Two names: Stevens and O'Connor....

[election_2004]

If either Jon Paul Stevens or Sandra Day O'Connor retire before 2008, the absence of Democrats' ability to filibuster would mean the Supreme Court would be shifted toward a theocratic majority.

The ultimate goal needs to be preventing Michael McConnell, Edith Jones, Michael Luttig, Emilio Garza, or Sam Alito from replacing O'Connor or Stevens (whoever replaced Rehnquist will be a wash).

"Extraordinary circumstances"......the U.S. Supreme Court requires a MUCH higher standard for judicial moderation than the Circuit Courts, which means the Democrats can make a valid and persuasive case that the filibuster would be needed to keep McConnell/Jones/Luttig/Garza/Alito off of SCOTUS.

EVERYONE (in the political world, at least) knows this.

If the filibuster had been dissolved COMPLETELY this week, there would be ABSOLUTELY NO WAY for anyone to protect the judicial vacancies of Stevens and O'Connor from being filled by new justices who will make rational decisions at least some of the time.

"Better that we go down fighting"....NOT at the expense of jeopardizing social justice for generations to come!

The priority must be protecting any Stevens or O'Connor retirement by accepting moderately-conservative judges instead of right-wing obstructionists (McConnell, Jones, Luttig, Garza, Alito) who will base their court opinions on theocratic ideology.

I wrote an article about this, months ago:
http://www.flipsidepress.com/issue/getpost.pl?messnumb=1108545869

STEVENS and O'CONNOR....if these two retire by 2007, protecting their seats with tolerable justices is the only thread left protecting upcoming decisions over the future of Roe vs. Wade and domestic parity for gays/lesbians from being completely obliterated by the Fundies.

[shoelace414]

1. don't forget

there is another election in 2006.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[election_2004]

6. Santorum, Talent, Burns....

These are the seats that need to be targeted, along with defending Stabenow, Cantwell, Dayton's vacancy, and both Nelsons.

[annabanana]

2. bookmark this for future reference, folks

"Jones, Jones, now where have I heard that name before..."

[election_2004]

3. Google the name "Edith Jones"

.....and get ready to cower in fear.

[fob]

5. That IS one scary person. That she sits on any court is criminal.

She drew a chuckle from the mostly male audience when she read from the majority opinion in Stanley v. Georgia that a man has a "right to satisfy his intellectual needs in the privacy of his home," and asked if men are answering "intellectual" needs when they look at pornography. She likewise ridiculed another statement in the ruling in Ginsburg v. New York that said parents are not barred from buying magazines containing nudity for their children. "Who can imagine parents purchasing obscene magazines for their children—much less that the Supreme Court would appear to condone it?" she wondered.

Hey Edith, the brain is the most sexual organ in the body and who the HELL are YOU to adjudicate what is "intellectual" and what is not? Obscene magazines? Ever read the Bible? There's some pretty obscene info in there too.

Surveys show that "95 percent of Americans say they believe in God. People everywhere subscribe to the values of the Ten Commandments—don't steal, don't kill, don't covet—however they are phrased," she said.

Really? Care to name these "surveys"? Which God? Is that all manifestations of "God" or just YOUR God, Edith?

Although the court has retrenched on some of its rulings, the moral foundation of self-control is necessary to self-governance and must be fortified. "Laws can slow the decay of morals, but they cannot restore morals," she said. "The Constitution is not a suicide compact. Judges should not issue decisions that are fatal to society."


No, judges should issue decisions based on law and precedent. Who determines which decisions are "fatal" to society?

You are right, this woman is PERFECT for a bush* crime family job.

Edit: Add link for quotes above;
http://www.law.virginia.edu/home2002/html/news/2003_spr/judge_jones.htm

[welshTerrier2]

7. protecting the right to filibuster Supreme Court nominees

many have argued in favor of the "compromise" because it protects the critically important right of Democrats to filibuster extreme right-wing Supreme Court nominees in the future ... they argue that this was our best chance to protect Roe v. Wade ...

but whether that future filibuster was really protected remains to be seen ... given the current balance in the Senate, Democrats MAY have a hard time mustering the 41 votes they'll need to block cloture ...

Here is an overview of the voting records of the 7 "compromising" Democrats on the abortion issue as rated by NARAL ... note that only 2 of the 7 received consistently excellent ratings ... that could mean that the possible overturning of Roe might not be viewed as an "extraordinary circumstance" by the other 5 ... my point is neither in support of nor in opposition to the compromise ... it is made only to analyze where the Senate might stand (based on current information) on a possible filibuster of an extreme right-wing Supreme Court nominee ...

NARAL's Rating of the 7 "Compromising" Democrats:

Byrd - erratic
Inouye - excellent
Landrieu - erratic
Lieberman - excellent
Nelson - poor
Pryor - poor
Salazar - N/A

[BlueManDude]

8. When's the last time a Supreme Court nominee was fillibustered?

Clarence Thomas was flat out unqualified, pretty damn extreme and a sexual harrasser. Yet he made it thru a senate in which the Dems had a 56-44 majority. Bush will get anyone he wants. I'd rather they had gone nuclear.

[election_2004]

9. Bush will NOT get anyone he wants....

The Republicans were able to play the race card with Clarence Thomas.

They won't be able to do that with Alito, Jones, Luttig, or McConnell.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlueManDude]

11. Exactly - so why is "retaining the right to fillibuster a SC nominee"

a "win" for us?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[election_2004]

13. Because....

The potential candidates whom Bush would probably nominate to replace Stevens or O'Connor would not be able to play the race card the way supporters of Clarence Thomas did.

And after seeing the disaster that was Antonin Scalia, it's going to be pretty much impossible for McConnell, Jones, Alito, or Luttig to sneak by without being torn to shreds. Their skeletons will be all over the media.

The only judicial nominees whom the RW can play the race card with are Janice Rogers Brown and Emilio Garza.