Ghost of BiB Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 And what seat might that be? From the top of the campus steeple with your .30-06 Springfield? 390914[/snapback] No, that would be Ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 No, that would be Ed. 390938[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Against my better judgment, I am going to weigh in on this. Some on the left want to scare people into thinking that if a pro-life person is nominated to the courts, that the apocalypse will be upon us. The “party of tolerance” wants to make sure that pro-life people are banned from the court because they could possibly overturn Roe v. Wade. The right states that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it just reverts back down to the states for legislation. What is missing in all of this is that Congress can write and pass any legislation, regardless of Supreme Court decisions. This applies to the federal as well as state level. If the legislature wanted to outlaw abortions tomorrow, they can do that. If they wanted to write the “Protection of Babies Act,” they can do that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemur King Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 If the legislature wanted to outlaw abortions tomorrow, they can do that. If they wanted to write the “Protection of Babies Act,” they can do that as well. 392051[/snapback] Under their powers granted in the commerce clause, no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 28, 2005 Author Share Posted July 28, 2005 Against my better judgment, I am going to weigh in on this. Some on the left want to scare people into thinking that if a pro-life person is nominated to the courts, that the apocalypse will be upon us. The “party of tolerance” wants to make sure that pro-life people are banned from the court because they could possibly overturn Roe v. Wade. The right states that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it just reverts back down to the states for legislation. What is missing in all of this is that Congress can write and pass any legislation, regardless of Supreme Court decisions. This applies to the federal as well as state level. If the legislature wanted to outlaw abortions tomorrow, they can do that. If they wanted to write the “Protection of Babies Act,” they can do that as well. 392051[/snapback] I have made that point a few times with those who have suggested that the question, in a post-Roe world, would be thrown back to the states. Congress could pass such a law right now but given the 5-4 split upholding Roe, any such legislation would have been struck down adding yet another precedent supporting Roe thereby making it even more difficult to overturn. That is why, in my opinion, the right has not pushed for such legislation since the decision in Casey. Once Roe is overturned or even sooner, once they feel they have a majority on the court for overturning Roe, I think they will pass such a law very quickly. The only stumbling block would be a Senate filibuster and the majority will simply brush that aside the second it gets in their way. Projecting out on the kind of post-Roe, post nationwide ban, reproductive landscape that would then ensue can be frightening and fascinating at the same time. The pro-life crowd would probably not just pull up stakes and go home but instead would just pick another target. Italy just had a law passed that forces women who use fertility clinics to have all fertilized eggs implanted in their womb because otherwise, those eggs in storage would be "murdered". They will likely focus on moring-after like pills. As a thriving illegal abortion market takes root, I am sure they will start calling for a "war against drugs" type of approach focusing legal resources on stopping illegal abortions. That doesn't even begin to speculate on what lunacy the far left will embrace in protest. Abortion buses sponsored by NOW streaming across the Peace Bridge to Canada laden with pregnant women who don't want to be pregnant? I can easily imagine strongly pro-choice states not willing to accept and certainly not to enforce federal legislation banning all abortions. Maybe we will see national guard units from Texas marched into Manhattan surrounding clinics to enforce federal law where state authorities refuse to do so. Maybe toss a few doctors in prison, who knows? The possibilities are pretty endless and although I would never have thought that any party would swing that far from the center, even on abortion, I have long since given up pretending there are such limits. After witnessing the public flogging of Arlen Specter and the whole stem cell carnival, I am not counting on discretion ruling the day. As for litmus tests on the court, that has been the case for the far left and the far right. Arguably, more so for the right. The only difference is what constitutes a passing score in the eyes of each of party. What gets everyone's dander up is when a Judge, expected during confirmation hearings to vote one way, actually votes another. These non-litmus test decisions led the right to go ballistic. Accordingly, they loved Souter and Kennedy when they were being confirmed but suddenly they became lousy judges when they voted as they saw fit. Its almost as if the right felt that these Justices had promised to rule one way and