Friday, July 08, 2005

Another vacancy?

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak wrote Thursday that Chief Justice William Rehnquist probably will resign later today, following close on the heels of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation last week.

A second U.S. Supreme Court opening may give President Bush political cover with his social conservative base to preserve the Court's ideological balance by appointing an ultra-conservative to replace Rehnquist's vote and a more moderate conservative, perhaps longtime Bush friend Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, to replace O'Connor's vote. That, of course, assumes Bush wants to do any such thing, which is a rather big assumption.

6 Comments:

Blogger kissmyotts said...

Are you kidding? How about political power to make it into an originalist's court (I hate to use 'conservative' and 'liberal' as if they are politicians) by a 5-4 majority. Roe v. Wade beware.

9:22 AM  
Blogger Alabamian said...

If originalists gain a majority of the Court, most labor laws and environmental regulations also should beware.

11:15 PM  
Blogger kissmyotts said...

I guess so. I mean, if you think Constitution only means what it says, that basically leaves you with little power. But I think that's good because I'd rather have an elected body, Congress, make the laws.

Its the living constitution crowd that made the court into a political body in the first place. When they started interpretting the constitution liberally, suddenly you couldn't guess how a case would turn out based on the constitution because you also had to take the whimsical thinking of the judges themselves into account. Because judges made themselves into political figures, now we have this highly partisan fiasco over the court, and TV calling judges conservative, liberal, right of center, left of center - as if they are policy makers running for office. I don't think that's what the people who wrote the constitution thought the court would be.

Then again, if we didn't have judges who interpretted the constitution loosely, we probably wouldn't have the Bill of Rights applying to state and local governments, Brown v. Board, and a lot of other good reforms I doubt politicans would have the spine to pursue.

1:00 PM  
Anonymous Kathy said...

Yeah, unfortunately the majority isn't always jumping up and down to do the right thing, especially if it means any perceived "giving up" of advantages.

6:05 PM  
Blogger Alabamian said...

One problem with pure originalism is that it would leave Congress little power to deal with changing circumstances unless we repeatedly amend the Constitution. And that's not to mention that the founders often didn't agree in their interpretations of parts of the Constitution, so it's tough to point to any one "original intent," and that many of them expressed the belief that future generations shouldn't always be bound strictly by the dead hand of the past.

12:25 AM  
Blogger King Cockfight said...

Listen, as long as Christ gets on the court, I'm fine with whoever else we get.

He's mad into legalization.

10:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home