Posted on 09/08/2005 1:52:07 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Democrats must insist that the Senate not vote on John Roberts' confirmation to be chief justice until after Sandra Day O'Connor's successor is also named. The Senate needs to evaluate both picks together in assessing their impact on the Supreme Court, now and for years to come.
Also, Democrats need to make clear that since President Bush has already picked a conservative in Roberts for one vacancy, the other selection needs to be a more moderate Republican in the mold of O'Connor. Otherwise, a court that currently reflects a moderate mainstream view could become one that would be significantly further to the right and hostile to basic civil rights and civil liberties.
Since the last appointment to the Supreme Court 11 years ago, the justices have decided a number of important cases involving the proper role of government in our personal lives, the responsibility of government for protecting the general welfare and our continued commitment to the values underlying the rule of law. During that period, the court's majority, often by 5-4 votes, has resisted the assault (once led by Roberts) on a woman's fundamental reproductive rights; recognized the importance of affirmative action to the democratic purpose of public education; excluded government from the bedrooms of consenting adults; knocked down repeated efforts of some to inject religion into the activities of government; ended our internationally embarrassing execution of mentally retarded and juvenile offenders; and reaffirmed that not even the president is above the law.
Beyond the issue of whether these moderate decisions will be overruled, there also are important national issues that likely will come before the court in the next few years. For example, some conservative scholars have argued for the court to significantly limit the scope of Congress' spending power, claiming that federal aid for disaster relief is unconstitutional. The new justices also will have pivotal roles in deciding key questions concerning the scope of the president's powers as part of the war on terrorism.
The key question is whether the president will attempt to replace the moderate mainstream represented by Justice O'Connor with a right-wing nominee such as Justice Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, who interpret the Constitution in a way that will produce decisions that are fundamentally inconsistent with how the public views the role of its government, both in our private lives and as trustee of our general welfare and national values.
Just as it would have been unthinkable for the Senate, after the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, to confirm a Supreme Court nominee whom it knew or suspected would have cast the deciding vote to overturn Brown, it should be equally unthinkable for the Senate now to vote to confirm a nominee who is unwilling to state unequivocally that he or she accepts as established that Roe v. Wade protects a woman's fundamental right of choice or that Grutter v. Bollinger correctly upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action in public education. For a Democrat to do so should be a career-ending vote.
The crucial question for the Senate must be whether the two picks for the Supreme Court together make it more likely that these and other key precedents concerning civil rights and civil liberties will be overruled.
John Roberts is unquestionably more conservative than Sandra Day O'Connor. With one conservative nominated, the Democrats must do all that they can to insist that the remaining nominee be more moderate.
The importance of what is at stake cannot be overstated. Roberts is 50 years old. Assuming that the second nominee is around the same age and that these justices remain until they are 85, like John Paul Stevens, they will be on the court until the year 2040.
The Senate must know who these two justices will be before proceeding further with either of them and must ensure that together they will not endanger our basic freedoms for decades to come.
Coleman and Chemerinsky are professors of law at Duke University School of Law in Durham, N.C.
They get sillier every day.
But look what happened when they blocked conservative news - Internet, talk radio and cable!!! The Left bloodied themselves by denying us our voice.
The Left dreams up laws where there aren't any.
You are so right on... Janice Rogers Brown, a woman, a black and a moderate :)
Wouldn't the commies on the left just soil their depends if GWB does nominate her.
All seven Justices who voted for the Dred Scott decision were Democrats; the two dissenters were Republicans.
You know...warning: this is a fantasy post I suppose: I wish President Bush would just close the book on the way the Supreme Court has been appointed in the past. I'd like him to appoint someone as Justice that would just drive everyone on the left nuts and all the beaurocrats insane. So -- with disbelief suspended for a moment -- I'd like him to appoint Bishop T.D. Jakes (of the Potter's House in Dallas) to the Supreme Court, and then to announce his intention to appoint ordinary Americans who have done extraordinary things for the nation and who have a clear understanding of the original intent of the Constitution -- which is not a living document. (And just to be preachy, I'd like him to add there is only one living word and that's Jesus. But I know that will only happen in my increasingly evangelistic and strident Catholic dreams.)
No, the right question is simply that on my tagline. Even if Republican Senators will easily vote for him, I hope he will get a clear line of action in Court. But I'm afraid of the "precedents" (Kenney and Souter).
Interesting. I actually think he will be a decent justice. But there seemed to be one conservative group opposing him because of the work he did on a gay-rights case. BTW--it that your real name or from somewhere else? It's got a 'ring' to it.
I suppose you could call what they wrote, thinking.
The law and the Constitution be damned.
Here, Houston's liberal editorial writers very blatantly admit that their (liberal) judicial picks WILL ALWAYS vote their liberal ideas and international socialist agenda, NOT the actual law or the facts of each case.
This isn't horse trading!
I wonder if these dudes would be insisting on this if clintbilly was in charge.
Perhaps planning is a better word.
Conservatives should vote against Roberts as CJ. Passing over two known conservatives to name a stealth as CJ is infuriatingly arrogant.
President Bush should clear his nominees with you, so as not to be "infuriatingly arrogant".
Yes, I am being sarcastic.
which part of "if you win the election, you get to appoint judges" don't these people understand?
Lawyers primarily exist to manipulate the law so juries find guilty people not quilty.
Their primary job function is to so manipulate the truth that you will believe the lies and reject the truth. Expecting a lawyer's opinion piece to be grounded in truth depends on the lawyer rejecting years of study and training.
This isn't about Bush's right to name "his" justice. This isn't about my right to participate in a formerly conservative forum for discussion. This is about the future of the court and the future of the country.
Sorry to wake you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.