SCOTUS: The enivitable shifting of the High Court

[CAV]

After more 12 years of speculation, the Supreme Court of the United States now has a vacancy. Contrary to popular belief it was the aging and ailing Chief Justice Rehnquist but Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Is this a big deal? Potentially, the looming battle to appoint a replacement will have a more crucial and longer lasting impact on shaping the social, cultural and political fabric of this nation than the last three presidential elections. Justice O'Connor was the centralist swing vote on some of the most divisive case raised during her tenure. Her resignation and eventual replacement is likely to spark the long anticipated shift to the right for the highest court in the land.

If you thought the previous battles over the President's judicial appointments were brutal, it was all just a warm up for this upcoming battle royale. If you are a political junkie, such as myself, this is going to be a once in a lifetime showdown. Not since the appointment of Earl Warren was appointed Chief Justice have the Supremes been in such a position to change the American landscape. Grab your seats and get confortable, this is going to be a long and contentious fight.

Thoughts or opinions???

[Gronk]

I wish I could say I'm well versed in this subject, but sadly like many Americans, I've become so jaded over the political process the interest level isn't there. It seems that unless something directly affects the price of gas, interest rates or grocery prices we bury our heads in the sand. I do vote..that's one right I haven't let slide.

All you say is true. This appointment, and a possible additional one soon, is expected to put a more conservative lean to the Court.The Supreme Court has more impact on what defines our country and makes the Constitution a "living ,breathing document" than most of the junk legislation Congress passes. The current administration has the opportunity to really put a stamp on the country for several decades.

My real concern is the religious bent too many politicians seem to fall back on. I hope no one takes offense to this statement, but this country was founded by people trying to escape having religious beliefs jammed down their throats. This is a generalization I know, but the separation of church and state is an important part of this country's make up.

More blood has been shed in the name of God than for any other reason in the history of mankind. We have seen, on our own soil, what the end result of religious extremism can bring. Certainly there's more behind the current situation in the Middle East than just religion. Everyone wants to "speak" for God..Killing thousands by ramming innocent people into skyscrappers or setting off bombs in abortion clinics. This bothers me to my core...

My hope is that the current "body political" can see past personal interests and do what is best for the country as a whole. I know the axes have been
sharpened on both sides of the isle for some time now. Every petty political disagreement will be thrown into the fray. Trying to get an appointee thru this process will be as difficult and ugly as one can find. A Naive hope perhaps...

Anyway sorry Gary I'm not equipped to discuss the "nuts and bolts" of this better. I just wanted to throw out some general thoughts...

Edit note: Had to finish a thought above and correct grammar.

[DAND]

The whole seperation of Church and State was meant to keep the State out the Church not the Church out of the State.

I'm sure George W. has his list already made of potential canidates to fill the vacant position. Like CAV said, it's gonna be a battle. The eventual vacancy of Rehnquist will porbably be not too far in the future either. Appointment part Deux coming soon.

[Gronk]

Dave Said :The whole seperation of Church and State was meant to keep the State out the Church not the Church out of the State.

Dave there's a lot of truth in that statement..no doubt. OTOH a lot of folks had Catholicism or the Church of England as their "choices" in their native lands.

There's little doubt that Christan beliefs were part of many of the framers thinking. We're not just talking about the "landed gentry" that formed a lot of the early political base in the Colonies and wrote the Federalist Papers.

I'm more interested in a current population that should be a lot more educated and open minded. I'm not anti-religion at all, but I am anti-extremism in just about any form.

Just a side note: I was raised and educated Catholic, 12 years of Catholic schools. I quit going to church my junior year of HS..except for "mandatory" attendance. As I became more educated...college and just general life, organized religion, for me, became something I just couldn't handle anymore.

[DAND]

Just a side note: I was raised and educated Catholic, 12 years of Catholic schools. I quit going to church my junior year of HS..except for "mandatory" attendance. As I became more educated...college and just general life, organized religion, for me, became something I just couldn't handle anymore.

Amen Brother! I too am a product of Catholic schooling. Weddings and funerals have been about the only reasons I've been in Church in quite a long time.

[Emanon]

An interesting topics, supreme court justices and religion in the public sphere.

Justices... often the most important and lasting things that presidents do... choosing justices that is. The justices will serve as long as they want with no fear of being impeached or voted out. Criminal acts are the only ways they are forced out. The supreme court justices are there to decide constutionality of issues. If the constitution says that we must never fly hot air balloons... they are there to agree with just that. They are not there to change the constitution, they are there to determine the constitutionality of issues.
Plessy V. Ferguson said that seperate but equal treatment of blacks was ok. After that it was the law of the land until Brown V. Topeka Board of Education said that it was not ok to segregate people by color or creed. Law of the land changed (and rightly so!).

Religion in the public sphere... it is interesting how extremism is viewed. It is extreme to say that religion has NO PLACE in the public sphere and that a person should not mention their beliefs. It is also extreme to say that you must believe in my religion that states that this is right or wrong.
Is it extreme to state that something is wrong? I do not think so. My beliefs shape my view, but that does not mean that now my view is somehow less valuable because I have religious beliefs that shape my decisions on right and wrong. Example:
I say that having an affair is wrong. My beliefs state that and I agree. Now is it extreme to say that? No. Is it wrong for me to demand you believe in the God that stated that information in the 10 commandments or you shall be punished? Yes.

