Roberts Court Threatens Fabric of America
By Curt Levey Posted in SCOTUS — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Democratic White House hopefuls took advantage of today’s presidential forum to beat up on the Roberts Court. John Edwards said the Court is “eating away at the fabric of America, of who we are and what we are.” Hillary reminded the crowd that she had warned America of the grave consequences that would follow if Samuel Alito were confirmed. She wisely realized that his record of “sid[ing] with big business against nearly anyone on any issue” meant that, once on the Court, he would help to “undo years of precedent.” But what else would you expect from a nominee of “the most radical presidency we've ever had in our country's history.”
I’ll be looking for the reaction from former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has repeatedly warned since her retirement that “using judges as punching bags presents a grave threat to the independent judiciary.” Surely she doesn’t have just conservative criticism of the courts in mind.
Although the AP article on the presidential forum doesn’t mention the crowd’s reaction to today’s judge bashing, I’m sure it was very enthusiastic. The audience was, after all, a bunch of trial lawyers.
In sense, Hillary is right
by BoBo
I am a firm supporter of principled politics, whether it is liberal or conservative. If Hillary honestly thought, which undoubtedly she did, that Roberts and Alito would make the Supreme Court more conservative that she felt was good for America, I think she had a moral duty to vote against them. However, I also think principled Republicans have a moral duty to vote against any liberal nominee to the Supreme Court. Should either Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan get nominated to replace Ginsburg in 2009, then all the Republicans need to vote against her. No future liberal SCOTUS nominee should get a unanimous 100-0 or 98-0 confirmation vote ever again in the Senate.
depends on the standard, Bobo
by zendari
The politics of nominees used to be of less focus, hence, Scalia got in unanimously.
What I cannot accept is this shifting standard. If we are getting more Ginsbergs, they better not get 90 votes.
perhaps the very fabric of existence!
by Dienekes
heh
Well....
by AndrewHyman
Why should she always get to pick the fabric?
the current Democratic nominees are thinking plenty about reshaping the court back into its previous leftist format.
I'm reminded again just how important this next presidential election really is.
Reply To This — User Info — #6 — Sun, 2007-07-15 22:23
Oz
by BillM
Edwards is just pathetic. He's gone so wildly to the Left, there's no way he could ever be elcted.
23 Republican Senate seats to defend in 08, wow. Not as important as POTUS, as even Mahoney & Sykes would be vast improvements over any of the three ultra-libs, but still.
CALL SENATORS NOW!!!
by NoLibs
EVERYONE READING THIS SHOULD BE CALLING REPUBLICAN SENATORS, ESP. THOSE ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND MCCONNEL TO ASK THEM TO FIGHT FOR SOUTHWICK.
ALSO YOU SHOULD BE CALLING DEMS FEINSTEIN AND KOHL AND VERY NICELY ASKING THEM TO SUPPORT IRAQ WAR VETERAN SOUTHWICK AND THAT YOU FEEL HE IS HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND A GOOD MAN.
And that's wreaking some havoc with the subsequent responses.
Same old, same old
by ThomasJ
To blame trial lawyers for all that is wrong with the world is a pretty simple way of thinking. Why does everything have to be so black and white? There are trial lawyers who are scumbags but there are also trial lawyers that are good-hearted people. There are conservative judges who take politics too much into account when making their decisions and there are conservative judges who really believe they are serving the Constitution. Same goes for liberal judges. Some are good and some are bad.
I don't want to have to keep pulling out my "these people just don't understand the law like us lawyers do" card but such silly ways of viewing the world just keep inspiring me to do that very thing.
Or we can all continue to say that the head cheerleader would have gone to prom with us if that trial lawyer hadn't asked her first.
I saw a Headline
by BananaRepublican
I saw a headline that said "Democrats Court Trial Lawyers." That's got to be up for one of the most ridiculous headlines of the week. Right up there with "Democrats Court the Black Vote."
If it weren't so serious,
by Classic
it would be hilarioius!
SJC Business Meeting
by Nomination Observer
FYI, nominee Mauskopf (SD NY) was added to the nominees to considered at this week's Senate Judiciary Committee Business Meeting(s). As I recall, she had been help up due to Senator Feingold's "concerns" re death penalty issues.
Of course, none of the Circuit Court nominees has been added.
Bill M.
by Oz
Yeah, on the Dem side, I see us having to fight a Hillary/Obama ticket if Hillary wins the nomination. Obama's just been picking up to many important people to be cast aside.
Of course, there's stlil AlGore :-)
I don't think
by Classic
even the dems are dumb enough to nominate 2 senators, one of which has had less than three years experience in DC. Whatever else you say about Obama, he's a lightweight. HE has problems in the debates and I'm sure he'd be sliced and diced as Edwards was by Cheney.
Anybody have details on the
by SOP
Anybody have details on the "retaliatory plan" for Dems shooting down Southwick?
From: http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_6/news/19375-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS
Southwick May Stymie Senate
GOP Eyes Plan To Block Bills By Erin P. Billings
Roll Call Staff
July 16, 2007
Barring an unlikely confirmation of Leslie Southwick to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by the Judiciary Committee this week, Senate GOP leaders have privately mapped out a retaliatory plan that involves blocking passage of Democratic legislation from now until the August recess.
Parker 2nd Amendment case to SCOTUS?
by zendari
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/07/second_amendmen.h...
Local government officials in Washington, D.C., announced Monday they will appeal to the Supreme Court in a major test case on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The key issue in the coming petition will be whether the Amendment protects an individual right to have guns in one's home -- an issue on which there is now a clear conflict among federal Circuit Courts. The city will be defending the constitutionality of a local handgun control law that is regarded as the strictest in the nation.
The petition would have been due Aug. 7, but city officials said Monday that they would ask Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., for a 30-day extension of time to file the case. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and city Attorney General Linda Singer disclosed the appeal plan at a press conference, along with local Police Chief Cathy Lanier. (A news release announcing the action can be found here ) The Mayor said: "We have made the determination that this law can and should be defended and we are willing to take our case to the highest court in the land to protect the city's residents. Our handgun law has saved countless lives -- keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves."
Can John Roberts unilaterally decline the extension, and tie this case up in procedure rather than count on Kennedy?
Umm, Curt, I think Sandra Day O'Connor most definitely is referring to just conservative criticism. When she writes about judicial independence, she always refers to laws or comments made by conservatives upset with some of the Supreme Court's liberal decisions. Oddly, I have never heard her decry the liberal backlash against some of the Supreme Court's conservative decisions.