<p>O’Connor’s retirement is scary.</p>
<p>If the Democrats have any brains they are going to start talking from a libertarian viewpoint. There are people on both sides of the aisle who believe the government is taking away basic rights.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fundingfather–Ruth Ginsberg somewhat balances Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, but it is still 2 to 1 in favor of the extremes on either side, it seems to me…I say we appoint one more like her, THEN it will be balanced :D</p>
<p>the point of the supreme court isn’t to be “balanced” and represent the rainbow of political views. They are supposed to interpret the constitution.</p>
<p>Scalia and Thomas definitely interpret the constitution most accurately, and their viewpoints are actually logical and well reasoned. They aren’t the ones citing foreign court’s opinions…they are citing the constitution.</p>
<p>Sorry if you can’t understand that, but its factually true.</p>
<p>GHBrown08 - </p>
<p>I understand your point of view perfectly AND I do not agree.</p>
<p>GHBrown08 honey–your soulmate fundingfather was the one who was asking for “balance”, not me. And if you can’t understand a tongue-in-cheek remark, I wish for you a sense of humor, which you obviously don’t have yet.</p>
<p>For the believing Christian, death is no big deal. Intentionally killing an innocent person is a big deal, a grave sin which causes one to lose his soul, he said. For the non-believer, on the other hand, to deprive a man of his life is to end his existencewhat a horrible act. Justice Scalia on the death penalty</p>
<p>Yet here he is again:</p>
<p>In response to a question about how his religious views inform his decisions as a judge, Scalia replied, I try mightily to prevent my religious views or my political views or my philosophical views from affecting my interpretation of the laws, which is what my job is about."</p>
<p>Does anyone else see something a bit contradictory?</p>
<p>“if I subscribed to the conventional fallacy that the Constitution is a living document”</p>
<p>'It means today not what current society, much less the Court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted."</p>
<p>For the non-believer,- he is referring to Non Christians, so all you Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, you are in a different arena than Christians.</p>
<p>"And besides being less likely to regard death as an utterly cataclysmic punishment, the Christian is also more likely to regard punishment in general as deserved. The doctrine of free will, the ability of man to resist temptations to evil is central to the Christian doctrine of salvation and damnation, heaven and hell. The post-Freudian secularist, on the other hand, is more inclined to think that people are what their history and circumstances have made them, and there is little sense in assigning blame. "</p>
<p>WHere is the law here? Christians are okay with punishment, while non believers aren’t?</p>
<p>:Youre talking about whether the religious viewpoint should have a role in the legislative and political process. Of course it should. It always has in this country. I mean, you know, coming back to slavery, my goodness, the anti-slavery movement was led and sustained by clergymen – all except Catholic clergymen, by the way, who simply ignored all the edicts from Rome, in case you ever think the American Catholic church is always right. </p>
<p>(Laughter.) No, I think we would, as a nation, have a very different history if we excised from our political debate those views that were distinctively religious views. On the most important issues facing our country they have always been heard and expressed. " Justice Scalia</p>
<p>And remember its Believers views only (as opposed to non believers0</p>
<p>Scalia cited the New Testament to claim that government derives its moral authority from God … to execute wrath, including even wrath by the sword, which is unmistakably a reference to the death penalty. He then made the following remarkable declaration:</p>
<p>Indeed, it seems to me that the more Christian a country is, the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral. Abolition has taken its firmest hold in post-Christian Europe and has least support in the church-going United States. I attribute that to the fact that for the believing Christian, death is no big deal.</p>
<p>OMG-</p>
<p>I hope the president seizes the opportunity to bring a justice in who will work for consensus and unite this country rather than divide it.
Justice OConner will stay until a replacement is found- giving plenty of time to find the right(um) best candidate.
However- who will retire next week? How long can the chief justice stay?</p>
<p>“I hope the president seizes the opportunity to bring a justice in who will work for consensus and unite this country rather than divide it.”</p>
<p>Hear, hear. We need a judge with the wisdom of Solomon. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m afraid that this is an impossible task. As much as I dislike Bush, there is no way that ANY decision he makes will not be a case for division. If he nominates a conservative, the liberals will go to war; if he nominates someone more liberal, the conservatives will go to war; if he nominates a centrist, BOTH sides will hate it as not conservative/liberal enough. Someone brought up a past nomination that should be a model of how the process should go, but I think the country is too divided and that division really manifests itself in the Congress. Look at the opposition from conservatives already in anticipation (horror?) that Gonzales might be named. And the liberals as well would oppose Gonzales. Bush has no viable strategy to “unite the country here.”</p>
<p>I think that Congress is going to fight no matter what - but, here it goes again: a skilled jurist, <strong>once on the court,</strong>* could unite it. Unfortunately, the Court is deeply divided and need someone who can start to build consensus.</p>
<p>there is precedent for a president to nominate a centrist
Look at O’Connor. When Reagan nominated her years ago- I was not thrilled.
