Skip to comments.The New 5-to-4 Supreme Court
Posted on 04/21/2007 9:26:25 PM PDT by zendari
Just seven years ago, Justice OConnor voted with the courts liberals to strike down a similar Nebraska law banning the procedure, known medically as intact dilation and extraction. It involves removing an intact fetus rather than dismembering the fetus in the uterus. The decision recast the courts approach to abortion, shifting its emphasis toward fetal life and away from deference to medical judgments about womens health.
The decision last week brought into focus the greatest hopes of conservatives and the worst fears of liberals. Is the court about to make sweeping changes in important areas of constitutional law, including in decisions expected shortly on the role of money in political campaigns and of race in the schools?
OConnor was the swing vote in so many cases, especially in high-profile areas like affirmative action, campaign finance and separation of church and state, said Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at Duke. Sam Alito is likely to bring about a change in all of those areas.
In the coming months alone, the court is set to decide two important cases in areas where Justice OConnor played a crucial role.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I very much hope Justice Stevens gives us all a gift for his 87th birthday by retiring in peace.
Not surprisingly, there is not a mention in the article of what the Constitution requires. To the Old Media, the Court is just a convenient, and unelected, branch of the legislature that is, regrettably, not quite as left-wing as it once was.
We need at least two more Justices to erase decades of leftist judicial activism. This upcoming Presidential race is far more pivotal than many people realize.
So the liberals' worst fear is the banning of infants having their brains sucked out while the rest of their body dangles outside the womb? I learn something new every time I read the NYT.
People say that about every Presidential race.
I'm sure that name makes the editors feel SO much better about infanticide.
This seems like something they should have been able to do, but Justice O'Connor was the swing vote ruling against this.
If commercials on TV are a violation of the McCain-Feingold act, then what about emails or other things on the Internet?
Will the FEC try to regulate the Internet come election time?
It is good, in my opinion, that conservatives have worked so hard to get Alito and Roberts on the court.
Maybe there is incentive to work very hard in 2008 for a President to deliver conservative nominates to the SCOTUS.
I don't think that Stevens-Ginsberg-Breyer-Souter will all still be on the SCOTUS in the next 8 years.
A Republican majority in the Senate is also something to help insure conservative nominees.
But then one thing that can be done is NOT fill vacancies in the court -- unless they are the right people. Take a slow, methodical pace.
Conservatives have only won a partial victory with the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Law. Now the fight must continue until things change so that the family unit can be rebuilt in the United States, and the Government will get their paws out of families and family life...
“Is the court about to make sweeping changes in important areas of constitutional law, including in decisions expected shortly on the role of money in political campaigns and of race in the schools?”
“Is the Court set to revert to its intended role of simply interpreting the Constitution, instead of legislating from the bench as we Liberals hope they would?”
Obviously, the high-profile cases the NYT highlights are the one in which O'Connor turned left.
Sex without consequences is very big for that part of the political spectrum (and regrettably, for a big chunk of folks who would otherwise be conservatives). That's why many lefties are sure STD's are some sort of right-wing plot. They just know we can't stand them having all that "fun."
It amazes me that no one in the media thinks we can find the US Supreme Court web site and read the decision ourselves.
What a pathetic bunch of lying scumbags.
Presidential elections since 1980 have been pivotal for this very reason. We still need some more Thomas & Scalias on the court. I haven’t gotten sufficient reads on Roberts and Alito yet to opine as to where their Constitution credentials are... but so far, seems pretty good.
But would the Senate approve of a pro-life nominee to replace him? The Senate has a tiny de facto majority, and Bush does not have that much power due to him being a lame duck and Iraq. The odds of a pro-life, conservative nominee making it through the Senate is much lower than it once was.
Here’s the way I see it:
If we nominate a female who isn’t a Scalia type bombthrower (neither Roberts nor Alito was), I think we can retain Snowe and Collins. Specter owes Bush so he will vote yes for a decent nominee.
With Chafee gone I think we will have 0 defectors. That means we only need 1 vote from Nelson, Casey (who pledged to support Alito in his campaign), Landrieu (who is up for re-election in a very red state. Katrina wiped out the Democratic base there), and Byrd (who actively supported the last 2 nominees).
He's a brilliant jurist who writes exquisitely well-reasoned decisions that are painstaking in their strict adherence to the actual text of the Constitution.
We need more bomb throwers just like that.
We don't need a milquetoast, simpering, whither-the-wind blows soft judicial activist who might make Snowe and Collins squeal in girlish delight.
He's great at bashing the other side. What he's not great at is forming a consensus with O'connor/Kennedy types and getting through confirmation hearings.
That kind of intellect doesn't do much good if its denied confirmation or stuck in the minority all the time.
Besides, CJ Rehnquist was an excellent judge despite not being quite so confrontational. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Have you read any SCOTUS decisions of the past few months?
I agree, however, I wouldn't nearly be as concerned if we had the court locked down. Idiodic Republican appointments like David Souter and Anthony Kennedy have prevented this. See their Segal-Cover scores. We also cannot afford to have the surrender party gain the white house and handle the war on terror in typical french fashion. They are trying to manufacture a loss right now for political reasons.
Yes, however Souter has been a complete disaster and I’m stil waiting for John Sununu to explain his recommendation. Anthony Kennedy is another in this mold.
Kennedy was excusable. He was a 3rd string choice with the clock quickly ticking on the Reagan presidency.
People said back then that Kennedy isn’t a Scalia conservative.
I still believe Reagan could have done better than Kennedy. Regardless, there is no excuse for Souter. John Sununu needs to be taken to task for that one. Have you ever heard him confronted on it?
A simple majority is easy enough to construct.
But the fact is that any Bush appointment is going to need not 51, but 60 votes. McCain and his Gang of 14 ensured that SCOTUS nominees could be filibustered successfully.
I haven’t read enough, for sure. As I said above, so far, so good, but I don’t think the rubber has really met the road yet. When some prior decisions are up to be overturned is when we’ll really see how strongly the Constitution is going to be looked at by those two. (Thinking Kelo, rather than Roe, here ..., and reaffirmation of the 10th amendment)