Supreme Court

[elwoodblues]

Many (myself included) thought that Bush would get to nominate at least two (probably 3) Supreme Court justices within his first term. Right now, the junior Bush joins only 4 other Presidents as not having nominated a Supreme Court Justice (Harrison, Taylor, Johnson, and Carter are the others.

I, for one, am shocked that Rehnquist hasn't stepped down to ensure that a Republican would replace him. There are two justices in their 80's (okay, on Friday there will be two in their 80's) and O'Connor is no spring chicken. Justices Ginsburg, O'Connor, and Stevens have battled cancer and Rehnquist has chronic back problems.

Why no nominations for Bush? Is it just dumb luck, stubborn justices, or something else. Like I mentioned earlier, the one that is really surprising to me is Rehnquist.

[ddollevoet]

I think the answer is quite simply self-preservation.

If I was a supreme court judge, I would be more concerned with what "good" I could do while in my position and less concerned with who would be my replacement and what decisions they might make.

If I was physically and mentally able to still perform the job, why would I give a positon that carries so much power?

That said, I think that it is random luck that Bush has not yet had the opportunity to appoint a supreme court judge. I'm guessing the opportunities will likely occur in the next 4 years (mostly through attrition).

[adios]

FWIW Rehnquist doesn't want to step down due to the fact that someone to the left of him will be appointed. The Democrats would hold up any nomination that was far to the right of where they are.

Ironically Ginsburg and perhaps Stevans don't want to step down because someone to the right of their views will replace them. Just my take.

[Analyst]

There always seems to be a lot of talk about Supreme Court justices stepping down during what they perceive to be an adminstration likely to appoint a like-minded successor. Makes sense, too, but I don't recall any recent cases where this has clearly happened. The justices seem to want to hold on as long as they can, and who can blame them?

That being said, it seems likely that 2-3 (possibly more) justice positions will come up for appointment during the next presidential term, and for me that is reason enough to determine my vote.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, it seems likely that 2-3 (possibly more) justice positions will come up for appointment during the next presidential term

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I thought 4 years ago.

[ QUOTE ]
and for me that is reason enough to determine my vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

For me it's certainly a plus in one of the candidates column.

[KLGambiT]

All i have to say about this is how the hell did an X cheif council for the ACLU end up on the supreme court? can anyone tell me why republicans let bill clinton nominate this witch to the supreme court? my only hope is that she dies before she can attempt to mess this country up anymore than she already has

[tolbiny]

Please,
tell me what the letters ACLU stand for, then read their mission statement. Then tell me why this is an evil despicable thing.

[Dynasty]

There is speculation that the Bush v. Gore case which ended the Florida recount has influenced this. The left-leaning judges refuse to allow Bush to replace them because they think some of their colleagues had getting Bush in the White House as their priortiy. The right-leaning judges don't want to appear any more in league with the administration.

But, it's just speculation. The Supreme Court justices rarely ever talk about this stuff.

[Nepa]

At least there is going to be a independent minded head of the Judical Commitee if the GOP holds the Senate. Can anyone here name him?

[riverflush]

Antonin Scalia is the closest thing to a Libertarian on the U.S. Supreme Court...(Souter wavers in too many economic/property-rights cases)


Yeah, I said it.


Read the opinions...

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Antonin Scalia is the closest thing to a Libertarian on the U.S. Supreme Court

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really believe this. Scalia often rules in favor of the federal government having more power. Isn't that against Libertarian thinking?

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Antonin Scalia is the closest thing to a Libertarian on the U.S. Supreme Court...(Souter wavers in too many economic/property-rights cases)

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that why he wanted to make it illegal to burn the flag? And you think the next closest would be Souter?

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
Many (myself included) thought that Bush would get to nominate at least two (probably 3) Supreme Court justices within his first term. Right now, the junior Bush joins only 4 other Presidents as not having nominated a Supreme Court Justice (Harrison, Taylor, Johnson, and Carter are the others.


[/ QUOTE ]

FDR did not get to appoint any justices in his first term, but once he won reelection the flood gates openned. This is the risk under Bush.

The reason the conservatives (Rehnquist, OConnor) are not retiring is because they know that the Senate will not allow a conservative to replace them.

Just having Bush as President is not enough, you need 60 votes to get a confirmation. The Democrats will insist on a true moderate, otherwise there will be a long term vacancy.

The conservative justices are hoping the Repukes will pick up a couple Senate seats (it won't be enough) and that a clear electoral victory by Bush will intimidate the Democrats to accept any Bush appointment. The Democrats will not fold so easily.

[Nepa]

Thank god for Filibusters.

[ QUOTE ]
Just having Bush as President is not enough, you need 60 votes to get a confirmation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[3rdEye]

The Senate, which is responsible for confirming Supreme Court nominees, has been very closely divided for most of Bush's term. I think that, if Bush wants to get a conservative justice on the Court, he might be hoping that the Senate leans more strongly Republican before he makes his move.

9/11 didn't help things much either. Also, Senate liberals were using the filibuster to block the confirmation of several Bush's lower court nominees--a clear signal that an even moderately conservative SC nominee wasn't going to have a chance.

Anything later than 2.5 to 3 years into Bush's term, and he isn't going to want to take the political risk of nominating someone to the high court--it's simply too close to the election.

If Bush is reelected, you can be sure that he will get the chance to nominate at least 1, if not 2, justices to the court (depending on the makeup of the Senate).

[3rdEye]

[ QUOTE ]
At least there is going to be a independent minded head of the Judical Commitee if the GOP holds the Senate. Can anyone here name him?

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the Judiciary Committee? The one that is chaired by (puke) Orrin Hatch--a.k.a., the Senator from RIAA?

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean the Judiciary Committee? The one that is chaired by (puke) Orrin Hatch--a.k.a., the Senator from RIAA?


[/ QUOTE ]

Alan Specter will head up the Judical committee if he is re-elected. He is leading in most of the polls at this point.