National Review Fears Kerry's Power To Nominate Supreme Court Justices

[DrFunkenstein]

(Yes, I know this article is a few weeks old, but it's not like I read NRO every day.)

Kerry’s Court
How a President Kerry would nominate.

The most profound impact the next president will have on the direction of the country, aside from prosecuting the war on terror, pertains to the nomination of judges. Absent retirements before the November election, the next president will likely nominate between two and four justices to the Supreme Court, as well as scores of judges to the federal district and appeals courts.

Justice Scalia has noted that the tendency of judges to make, rather than interpret, the law necessarily causes the Senate's advise-and-consent function to devolve into partisan warfare. Senators confirm judicial nominees more on the basis of ideological litmus tests than on the basis of the candidate's competency, integrity, temperament, and experience. This, in turn, leads to a judiciary more likely to decide cases by invoking the "faddish slogans of the cognescenti" than by interpreting constitutional, statutory, or regulatory text — a trend favoring the rule of man over the rule of law.

...

Kerry even chastised President Bush for purportedly using a pro-life litmus test for nominees: "You do not have to believe in the existence of right-wing conspiracies to recognize that there is a clear if quiet understanding between George W. Bush and right-to-life activists that he will do everything possible if Supreme Court openings occur to add the estimated 2 justices it would take to achieve their desired result."

Kerry's reversion to a no-litmus-test stance may be an effort to inoculate his nominees, should he become President, against the kind of filibuster now employed against several of President Bush's selections for the bench. So, does this now mean that a President Kerry wouldn't demand ideological purity from his judicial nominees?

Not quite. Kerry has pledged to nominate only pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court. (The apparent calculus is: pro-life litmus test — bad; pro-choice litmus test — good.) But his waffling on litmus tests probably won't serve his nominees well. Given that Senate Democrats, who've now sanctioned implacable obstruction as a legitimate advise-and-consent tool, are likely to remain in the minority after November 2004, Kerry's nominees may pass one test only to fail another.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200405050849.asp

[Scoopie]

1. And?

[DrFunkenstein]

3. Re-Read This Passage

"Absent retirements before the November election, the next president will likely nominate between two and four justices to the Supreme Court, as well as scores of judges to the federal district and appeals courts."

Presidents last 8 years at most. Supreme Court Justices last a generation. It is pie-in-the-sky, but think about even the remotest possibility of 4 new liberal Justices.

[tedoll78]

6. YES!

A thousand times yes!

If there's any reason for vote for Kerry this November - even if one has strong doubts about him - it's the U.S. Supreme Court.

Currently, the average term on the high court for a justice is 19 years. Assuming that the winner of November's election will eventually get to nominate two justices to the court, and assuming that the average term trend holds, that's a total of over 35 years of court voting.

Or, from a different perspective, we can look at potential retirees:

* Stevens - a reliable liberal on the court - was nominated by Ford. He's 85, and his health is on shaky ground.
* O'Connor - rumors about concerning her retirement.
* Rehnquist - nominated by Nixon, he's a fine example of the damage that a bad nominee can do, producing ill-thought-out votes year after year, like clockwork.
* Ginsburg - her health is fine for now, although she has undergone treatment for cancer.

Imagine if all of these were to either retire or die. And assume that Kerry could nominate their replacements. Young, healthy, liberal replacements. The court would look like this:
* Conservatives: Scalia, Thomas
* Moderate: Kennedy
* Liberals: Breyer, Souter, Nominee #1, Nominee #2, Nominee #3, Nominee #4

And if Bush could nominate Scalia clones?
* Conservatives: Scalia, Thomas, Nominee #1, Nominee #2, Nominee #3, Nominee #4
* Moderate: Kennedy
* Liberal: Breyer, Souter

...

This is precisely why a Bush victory in November gives me nightmares. Literally. If Bush wins, we could probably kiss goodbye to any semblance of rational thought in Supreme Court rulings for 20 years.

[PVnRT]

2. One of the more important reasons

to get a Democrat in the White House and a majority in the Senate.

[DaveSZ]

4. Right

This is the reason why Kerry must win at all costs.

If * appoints 2 or 3 more justices, we'll be brought back into the Middle Ages. At the very least 50-70 years of Constitutional law will be rolled back.

America will become a totalitarian theocracy.

This is why the Vatican is trying to throw the election as well, because that is what they want.

[DaveSZ]

5. The Supreme Court

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12315


The Supreme Court


PFAW Foundation Resources on the High Court

The U.S. Supreme Court has ultimate responsibility for interpreting the nation’s Constitution and laws. At times in our history, the Supreme Court has been a powerful force for extending constitutional protections to all Americans. At other times, it has been an obstacle to progress. The current Supreme Court is closely divided on basic constitutional issues, with many key cases being decided by a 5-4 vote.

Courting Disaster
The next President is likely to nominate up to three new Supreme Court justices who will have a huge and long-lasting impact on constitutional rights, liberties and laws.

What's At Stake in the Supreme Court?
Read our overview of what's at stake in the Supreme Court broken down by issues. Below are a few of the main issues discussed in Courting Disaster:

Privacy: If the Court overturns Roe v. Wade, as Scalia and Thomas are eager to do, it would end a constitutional right to reproductive freedom.


Civil Rights: Scalia and Thomas have advocated extreme positions, including a weakening of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 so that it wouldn't be interpreted broadly to prohibit racial discrimination in all aspects of voting.


Religious Liberty: Scalia and Thomas would hand the far right a victory they have sought for the past two decades and more – by dismantling the wall between church and state.


Workers’ Rights: A Scalia-Thomas Court would sharply reduce workers’ rights by, for example, eliminating protections against firing government workers for belonging to the wrong political party.


Environmental Protection: A Scalia-Thomas majority would make it much more difficult, and in some cases impossible, to protect our natural heritage.

[DrFunkenstein]

8. Notice The Vatican Says Nothing About The Death Penalty?

America is one of a handful of "civilized" nations that continues to widely use the death penalty, and one of six (I believe) in the world that use it on minors.

[displacedtexan]

7. Just say NO to the Supreme W. Court!

This is, and always has been, my #1 issue!