The U.S. Supreme Court - potential swings in ideology after 2004:

[tedoll78]

There are three conservative stalwarts on the court right now:
Rehnquist
Scalia
Thomas

There are two "moderates" on the court:
O'Connor
Kennedy

There are four pretty liberal thinkers on the court currently:
Stevens
Souter
Ginsburg
Breyer

...

So, here's how the court could end-up 6-3 in favor of us:
Rehnquist, having served since 1973, either quits or kicks the bucket. Assuming we name a nice replacement, the liberal column gains one.
O'Connor, trailed by increasing rumors of retirement, quits. Again, the liberal column gains one.

At this point, the court would be divided 6-2-1 liberal-conservative-Kennedy:
Stevens-Souter-Ginsburg-Breyer-Nominee1-Nominee2 vs Scalia-Thomas.

And then some other things could happen.

Stevens could retire. The man is in poor health and in his 80's. The liberal column stays steady with our replacement, but with a justice in much better physical shape. {BTW, he was rumored in 2000 to be hoping for a Gore victory so he could retire.}

And perhaps Ginsburg might step-down? She has health issues also.

=====================================================================

And then there's the flip-side.

Stevens could die.
Ginsburg could come out of remission from her cancer.
O'Connor could retire and be replaced by a Scalia clone.
Rehnquist could retire/die and be replaced by a younger version of himself.

This would produce a 6-2-1 conservative-liberal-Kennedy court.

The GOP could end-up dominating the US Supreme Court for those 20 to 30 years if Bush wins. This is what gives me nightmares.

=====================================================================

My point? Any of the current candidates would produce high-quality judges if elected. Young, healthy, smart judges who could each serve 20, 30, maybe even more years on the bench. If there is one reason to vote for the 'D' this fall, this is it! Cheers! :)

[hansberrym]

1. A lot depends on the type of cases that come before the court,

and it is an oversimplification to try to break the court down to liberal vs. conservative. Also there are some things that ought to be conserved such as the freedom of the press.

Consider the Campaign Finance Law. Liberals usually uphold the freedom of the press, but even the ACLU could not sway the moderates and liberals as you defined them. Only the judges you rated as most conservative opposed this congressional overreaching.


http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-1674.html

(from McConnel v. Campaign Finance Law)
"In addition to arguing that §316(b)(2)'s segregated-fund requirement is underinclusive, some plaintiffs contend that it unconstitutionally discriminates in favor of media companies. FECA §304(f)(3)(B)(i) excludes from the definition of electioneering communications any "communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate." 2 U. S. C. A. §434(f)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2003). Plaintiffs argue this provision gives free rein to media companies to engage in speech without resort to PAC money. Section 304(f)(3)(B)(i)'s effect, however, is much narrower than plaintiffs suggest. The provision excepts news items and commentary only; it does not afford carte blanche to media companies generally to ignore FECA's provisions. The statute's narrow exception is wholly consistent with First Amendment principles. "A valid distinction ... exists between corporations that are part of the media industry and other corporations that are not involved in the regular business of imparting news to the public." Austin, 494 U. S., at 668. Numerous federal statutes have drawn this distinction to ensure that the law "does not hinder or prevent the institutional press from reporting on, and publishing editorials about, newsworthy events." Ibid. (citations omitted); see, e.g., 2 U. S. C. §431(9)(B)(i) (exempting news stories, commentaries, and editorials from FECA's definition of "expenditure"); 15 U. S. C. §§1801-1804 (providing a limited antitrust exemption for newspapers); 47 U. S. C. §315(a) (excepting newscasts, news interviews, and news documentaries from the requirement that broadcasters provide equal time to candidates for public office).89 (end quote) (my emphasis)


It seems that we are soon to have an "institutional press" rather than an individual right to speak, broadcast, and publish our ideas. That is what gives me nightmares, and it is being done by and large by "liberal" judges at precisely the worst time. Note that there is a spate of media conglomeration going on, which is being abetted by the right wing multinational corporate types who are pushing to ease restrictions on media corporations owning multiple stations.



Below is a little historical background on the meaning of the term "freedom of the press".


From Virginia BoR
Section 12. Freedom of speech and of the press; right peaceably to assemble, and to petition.

That the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments; that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, nor the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.