i think abortion is immoral, wrong, murder. and the whole list of things. but a damn good percentage of america doesn't agree. and since democrats have been for a couple decades now running on pro choice platforms...and since his state voted democrat...i think its stupid for yall to expect otherwise. regardless like it or not the democrats will fillabuster if a pro life appointment is sent to the senate. the republican wish of a 35 year old cuban with the mind and scholarship of scalia aint as easy as it sounds.
Shouldn't the Supreme Court, by definition, be a conservative entity? Holding to the founding principles of this nation...
conservative in the legal sense yes. conservative in the political sense no. in the legal sense roe v wade would stand because of precedence. once something has been decided theres no need to re-decide unless there are new mitigating circumstances. in the political sense obviously conservative means something else.
I think the point is that Roe v. Wade should not have been "decided" in the first place. What's wrong with correcting an over-reach?
What exactly have the Dems said the president has no right to do? The president nominates, the Senate approves. It is in the interest of everyone involved for the president to nominate people who have a chance of actually making it through the nomination process in order to avoid a fractious process. Obviously, the president has every right to nominate people of his choosing, but he should expect, should he nominate someone like Pickering, that unacceptable candidates will be refused by enough Senators that it would be a waste of everyone's time and effort to nominate such a candidate. I believe that the party leadership assigns chairmanships, but those assignments are only made if the incumbent chairman is no longer in Congress. Current chairpeople are not reassigned without their consent AFAIK.
If you're a Republican you should actually thank Specter. The biggest danger the Republicans confront as now a strong majority is overreach. While the Republicans hold all three branches of elected federal gov. The margin of victory in the Presidential and several other races wasn't that big. Historically this wasn't a landslide by any means. The biggest danger now is an overreach on a socially conservative agenda and appointment of socially conservative judges that may end up alienating the Guiliani and Schwarzenegger wings of the party. Barring anything unusual happening an extremely conservative agenda will guarentee a Democrat win as moderate heavily suburban states like CO that went red this year will go blue as fiscally conservative but socially moderate / liberal suburbanites go Democrat.
As insane man pointed out there is a big difference between legally conservative and politically conservative. A true conservative court would not have ruled the way it did in Bush v. Gore because that was a violation of the Constitutional provision that it was left to the States to decide how to delegate their electors. Neither would a true conservative court go along with many of the parts of the Patriot act or allow for the holding of US citizens as unlawful combatants.
How about appointing judges who will rule on the law rather than make new law from existing statutes? I realize that sounds naive, but I don't want a liberal justice nor do I want a conservative justice -- just a first-rate legal mind who can interpret laws with wisdom, integrity and impartiality.
I am a democrat in the sense that I am pro-union, pro-environment, pro-national healthcare, etc. I am conservative on social-moral issues like the traditional family. There are more of my kind than liberal dems think. The DLC was correct yesterday when they said the party has to become more main stream on cultural issues. I want a Court of strict constructionists, I want to end judicial activism, such issues are for elected legislatures. Also, I thought it was rude and inappropriate for Specter to "threaten" a newly elected President. I think Bush should nominate strong judicial candidates and use his support in Congress to push them through, regardless of what Specter thinks. The Constitution is not a "living" document; it is a set of foundational values that must be perpetuated. The Constitution does not speak to "abortion" or "gay" issues. The States can address those matters.
when you say compassion, to many you are screaming socialism and at least liberal. look i think by far the most brilliant legal mind on the bench right now is scalia. its also hard to get someone who's to the right of him. but if you read his opinons....his rationale, his sarcasm, his mind is brilliant. its politics like everything else. and in politics you either slam it down your throat if you are powerful enough (delay sometimes) or you suck it up and compromise and try to put the best image that you can on it. its just politics. and in this case there are pretty high stakes. of course lets just hope dubya puts up someone more like sandra than scalia.
I would agree but at the same time there are more fiscally conservative but socially liberal people out there than social conservatives think. In many ways the super coalitions of both parties are extremely fragile and social issues could break one or both apart easily. I predict in possibly the next few presidential elections we might see a major realignment of the parties. The Constitution isn't exaclty a living or dead document. For one there is an ammendment process but it is also deliberately vague. The Founders understood that they couldn't foresee everything and left it open to interpretation, for instance what exactly does "due process" and "cruel and unusual" mean. Even the most legally conservative jurists recognize that these are evolving standards. I would generally agree with you though that many things, particularly moral issues should be left to the states since there appears to be no national consensus on most moral issues.
Sure, like civil rights for blacks. The states did a great job with that one. Or sodomy laws so you can arrest homosexuals for being homosexual. That's another fine example of something we should leave to the states. The federal government is a check on the fickle disposition of a local population. The courts are a bulwark against pendulum swings in public opinion through the general priciples laid out in the Constitution. You know - we are created equal - life liberty and happiness.
A justice can have compassion without being touchy-feely off the chart bizarre like the Federal Appeals Courts in California. But, if you like, I will change "compassion" to "wisdom."
I would have thought that the SC should be apolitical.... As for these other things, they are ongoing right now. What is unconstitutional is being challenged and what is not is not. As far as Florida goes, wasn't part of the issue who had the authority to order the re-count? The state was not so inclined but the Dem lawyers pressed it in court and it was overturned by the SC. Isn't that the due process?
