The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Main => Everything Else => Topic started by: Tailgunner on September 04, 2005, 01:09:44 am
-
...which means GWB gets to seat another supreme court justice.
I predict a great wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left. ;)
-
I predict a great wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left. ;)
I predict a fillibuster, due to the unusual and unforseen events of a Supreme Court Justice passing away.
-
You're definitely getting teeth gnashing here. I'm terribly disappointed. I was really hoping he'd hold out.
-
Was he a bad bad man?
-
That sucks...now he'll get away with anything he wants to.
-
That sucks...now he'll get away with anything he wants to.
He'll get away with anything he wants to? I dunno if you noticed, but there's not a whole lot of crime or morally reprehensible acts committed by the dead save for the occasional movie plot that makes it happen.
What the heck are you talking about?
-
Rectal Cranial Inversion Syndrome
-
The big risk here is Roe. O'Conner was the swing vote on Roe, being pro-choice in spite of being very conservative. With Bush already replacing her the court was set to be lined up 5 to 4 against abortion being legal. Had Renquist held out until Bush was replaced there would be a possibility (if a Democrat wins the white house) that it would get put right back to 5-4 supporting legalized abortion as soon as he died. Now that he's already gone I will be very surprised if Roe isn't overturned.
Democrats don't have a chance of blocking the nominees. They can't filibuster for two years. Even if they tried, Frist would just outlaw the filibuster for court nominations.
-
Now that he's already gone I will be very surprised if Roe isn't overturned.
You seriously believe this is going to happen? Really? I'm surprised at you.
Someone who knows, for the people who will be reading this thread (which won't be anyone other than folks who like to talk politics, I believe) and don't understand, or have misunderstood, someone please lay out what Roe v. Wade means.
What I mean to ask, is for others to lay out what they view Roe v. Wade to mean, since it's such an important case. I'd like to know what people think they know it means as compared to what was actually decided in the case.
-
It defined the abortion decision as a medical one to be made solely by the physician and the pregnant woman, saying that the state could not interfere except for cases where there is a recognized state interest. Such interference can only occor after the first trimester, as Roe also prohibited states from passing any law that would prevent abortions in the first trimester. It left the state to regulate abortions, such as by stating that only a physician licensed by the state to conduct abortions could do so.
States have tried to indirectly make abortions impossible through regulation by, for example, requiring that an educational course be taken that would be dragged out until after the first trimester. Subsequent court decisions have dealt with this and Roe has been interpreted as meaning that the state can only regulate abortion, particularly in the first trimester, as long as it does not place an "undue burden" on the woman. So, for example, it would be it would cause an undue burden if the Florida legislature passed a mandate that there would be only one abortion clinic in the entire state, which would employ only one physician and be located up in the tip of the panhandle, as the law itself is designed to coerce the abortion decision which the state is supposed to have no say in.
-
And how do you think they're going to overturn these decisions that've been upheld already through numerous appeals?
If there were such large loopholes through which it could be overturned, why hasn't it been tried? It's been said that electing Bush is the result of "God-people" cramming their views down the nation's throat, why haven't they overturned Roe? Clearly if they can influence a national election, they'd be able to apply enough pressure to have it overturned already.
Roe guarantees the right to an abortion. The states cannot interfere in that right or place undue restrictions as to cause hardship in obtaining an abortion. I simply cannot see how such a law would be overturned after being upheld numerous times.
-
Because subsequent decisions upholding Roe have upheld it with a slim, 5-4 margin and the 5th vote was Sandra Day O'Connor's. Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy have voted numerous times to overturn Roe. Do you think that somehow Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy are going to suddenly have a change of heart, now that O'Connor is gone? Bush will be appointing a new Chief Justice and replacing O'Connor. It's naive to think that Pro-Life groups aren't lining up lawsuits as we speak. They would be foolish not to.
By the way, the Supreme Court reverses past Supreme Court decisions on a regular basis. You commonly only ever hear about huge ones, like Brown v. Board of Education, which reversed a bunch of Supreme Court Decisions that said segregation was okay (not to mention Supreme Court decisions that said Slavery was okay). Other, less controversial decisions decision overrullings happen pretty regularly. And, like I said, if it comes to a vote Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia are going to vote the same way on the issue that they've always voted. They're just likely to be on the winning side now.
-
Latest news is Bush will nominate John Roberts for chief justice, O'Connor has agreed to postpone her retirement till a replacement candidate has been confirmed.
-
That's lame, IMO. Nominate Scalia or Kennedy for Chief Justice and fill that position with Roberts or whoever else he gets. I know Rehnquist was on the court a long time before he was made chief justice and maybe that's why he was a good chief justice. Anway, for me it makes sense to promote someone who has been on the Court and has an intimate understanding of how it works and has paid his/her dues and let the new person start at the bottom of the food chain.
-
Yeah, but when there's gonna be as much hullabaloo about Justice nominations, it DOES make sense to only have 2 nominations to vote on, versus 3.
And I smell filibuster :P
-
I don't know....maybe I'd change my mind about a fillibuster if I heard some strategy to it, but I just don't buy it. What good can come of it? They can't fillbuster until Bush is gone. And if they're hoping to pick up seats, forget it. Midterms aren't even until late '06. Even if they try to fillibuster the SC nominees Frist will, like the short-sighted, hypocritical moron he is, outlaw the fillibuster. The Dems know this. An attempt at Blocking Supreme Court justices indefinitely while trying to hold out for more than two years until you can possibly take back the white house would A) not work, and B) be political suicide and you could expect huge losses in the Senate in following elections.
Now, I suppose that if Bush tries to put someone in there that is so wacko that the vast majority of the public is in an uproar, that's one thing. The Dems might successfully fillibuster while conducting a PR campaign. But just outright blocking any Supreme Court nominees costs political capital. I'm sure that even though you "smell fillibuster" you doubt that Bush is going to have any real trouble putting whoever he wants on the bench.
-
From what I gather he's going with Roberts for the expediency, his intent was to make sure the court could do it's job when their next session starts, or at the least be able to lay the blame on the Dems in the Senate if they filibuster his nominations.
-
Well, frankly, I'm probably fine with that. I think that Scalia deserves the position (considering it is being filled by a republican) and I think he has a brilliant and quick legal mind. I think that anybody half as conservative as Bush is insane not to tap Scalia as the next Chief Justice. But it's certainly okay with me if he never gets that position. I hate the guy. He's extremely articulate and persuasive. He's has a wry sense of humor that allows him to make his opponents seem like bumbling morons. He's incredibly good at what he does. Hell, if someone one of the conservatives had to go, due to retirement or death, I would love for it to have been Scalia. The conservatives would have lost BY FAR their brightest justice on the court, not to mention that Thomas wouldn't even know how to vote without Scalia on the court for him to shadow like a puppy dog.