She seemed too conservative particulary where womens issues were concerned. But she has done a great job and can be proud of her time on the bench.
Howard Dean
</code></pre>
<p>
gee, but I thought Howard thought she was part of the biggest constitutional tragedy of all times when she sided with the majority to “steal” the election of 2000.</p>
<p>I don’t really follow Howard Dean I voted for Kuznich</p>
<p>oh actually I said she has done a great job- she has approached each case individually as I hope I would do in the same position
What Howard said is in quotes- sorry I was confusing
He did call her moderate though- is that like damming with faint praise?</p>
<p>It is. Where in the Constitution does it speak of Presidents appointing members of the Court based upon ideological balance? Isn’t it assumed that the electorate elected the President - and it is his prerogative to select the appointee based on his own ideology? As for balance, I’m sure those of you above the age of 50 remember this:</p>
<p>On January 19, 1970, president Richard Nixon nominated G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court. While Carswell’s nomination was promptly rejected by the Senate, Nebraska Senator Roman Hruska presented a novel argument in his defense:
“Even if he was mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers,” Hruska declared. “They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there.”</p>
<p>Hruska, Roman Lee (1904- ) American politician, Congressman (1952-1955), U.S. Senator (Nebraska, 1955-1977)</p>
<p>I think Teddy Kennedy might fit Hruska’s bill - he cheated at Harvard and didn’t know, as a lawyer, that after an “accident” he should call the police FIRST instead of his lawyer. Actually, mediocre might be generous.</p>
<p>Yeah, lets have medicore people making life and death decisions for the rest of us, and lets have someone on the bench who call people Christians and Non-Believers- </p>
<p>Why in the world make a distinction between the two groups, when it comes to LAW? And I would never say, well, you Christians set over her and you Non-Believers, well we will apply this law because Christians aren’t afraid of death? Excuse me, I know lots of Christians afraid of dying…oh, he meant the Heaven-Hell part…got it</p>
<p>And as a Non-believer, what don’t I believe in? Hmmmm, and why should that make any difference in the LAW</p>
<p>Labeling people Non-Believers implies a Negative belief system, and why not have the man-parts to say Non Christians…</p>
<p>So what don’t I believe in- well, I don’t believe elephats can fly, I don’t believe the earth is flat</p>
<p>But I am a Believer in honesty, compassion, freedom, democracy, responsiblity, and chocolate</p>
<p>As for the Constitution and appointment of judges… if I’m not mistaken, the role of the court has dramatically changed in the past half-century. (I think that some of it is that courts are now much more accessible than elected leaders; there are much fewer elected congressmen/senators per capita than there were at the end of the 18th century. Sadly, a lot of politics is now driven by well-funded lobbyist groups - from both sides! - which makes politicians less accessible. Finally, the sheer number of administrative agencies has the effect of making our laws less accountable to the people. Anyway.) For good or evil, judges were once expected to apply the strict interpretation of the Constitution to the problem before then. I’m not arguing the merits of this approach. The thing is, when judges did that, their political viewpoints had less (not none, just less) of an effect than they do now. As more rights are read into the Constitution, it has been possible for judges to have more of an effect on the law, based on their own political beliefs. That has had the effect of making the process a lot more about politics and less about the quality of jurisprudence. So it didn’t matter what the President was supposed to do ideologically. In fact, the framers were deliberatly vague on a lot of the details of appointing Article III judges. Some of this may have been deliberate.</p>
<p>As much of a strict constructionalist/federalist that I am, personally, I just don’t see the validity of many of those arguments in this day and age. I cannot believe that the Founding Fathers could have foreseen this happening, where there is very little direct representation, very little accountability to the electorate, almost no turnover in Congress (98% of incumbents win re-election, right?), and a proliferation of highly paid special interest groups who fund elections of politicians and lobby for their own bills.</p>