Come November, it's all about the U.S. Supreme Court. ABSOLUTELY EPIC!

[tedoll78]

Let's look at the current composition of the court:

Conservatives (Nazis)
William Hubbs Rehnquist-->
Born: 1924
Sworn-In: January 7, 1972 (~32 years ago!)
Nominated by: Richard M Nixon
Retirement rumors? Frequent.

Antonin Scalia-->
Born: 1936
Sworn-In: September 26, 1986 (~22 years ago!)
Nominated by: Ronald W Reagan
Retirement rumors? Infrequent.

Clarence H Thomas-->
Born: 1948
Sworn-In: March 12, 1990 (~14 years ago)
Nominated by: George H.W. Bush
Retirement rumors? Infrequent.

Relatively Moderates
Sandra Day O'Connor-->
Born: 1930
Sworn-In: September 25, 1981 (~23 years ago!)
Nominated by: Ronald W Reagan
Retirement rumors? Very Frequent!

Anthony M Kennedy-->
Born: 1936
Sworn-In: February 18, 1988 (~16 years ago)
Nominated by: Ronald W Reagan
Retirement rumors? Infrequent.

"Liberals"
John Paul Stevens-->
Born: 1920
Sworn-In: December 19, 1975 (~29 years ago!)
Nominated by: Gerald R Ford
Retirement Rumors? Very frequent!

David H Souter-->
Born: 1939
Sworn-In: October 9, 1990 (~14 years)
Nominated by: George H.W. Bush
Retirement Rumors? Infrequent.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg-->
Born: 1933
Sworn-In: August 10, 1993 (~11 years)
Nominated by: William J. Clinton
Retirement Rumors: Occasional.

Stephen G Breyer-->
Born: 1938
Sworn-In: August 3, 1994 (~10 years)
Nominated by: William J. Clinton
Retirement Rumors: Infrequent.

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

Need perspective? Here are some articles:

Could Rehnquist Retire?
http://www.freecongress.org/media/030531ap.asp
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/26/scotus.rehnquist/

Could Scalia Be the Chief?
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1036630448959

O'Connor Not Retiring.. yet..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16922-2003Jul6?language=printer

John Paul Stevens' Retirement Could Tip the Balance..
http://www.thehollandsentinel.net/stories/062099/new_stevens.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp061498.htm

Handicapping the Retirement Race:
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2074450

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

The first thing to note about each of the above justices' profiles: look at the average time served on the high court. It's just about 19 years. That's phenomenal! Considering that a president serves for 8 years at most, it's easy to conclude that a good Supreme Court justice will keep giving and giving and giving! A president, liberal or conservative will sign bad legislation in each term - it's guaranteed. But, as with all controversial laws, there will be a court challenge, and a good Supreme Court will always knock down an overwhelming majority of those laws.

Another thing to note: the moderates and liberals are much more likely to retire than the conservatives are. Let's look at the consequences with different presidents in office.

First, assume that Bush wins election in 2004. Then assume that O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Stevens leave the court one way or another. With Bush appointing Scalia clones, this would leave the court with a 6-1-2 Conservative-Moderate-Liberal configuration. Consider this nightmare..
Bye, bye, EPA powers!
No more reproductive rights.
Welcome back, sodomy laws.
The right to a lawyer, or to privacy? Ha!
Separate-but-equal: good.
Hello, theocracy!
I'd never get to marry my partner. :cry:
:scared:

Now let's assume that our nominee wins in 2004. Then assume that the same three justices leave the bench. With our Democrat making appointments in the cloth of Ginsburg (not too shabby), this would leave the court with a 3-1-5 Conservative-Moderate-Liberal configuration. Consider this dream..
EPA powers: protected!
Gay marriage? Certain.
Reproductive rights: preserved!
Sodomy laws? Gone for good.
Right to privacy? Solid!
Separate-but-equal: bad.
Separation of church and state? Not by a wall, but by an electro-shock force field!
:toast:

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

Please keep this in mind when voting this November. Any of our candidates will nominate high-quality nominees to the high court. Even Clinton, much maligned for being too moderate, was able to do so. If we're able to lower the average age of our liberals, raise their average health statuses, and increase the number of the liberal members on the court overall, electing a Democratic president will pay dividends in spades for the next ten, twenty, maybe even thirty years!

So please consider voting Democratic this November; their court nominees will earn your vote many hundreds of times over and over again. Thanks for your thoughtful consideration. :grouphug:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. 32 fucking years and that fucking son of a bitch

isn't dead yet. Geez!

Sorry Tedoll, great post! I'll join the fray in the morning..my brain hurts now...time for some mindless crap :D

[ProudToBeLiberal]

2. why do you consider time in a straight line?

Why not a circle?

