Rehnquist's Thyriod Cancer...

[Army Fencer]

Chief Justice Rehnquist has thyroid cancer, and there's indications that is particularly severe.

Does the high probabilty of losing a conservative justice change anything in the election?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...quist_cancer_7

[Maeve_Mari]

Chief Justice Rehnquist has thyroid cancer, and there's indications that is particularly severe.

Does the high probabilty of losing a conservative justice change anything in the election?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...quist_cancer_7

It sure should make a difference!

The implications of what could happen to the Constitution with a nomination from a faith based president appointment to the high court. We could be back to mandatory prayer in schools and Sundays observed as a day of rest with this administration.

When you have a president who has never read the constitution selecting its stewards you enter a very scary place.

[Philistine]

Even before Renquist's cancer, many people thought it likely there'd be 2 (and very possibly 3) Supreme Court justices appointed by the next President.

On the other hand, many people (me included ) thought both Renquist and O'Connor would retire during Bush's 1st term.

--Philistine

[Maeve_Mari]

Even before Renquist's cancer, many people thought it likely there'd be 2 (and very possibly 3) Supreme Court justices appointed by the next President.

On the other hand, many people (me included ) thought both Renquist and O'Connor would retire during Bush's 1st term.

--Philistine

I think they too realized that retirement wasn't a good idea during this administration. As conservative and fickle as these brethern can be they do still value the intellectual reason and debate they preside over and from which they write their opinions. Throwing in an ultra conservative appointment doesn't please the court.

[Philistine]

I think they too realized that retirement wasn't a good idea during this administration. As conservative and fickle as these brethern can be they do still value the intellectual reason and debate they preside over and from which they write their opinions. Throwing in an ultra conservative appointment doesn't please the court.

I doubt it.

Stevens, I'd think, is holding off retirement until there's a democrat in office. Whether he can do that for 4 more years (I think he's 84 now)....

I doubt either Renquist or O'Connor see much danger of an ultra conservative being appointed in their place (either idealogically or because they have faith that the nomination process would weed out excessively tilted proposals).

O'Connor's husband was said to have commented just before the 2000 election that she would retire if Bush were elected. Renquist told an interviewer in 2001 that "traditionally, Republican appointees have tended to retire during Republican administrations."

--Philistine

[Maeve_Mari]

Why aren't we talking about the Supreme Court this election season? In 2000, both presidential candidates mentioned the High Court early and often. Seeking to assure social conservatives he was the right man for the job, George Bush complained about so-called "activist judges" and named his two favorite members of the court: Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. On the other hand, Al Gore noted that with many of Court's members aging, the next president could appoint three or four justices, warning pro-choice voters that voting for Bush could result in the end of legalized abortion. Groups on both the right and left talked about how 2000 could be the most important election in years in terms of the judiciary.

But in 2004, the candidates have spoken rarely about the courts. In part, this is because terrorism, the war in the Iraq and the economy have dominated headlines and the attention of most voters. In fact, though, this year might actually be more important in terms of the judiciary than in 2000. The same justices many thought would retire four years ago are still there, and now a little bit older. And on the lower federal courts, which decide the 98% of cases that don't make it to the Supreme Court, Bush and Kerry appointees would approach issues in radically different ways.

Presidential elections have often helped determine when a justice would step down. For example, Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion and Justice Byron White announced their retirements in early 1993, assured by the election of President Clinton they would be replaced by liberal justices. The next candidates to leave? Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Paul Stevens are, respectively, 79, 74 and 84.

Some court observers believe Stevens, who is one of the court's four consistent liberal votes, would step down if Kerry won. Of course, many observers predicted Rehnquist or O'Connor, both Republicans, would retire after Bush won in 2000 and both remain on the Court. And all three remain very healthy. "One thing we have to recognize is that being a Supreme Court Justice is an unbeatable job, you're on the top of the legal world," said Sheldon Goldman, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts. "The fact that you're going down in the history books, that counts for a great great deal. It's very rare to have a good person of good health leave the court."

If all three retired, the next president would have a huge impact on the future of the Court. If Bush wins and only Rehnquist retires, replacing one reliable conservative with another would do little to change the Court's composition. The same would hold true for the more liberal Stevens if Kerry won. But a retirement of O'Connor could lead to a seismic shift in the Court. O'Connor has been dubbed the most powerful woman in the world because of the swing vote she holds on the Court on many issues. She has supported the conservatives' overturning of many federal laws in which they felt Congress overstepped its bounds, but at the same time, she's cast votes with the liberal justices supporting affirmative action and abortion rights.

Though its impact on the Supreme Court far from certain, a Kerry or Bush victory would have tremendous impact on the lower federal courts. The Supreme Court hears fewer than 100 cases a year, so the vast majority of decisions in federal cases are determined by these other judges who are also picked by the president. In his two terms, Ronald Reagan appointed more than 300 judges, most of whom were reliable conservatives who have made rulings supporting limits on affirmative action and abortion, favoring business over labor and calling for a less sharp line between church and state. Clinton appointed far fewer justices than Reagan and studies on the voting records of his nominees suggest they have not been as strongly liberal as Reagan's were conservative. President Bush has appointed close to 200 judges already, and, if he wins, "the impact will be similar" to Reagan" says Sheldon Goldman, "really moving the courts in a very conservative direction."

