The Fight for the Supreme Court
Posted by Moonage on 01 Apr 2005 | Tagged as: National Politics
I have had a rather blase attitude about the impact of President Bush being in the position to possibly replace one or more Supreme Court judges in the next three years. During the last presidential election, that was a mantra for the liberals. They were scared to death that a conservative Republican might be able to replace some of the judge seats. They were talking that one or two more nominations by conservative Republicans would tilt the Court to the conservative side of issues. That made sense, sort of. I couldn’t put my finger on why that argument didn’t seem to wash with me until today. My good friend Stormwarning nailed it very succinctly. So, I’m just going to quote him:
Maybe this isn’t news to anyone, but since I hadn’t actually looked at this for sometime, the facts actually had failed me. With all of the moaning and groaning about the judiciary, and I realize that alot of the moaning relates to the fderal circuit and district courts and not the Supreme Court, especially during the recent chaos over Terri Schiavo and the seemingly endless court appeals, I found this interesting.
Start by remembering that the Supreme Court turned down the Schindlers not once, not twice, but five times during this whole process in their request for new hearings to over turn the federal circuit court rulings.
The most recent instance:The application for a stay of enforcement of judgement pending the filing and disposition of a petition…presented to Justice (Anthony) Kennedy and by him referred to the court, is denied, the Supreme Court said in its decision…
But here is the point:
- Wm. Rehnquist: President Nixon nominated him to the Supreme Court, and he took his seat as an Associate Justice on January 7, 1972. Nominated as Chief Justice by President Reagan, he assumed that office on September 26, 1986.
- John Paul Stevens: President Ford nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat December 19, 1975.
- Sandra Day O’Connor: President Reagan nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat September 25, 1981.
- Antonin Scalia: President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat September 26, 1986.
- Anthony M. Kennedy: President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat February 18, 1988.
- David Hackett Souter: President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 9, 1990.
- Clarence Thomas: President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 23, 1991.
- Ruth Bader Ginsberg: President Clinton nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat August 10, 1993.
- Stephen G. Breyer: President Clinton nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat August 3, 1994.
So, seven of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans. What’s the hub-bub about?
Back to me again. Now, the most likely two suggested to be possibly replaced by Bush were both nominated by Republicans. None of the probable replacements were nominated by Democrats.
What is the hub-bub about?
1 Comment »
on 04 Apr 2005 at 1:01 am 1.Bryan Kerwick
said …
The fight over the Court nominees is simple. The Liberal wing of the Democratic Party ( almost all of them) realize they will not be able to effect any progressive legislation agenda for the forseeable future and rely solely on an activist court.
Any tilt to the right on the court is the deathknell for the Liberals. They are basically reduced to bringing all their major litigation in the 9th Circut where they still have a majority of progressive judges. Change that court by 2 seats and it’s lights out for them.
All these filibuster tactics have accomplished is to energize the Conservative Electorate which is fed up with the party of NO. They have also alienated the moderate sector of the Democratic electorate. So what does all this mean?
2006 elections will almost certainly see Republican dominance in the 7 or 9 vulnerable Democratic seats up for election in primarily red states. The term “payback is a bitch” should be understood now. Failure to bring the judicial nominees to the floor for up or down votes will be a huge mistake by the Liberals. When the Senate is no longer susceptible to filibusters, the Right Wing Conservatives will demand strict Constitutionalists that are YOUNG be nominated by the President. That is key as those appointments are for life. The Neocons will demand this and the President will be obligated to comply with their wishes. Changing the landscape of the Judiciary after 2006 will be severe to say the least. Right now, the Senate could approve moderately conservative judges or be force fed extremely conservative judges that are young enmasse after 2006.
Liberals are playing an extremely dangerous game and are in a no win position at best. They should take the lesser of 2 evils now or be forced into a situation they can not reverse for generations. That is the problem they face and are just making it worse as they go about their blocking tactics now.
Just imagine being the minority party, by a huge margin, with absolutely no releif from the courts for generations. That’s the big hub bub.