[Dookus]

3. Of course you're right....

but since Democrats were too stupid to choose the RIGHT nominee, we must be punished for the foreseeable future with a right-wing Court. The personal satisfaction gained by voting for someone other than the Dem nominee will be well worth the 20 years of pain resulting from it.

(/sarcasm off)

[lcordero]

4. I wish that Clinton would have shown more common sense

and have selected a hell of a lot younger people.

on edit: If a person wants Bushlite then the wholeheartedly deserve Bush...with all the unemployment, war, 30 years of Supreme Court Pain, cronyism and so on.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. No established track record and frankly while Bush sr gave us

Thomas, he also gave us Souter who has been fairly liberal to libertarian in his rulings.

[Gemini Cat]

10. Yes, and the right wing has been mad about the

Souter pick ever since.

We just got Pryor and Pickering jammed down our collective throats. I can't imagine what sort of asshat * would select for SC. Actually, I can imagine what sort of asshat * would select, and that's what scares me.

:dem:

[blondeatlast]

5. Psst... Is it just me, or is there an elephant in the room?

It's gotta be said. Third party votes in swing states risk the end of virtually every civil liberty we have fought for since WWII.

If you think SCOTUS doesn't matter, remember this: in 1972, the PRESIDENT was forced by the Supreme Court to turn over the tapes. It led to his eventual resignation in disgrace.

Nixon's dirty tricks were peanuts compared to the BFEE.

[oasis]

7. Looks like there will be 3 or 4 Bush justices appointed in his next term.

[ngGale]

8. The Supreme Court is the main reason we have to..

hold our nose and vote ABB. I'm not giving up the life of my grand daughter to a coat hanger. An abstinence program could use that for there logo.

[CityDem]

9. At minimum three new SCOTUS

The next president will appoint at least 3 and possibly as many as 4 SCOTUS justices. Rhenquist is gone; O'Connor is gone; and Stevens may be gone. Ginsburg's health is an issue and could affect her ability to serve another 4 years. If Bush wins the election, he will change the composition of an pretty evenly divided court to one where the conservatives rule by a 6-3 margin. Coupled with the fact that the dems will likely lose a few souther senate seats, this does not shape up well for us progressives.

[unfrigginreal]

11. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Well that same fucking sky has been falling for the last 7 Presidential elections that I've voted in.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. So then why have a problem now?

What were you doing about it the last 7 elections that you seem to be entitled to some instant gratification regarding it now.

Most of the Dems I know sat on their fucking hands in the 90's.

[unfrigginreal]

13. I'm going to do now what I should have done sooner

Make the candidate earn my vote. Instant gratification my ass...how many decades am I supposed to wait? There's not a hell of a lot of them in a lifetime, ya' know.

[tedoll78]

14. Question..

assume our nominee wins and puts-up two Supreme Court nominees who serve an average of 20 years apiece. Does that go nowhere in terms of "earning your vote?" Or are you a coathangers-or-bust voter?

[unfrigginreal]

16. Yeah that's what I am...

a coathangers-or-bust voter. :eyes:

I think your persuasiveness bodes well for us come November.

[tedoll78]

21. Perhaps I was a bit crude..

still, I'd like my question answered: if two twenty-year liberal justices are appointed, would this go some distance towards earning your vote?

[Democat]

17. Do you care about other people or not?

People died because idealists chose to vote against Al Gore last time.

Will you one of the ones with blood on your hands this time?

[unfrigginreal]

18. I'm hardly what most would consider an idealist...

I'm more of a realist. I've come to the conclusion that the only way the Democratic Party will nominate candidates with views closer to my own, is to withold my vote until they do.

I would suggest that I'm actually a late-comer to that conclusion that many others got there before me. If you look at the 2002 elections, Democrats stayed home in droves. If you look at the California recall results, you'll see that the % of under $50,000 voters was very low.

Oh, and yes of course I'll have blood on my hands. Just like all of those folks in Massachusetts that voted in a Senator that authorized a madman to go to war.

[LoZoccolo]

23. If Bush puts in conservative SCOTUS justices...

...you'll probably be feeling it for much longer than you intend to wait for the Democratic party to change.

[Walt Starr]

22. Yeah, the problem is real, though

See, it's been the same fucking sky falling as long as I've been voting. Problem is, these old fucks on the right held on for Clinton's eight years. Then Clinton fucked up and put somebody on who was too old. Slappy thomas is in there for the next two or three decades, so our only shots are with the really old ones about to leave.

Our only chance to turn this fucked up Right Wing court around is to put a Democrat in office. At best, it will end up being a moderate court unless we take the fucking Senat and then make it a 61 seat majority in '06. The best thing that could happen is O'connor retires first, a very moderate to liberal judge gets on, then Rhenquist quits and we appoint a liiberal chief justice.

This is our only shot, though.