broke that promise when they didn't. Talk about a litmus test. To the left, they were simply pleasant surprises and supportive of the notion that their postion was so correct on the law that even right wing judges had to agree. For example, in Casey, I believe all 5 justices who voted to uphold Roe were appointed by Republicans. In particular, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter, when they were confirmed, it was thought that they each would vote to overturn Roe if given the opportunity. Even so, they were confirmed by the Senate which was controlled by the Democrats. They would not even have had to use a filibuster to keep them off the bench. No litmus test was applied by the Democrats as to those justices. I am quite certain that Roberts is being selected not just because he is a smart guy with a good record. He was selected because he is believed to be a sure bet to overturn Roe. There will be democrats who will oppose him for just this reason. If it is bad to choose Judges based on how you think they will rule then both sides are guilty of this. The court in Casey was made up of the following Justices: The 5 that voted to uphold Roe: O'Connor (Reagan) Kennedy (Reagan) Souter (Bush) Blackmun (Nixon) Stevens (Ford) The four against: White (Kennedy) Scalia (Reagan) Thomas (Bush) Rehnquist (Nixon) Since then, Blackmun and White were replaced by Bryer and Ginsburg, both Clinton appointees. If a case had come up similar to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, placing Roe squarely on the chopping block, the vote would have likely been 6-3 instead of just 5-4. The main abortion case to come up since Casey, in my opinion, is the one on partial birth abortion. The Casey majority lost Kennedy and Blackmun but added Ginsburg and Breyer. The dissent in Casey lost White but added Kennedy. The end result was another 5-4 decision that supported Roe. I think it is fair to say that O'Connor, Souter and Kennedy were the last Justices on the Court whose votes, at least on abortion, couldn't always be predicted. Say what you want about them, they did act with independence. Maybe Roberts will join them but I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 28, 2005 Author Share Posted July 28, 2005 Under their powers granted in the commerce clause, no doubt. 392365[/snapback] one clause fits all...literally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 He was selected because he is believed to be a sure bet to overturn Roe. What, in his previous opinions, leads you to believe this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 As for litmus tests on the court, that has been the case for the far left and the far right. Arguably, more so for the right. 392521[/snapback] What data do you have to back this up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 28, 2005 Author Share Posted July 28, 2005 What data do you have to back this up? 392535[/snapback] O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, Thomas and Scalia were all confirmed by a democratically controlled Senate. All were expected at the time of their confirmation to vote to overturn Roe. Even so, democrats confirmed them even though they would not have neeed to filibuster the nomination to do so. Because they were expected to overturn Roe, the right reacted with anger and accusations of betrayal when three of them, O'Connor, Souter and Kennedy voted the way they did in the Casey case. The most egregious example of a "litmus test" nomination was Clarence Thomas, one of the most unqualified and unimpressive Supreme Court nominations in the modern era. He was nominated by a Republican president. He was a judge for only 1 year, 1 lousy year on the CofA for the DC Circuit before he was elevated to the Supreme Court. Compare his experience to the others on the bench: Breyer: 14 years as a judge, 13 years as a professor Ginsburg: 13 years as a judge, 17 years as a professor Kennedy: 13 years as a judge, 23 as a professor Souter: 12 years as a judge on 3 different courts O'Connor: 6 years as a judge on two different courts Stevens: 5 years as a judge, 8 years as a professor Scalia: 4 years as a judge, 14 years as a professor Rehnquist: No judicial experience, clerked for a Supreme and was asst. US AG Thomas: 1 year as a judge Funny, the most experienced judges on the Court are the ones who were in the majority in either the Casey case or the Nebraska "partial birth abortion" case. The least experienced are the most reliable votes against Roe. Scalia was a professor and a well respected one from 1967 to 1981 so he was more qualified than just his 4 years as a judge would indicate. Rhenquist and Thomas had no great academic, judicial or other qualifications that would have led you to say, had you examined their pre-appointment resumes, "this guy is a shoe in for the highest court in the land". Rhenquist was appointed before Roe was even decided so he wasn't a litmus test guy. His qualifications were mostly political but he did clerk for a Supreme which is a big deal and he was known as one of the top lawyers of the day back then. It isn't like he was shockingly unqualified. Thomas was a litmus test all the way, it sure wasn't all that valuable experience he picked up as a staff counsel for Monsanto. If democrats used a litmus test, they would have defeated Thomas, Scalia, Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor. They