While his aides say they don't apply litmus tests to nominees, the Bush appointees have reflected the party's base. Judicial nominations are important to social conservatives, who are adamant about picking justices who are pro-life and support more limited expansions of civil rights. In his stump speech, Bush frequently uses the term, "activist judges" a favorite of the religious right used to criticize liberal judges. Conservatives argue these judges create new rights, such as the Massachusetts Supreme Court that declared that gays should have the right to marry. And while social conservatives may think Bush hasn't talked enough about stopping gay marriage, his judicial nominations have not been a disappointment. A recent study by Kenneth Manning and Robert Carp, two political science professors, found that Bush's court picks were "the most conservative on record," slightly more conservative than Reagan's, especially on issues of civil liberties.

So far, the Kerry campaign has spent little time on the judiciary. The Democratic base focuses less on the courts, except for affirmative action and abortion. O'Connor has provided the fifth vote in favor of affirmation action, which effectively took that issue of the national political stage. On abortion, where liberal groups warn another victory for Bush could lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the base hasn't pushed Kerry to take an aggressive stance.

When asked what kind of judges he would pick, Kerry seemed to signal he would go in a centrist direction, paraphrasing former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in saying "A good justice is somebody that when you read their decisions you can't tell if they are Republican or Democratic or liberal or conservative, a Christian or a Jew, a Muslim, male or female. You just know you're reading a good judicial opinion." Still, Kerry's picks would likely favor labor over business in disputes, be less supportive of school vouchers and be backers of abortion rights and affirmative action.

Differences in judicial philosophy aside, Kerry and Bush are likely to continue one push Clinton started: a more diverse group of judges. In fact, legal experts suggest if any judge resigned from the Supreme Court, both Kerry and Bush would be strongly pushed to select a Hispanic justice.

http://www.time.com/time/election200...693850,00.html

[Army Fencer]

If Kerry were elected tomorrow, couldn't Rehnquist step down on Wednesday, allowing Bush to appoint someone?

[jeff]

Probably, though the confirmation process might drag on till the next Administration, and if he's a lame duck he might not get support for a 11th hour nomination even from his own party.

[Army Fencer]

This issue pushed it over the edge for me. I'm going for Bush.

[Montoya]

Interesting response to this personal tragedy for Chief Justice Rehnquist, Army Fencer. Leaving Rehnquist out, six of the eight justices were nominated by Republicans. None of these shows signs of stepping down. Why do you find the idea of Kerry nominating someone to fill Rehnquist's place on the bench so threatening? He is most likely to choose a centrist candidate, since anyone with radical tendencies would be unlikely to survive the confirmation process with a Republican Congress in power. That would still leave 6/9 of the bench on the conservative side.

[Maeve_Mari]

This issue pushed it over the edge for me. I'm going for Bush.

We've already seen the effects of a Faith Based Attorney General with the appointment of John Ashcroft and his over-reaching Patriot Act. One can (and should) only fear what a faith based court will do to the progress, and more importantly the legitimacy of the democracy.

[Rogue]

We've already seen the effects of a Faith Based Attorney General with the appointment of John Ashcroft and his over-reaching Patriot Act. One can (and should) only fear what a faith based court will do to the progress, and more importantly the legitimacy of the democracy.

Congress passed the Patriot Act. With John Kerry's vote.

[Army Fencer]

Montoya, your point is taken, but it's wrong. Yes, Republicans appointed six of the nine justices on board, including Rehnquist, but not all are six conservative judges, voting on the "conservative side." That's the reason SC decisions on important cases are regularly split 5-4. Also, David Souter is one of the more liberal justices currently on the bench, but he was appointed by Bush Sr. (he became more liberal after he was appointed to the SC).

Maeve_Mari and Rogue, get off your stumps.

I prefer SC Justices who are more conservative, mainly because they stick to the letter of the Constitution. That is extremely important to me in a Justice. Scalia is the best example of this, even though I think he takes a little far.

I admit, some of it comes from my hatred of Roe v Wade. I don't have a solid point of view on abortion, but I have a very strong view on separation of powers. They went way over the line. (I realize that 6/9 Justices at the time were appointed by Republicans, including Warren Burger.)

I still think we need conservative to replace a conservative.

[Maeve_Mari]

Maeve_Mari and Rogue, get off your stumps.

Why? Isn't stumping what this forum is for? If we all nodded in agreement over the running of the government, the upcoming and close margin election, and the potential for change in the nation's judiciary selections, there'd be nothing to discuss and consider and we'd be back in the watercooler yakking about your manplates or what kind of grades you're going to pull down after sitting on the forum all night instead of doing homework.

You don't actually think I believe there is any other purpose to this, do you?

[Army Fencer]

You don't actually think I believe there is any other purpose to this, do you?

You mean, other than converting political zealots to your side?

Stump speeches are for the masses and the uneducated (two separate catagories), and this election season has been stump centric. I loath them. Is thinking too much to ask from people?

[Inquartata]

A recess appointment could be done and would bypass Senate confirmation. I don't think it's been done since the 1950s. And in any case, it wouldn't be permanent.

What concerns me more is the possibility that several Justices might retire or die before successors can be nominated, whoever is President. If it's Bush, I do not doubt that the Democrats will continue to filibuster any and all candidates named into oblivion; if it's Kerry, the Republicans will almost certainly do the same to any of his choices. I am very much afraid that we may be left with an under-strength Court for an extensive period.

This is what comes of applying political litmus tests to judicial nominees, instead of merely examining qualifications.

[esskreemr]

You mean, other than converting political zealots to your side?

Stump speeches are for the masses and the uneducated (two separate catagories), and this election season has been stump centric. I loath them. Is thinking too much to ask from people?

Apparently yes.