[tedoll78]

24. This is the best shot we'll have for a long time.

O'Connor leaves. Moderate seat --> Liberal seat
Rehnquist leaves. Conservative seat --> Liberal seat
Stevens leaves. Liberal seat --> younger & healthier Liberal seat
Ginsburg leaves (cancer comes back?). Liberal seat --> younger & healthier liberal seat.

We'd end-up with:
Conservatives --> Scalia & Thomas
Moderate --> Kennedy
Liberals --> Souter, Breyer, Liberal 1, Liberal 2, Liberal 3, Liberal 4.

That's right! 2-1-6 Liberal!

And not just any breed of liberal - YOUNG liberal. The type of young where these new judges can sit around for 30 years or more, handing-down liberal decision after liberal decision.

For our base, this should be the sleeper issue of the election. I literally have nightmares about Stevens dying and getting replaced by a Scalia goon..

[Walt Starr]

26. Forget even on of those seats being anything more than moderate

The Senate, my good fellow, the Senate. Do you honestly think the Republicans have not taken notice of Democratic techniques these past three years? No liberal will EVER be confirmed. All Liberals will be immediately filibustered.

[tedoll78]

27. I know..

it'll be a rough fight. And honestly, I'm more than willing to put-up with a vacancy on the court.

Bush also hasn't harped on this issue as much as he could. In the case of a Supreme Court justice filibuster, I bet that we'll see Bush on TV every day talking about the "obstruction." He'll portray it as a crisis in the judiciary, or some such nonsense.

For Kerry or Edwards, I fully expect our president (D) to raise unholy hell about this if one of them gets elected. In fact, I'd call our Democratic senators and demand that all Senate business be filibustered until we got our nominee.

I'd play dirtier than the GOP would, but not to the point where I'd go nuclear and get rid of the filibuster. But if we win and get these appointees, we win for a good 20 years at least. With changing demographics in this country, we'll be dominant before the next big wave of appointments comes-up.

That, and I'd much, much rather be playing on offense than defense.

[shance]

15. Good point. This is probably the key consideration for me.

This puts it all in perspective. I am neither a Kerry or an Edwards supporter at this time, but when it comes to the Supreme Court, we simply must do all that we can to protect the upcoming vacancies that will undoubtedly occur.

This is the litmus test for me. However for the primary, no doubt in my mind.

Dean is my candidate.

[DeepModem Mom]

19. Thanks for your research, tedoll78 --

and thoughtful analysis.

[tedoll78]

20. I'm bumping this.

For those who didn't have Kerry or Edwards as their choice (I was a Deaniac and still am), please consider this.

[oasis]

31. A former Dean supporter laying out the facts. Commendable effort. (eom)

[wuushew]

25. Just a reminder members of SCOTUS can also be recess appointed

Kennedy did so when appointing Justice Marshall, and of course he went on to have a long and distinguished career(After the balance of power in the Senate had shifted).

We will lose fillbuster numbers come 2005. Would President_X have the courage to not renominate the temporary Justice?

[tedoll78]

28. boing!!!

:bounce:

Hang in there, J.P. - help is on the way!

[DemExpat]

29. This thread should be a permanent post on DU's page 1....

:kick:

DemEx

[tedoll78]

34. Is there any way?

I wish we could do so. This isn't just about electing someone for a four-year term. There are a few twenty-year terms in the balance also.

[oasis]

35. This way: kick

[tedoll78]

36. kick

:dem:

[tedoll78]

37. BOING!

:bounce:

[oasis]

30. Let's get another good look at that SCOTUS list.

[IconoclastIlene]

32. I do not wish for the Supreme Court to pick yet another President.

Once was quite enough, thank you.

[bluestateguy]

33. I try to explain this to people

Most women and gays seem to understand this. The Supreme Court allows a president to leave his mark on the country for decades.

[mvd]

38. There are a few things alone that would make me...

vote for our nominee. Yes, the future of the Supreme Court is one thing. Civil liberties are another thing - Bush is a wanna-be dictator. The enviornment and science are other things. It really makes my stomach churn when I hear how Bush's administration has covered up negative stuff about the enviornment and favors researchers who suit him and his donors. Also, as far as health care goes, the Bush administration will never go as far as Kerry would on keeping people insured and insuring the uninsured. Finally, our tax system should be fairer. I know Kerry wouldn't re-distribute like I would, but he clearly beats Bush. But out of all of these things, the Supreme Court is most important.

[tedoll78]

39. What's great about the Supreme Court is..

that it's a catch-all. Whatever your pet issue is, the Supreme Court will touch-on it in some very meaningful way. If there's a controversial law passed on an issue near and dear to you, a Supreme Court that's on your side is worth its weight in gold. And any of the candidates will nominate justices who will be on our side.. people who will have our backs for decades apiece. That's tremendous.