didn't. The most obvious litmus test was a republican appointment. Against that you have Bork who lost on an up and down vote by the way, not on a filibuster. Like I said, both use the litmus test, republicans arguably more so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 28, 2005 Author Share Posted July 28, 2005 What, in his previous opinions, leads you to believe this? 392530[/snapback] Lets see, he has been on the bench for only 2 years so there aren't many opinions to look at period. Is there some reason why I am limited to looking only at his handful of judicial opinions to conclude that the belief that he would overturn Roe played heavily in his selection by a clearly anti-Roe President? Why limit the inquiry to just his judicial opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Lets see, he has been on the bench for only 2 years so there aren't many opinions to look at period. Is there some reason why I am limited to looking only at his handful of judicial opinions to conclude that the belief that he would overturn Roe played heavily in his selection by a clearly anti-Roe President? Why limit the inquiry to just his judicial opinions? 392666[/snapback] So, he will overturn Roe because Bush is pro-life. You need to do better than that, counselor. You look at his court opinions to determine his process at reaching his decisions. As you mentioned before, historically some justices have not voted the way that they were originally portrayed. There is nothing to say that Roberts will overturn Roe based on the fact that Bush nominated him. Again, let history be your guide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Again, can someone please explain why slaughtering the unborn seems to be the only thing Democrats care about when the Supreme Court is the subject? Keep wondering why you're losing elections to the likes of George W. Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Again, can someone please explain why slaughtering the unborn seems to be the only thing Democrats care about when the Supreme Court is the subject? Keep wondering why you're losing elections to the likes of George W. Bush 392716[/snapback] I could say...but I know it was rhetorical. And most people don't know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 There are Pro-life Democrats. Just as there are Pro-Choice Republicans like Pataki, and Condi Rice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 I cant read anymore of this blather. Talk about a crusade. Please put me on ignore, because I've just put you on it. Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 I cant read anymore of this blather. Talk about a crusade. Please put me on ignore, because I've just put you on it. Christ. 392758[/snapback] Was that for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Was that for me? 392793[/snapback] No...Sorry if it seemed that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 29, 2005 Author Share Posted July 29, 2005 Again, can someone please explain why slaughtering the unborn seems to be the only thing Democrats care about when the Supreme Court is the subject? Keep wondering why you're losing elections to the likes of George W. Bush 392716[/snapback] "baby slaughtering"? Do you seriously believe that is what it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 No...Sorry if it seemed that way. 392812[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 29, 2005 Author Share Posted July 29, 2005 So, he will overturn Roe because Bush is pro-life. You need to do better than that, counselor. You look at his court opinions to determine his process at reaching his decisions. As you mentioned before, historically some justices have not voted the way that they were originally portrayed. There is nothing to say that Roberts will overturn Roe based on the fact that Bush nominated him. Again, let history be your guide. 392681[/snapback] I am letting history be my guide, history like Thomas and Scalia. Sure, sometimes Presidents are wrong about what their nominee will do once on the bench but very often they are right. Roberts has been closely tied to Scalia and Rhenquist (he clerked for Rhenquist) so I think he will be just as hot to overturn Roe as they both have been. Besides, the point really isn't whether he will or won't at this stage. The question is whether he has been "litmus tested" by the administration, whether the belief that he in fact will vote to overturn Roe played a major role in his being selected. I have no doubts on that score. There is simply no way this President, given his views on the subject and the depth of his support among the religious right, selected a guy he has any doubts about on abortion. No way. Could he be wrong? Sure, it could happen. Even if he is though, the fact remains that both sides are "litmus testing" nominees. It is just plain silly for either side to point the finger at the other and complain about litmus tests. No one can predict the future but all in all, I'd bank on Roberts overturning Roe in a heart beat and I say that without any concern as to whether it should or should not be overturned. He will vote to overturn it and Bush's belief that he will and the belief that he will on the part of the far right is an important factor in his selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts