so.
I do not look for any moderates to get nominated. Bush has already pulled the "fair up or down vote" speech out of his rear end. That can only mean one thing. He will appoint whoever he wants, and the Senate better just vote on it. No debate, no fillabuster, just a yes vote.
i think bush will surprise everyone and renominate robert bork
and i think the senate will surprise everyone and approve him......57-43
with ben nelson crossing party lines and pledging allegiance to bush
I'm not worried, becuase I don't see Bush as an ultra-wacky conservative. I actually think he is a man of reason. We'll just have to see who he nominates, but I don't think that he will choose someone just so they will try and repeal Roe v Wade. That would be silly, and if some ultra conservs get their panties in a wad over who he nominates, than so be it. I am a conservative, but I am NOT a wacky one. Let's just say that Jerry Fallwell is not someone I like very much.
I'm only hoping for judges that strictly interpret and do not try and legislate from the bench. I think Bush wants that same thing too.
Well, at least Rehnquist did not announce his retirement last night as set forth, but it will happen, and I bet it will be before the start of the first term in the first Monday of October.
I do not see any way that the center can hold in a moderate position with two vacancies and this President.
Of course, I could take my mind on a trip to fantasyland, or Disneyland and pontificate that Bush is fair, will do the right thing, nominate a moderate so that the center will hold, but this is not his thinking nor track record.
I would LOVE to be proven wrong in this case. In fact, it would make my year!
that's a presidents choice... if it wasn't it would be up for a vote... suddenly Bush is the only president to wanna do things his way? jeez...
Bruce-ter,
Do you believe that it is possible to have someone who is a moderate as opposed to a liberal strict constructionalist? Do you think that one strict constructionalist can differ from another (Rehnquist v. Thomas?) Do you think it would make a differnce if someone was a strict constructionist chosen by Clinton v. Bush?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home