We tolorate so many beliefs and will clap at the words of a person giving their whole hearted opinion yet if they give their opinion on (mostly) any form of christianity and those views affect their decision making they are extreme. I HOPE that a person's beliefs affect their decisions and yes judgements. That is why they are put there, for the person they are... the whole person. You cannot seperate me from my beliefs, what was once called resolve is now called extreme, what was once called right is now called religious.
Cheers
Shane

[CAV]

It is interesting how closely related the topic of 1st Amendment interpretation and judicial activism are to this nomination process. The appointment of one or more conservative judges is likely to spell an end to some of the more outlandish constitutional rulings that have become more the norm than the exception. This is the primary reason that the left wing of the Democratic party is dead set to block ANY nominee. They fully understand that a strictly constitutional court will set back their agenda 50 years.

The trend of judicial activism the consumed the later half of the 20th century continued until the end of the Warren court and the subsequent retirement of the most liberal grouping of justices this country has ever seen. Appointed during the Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson administrations, these judges were nominated solely on their likelihood to support extreme liberalism and social reforms as opposed to their record on constitutional interpretation. The result was a courts system run amuck in making constitutional law as opposed to interpreting it.

The judicial interpretation of the existence of the so called “Separation of Church and State clause” is not only a myth but is relatively recent. The Supremes first erected this barrier in 1947, and is one of the first in a long line of decisions that clearly overstepped the constitutional responsibilities of the high court. In Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared,

“The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”


This is nothing like the actual verbage of the 1st Amendment which simply states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

If you read the constitutional discussions as well as the personal correspondence of the founders, it is quite clear that the inclusion of this amendment was undertaken only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination. The Congressional Records from June thru September, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. During those debates not one of the Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” If this had been the intent for the First Amendment it seems likely that at least one framer would have mentioned it. “Separation of church and state” currently means the opposite of its originally meaning and nny subsequent move to limit the free practice of religion has been an unequivocal violation of the Federal constitution.

[Clint Boyer]

I'm an unashamed retrosexual.

Hey CAV, I just checked out your tag line. I love it!

And all this time I thought it was ScoobyDo's version of heterosexual!

[Possum]

cav's tag line = definition of texan male! :grin01:

sandra day's replacement will be interesting. don't forget that eisenhower thought he was appointing a moderate in earl warren. oops!!!

no tellin' what happens to those values once they are confirmed. a look at the circuit court appointments attests to this.

as to religion? isn't "no religion" really another form of religion? :sidestep:

[Emanon]

well said cav! I was reading that to my class on Friday (h.s. teacher). I have read the Constitution and Bill of Rights/rest of the amendments before but after reading it again the first amendment really stuck out as one being mis-interpreted! Second amendment as well!

I too agree that there has been a very liberal supreme court for quite a long time and judicial activism is the norm and not the JOB of the court (constitutional interpretation).

Ike did not really want to appoint Warren to Chief Justice. He had promised him a seat and was disappointed when it was the Chief seat. My my how people are like Juvie corns. You never know what they will be... when they are appointed to the Supreme Court. :sidestep:

[Emanon]

And I also agree with the zealots who are anti any shred of religion. Since their moral compass is broken only pointing at themselves they feel that anyone who appeals to a higher power is suddenly the "religious right" some "vast right wing conspiracy".
:grin01:

[CAV]

Don't forget that Bush 41 appointed David Souter. ;)

[Emanon]

http://www.hlrecord.org/media/paper609/news/2004/02/19/Opinion/BlackListing.Conservatives.Then.And.Now-613042.shtml

This is a bit off topic but discusses warren and the blacklisting of conservatives.

[Gronk]

Emanon said: And I also agree with the zealots who are anti any shred of religion. Since their moral compass is broken only pointing at themselves they feel that anyone who appeals to a higher power is suddenly the "religious right" some "vast right wing conspiracy".

As I said, IMHO, extremism in any form is a bad thing to me....

:-offtopic If I've left you with the impression I'm anti-religion...I have no issues with people that go to church or believe in God. I don't at all..I'm not an atheist. I have several dear friends that are regular church goers and strong in their faith.

My biggest issue, personally, is when folks try to tell me "God said this" or "I know this is what God wants.." . Umm because God appeared and told them so ? I think the 10 commandments are wonderful guidelines for any person to live by in general terms. It's all the interpreting various sects have "stamped" on what is right or wrong that creates problems for me up.

Edit note: Corrected a grammatical error and spelling

[Jynx]

Amen Brother! I too am a product of Catholic schooling. Weddings and funerals have been about the only reasons I've been in Church in quite a long time.

Like you two, I was also educated catholic for 10 years until I said enough and demanded to go to public school. I think that religion when mixed with education completely contradict each others' objectives...especially when being done at the same time. The school I went to was very accelerated, and I was taking physics and calculus by my sophmore year. Being the rebel that I was (ok...still AM) It just gave me more reasons to hate that I was in catholic school.

Religion...oooh I could go rounds about that. Of course, no one understands my explanations so I will just keep them to myself. I do always tell myself one thing: My beliefs are my own...no one will understand them like I do, and so its the same with any other person. I respect EVERYONE'S beliefs, and never try to question what they have chosen to put faith in. For the most part, the same goes for me as well, although there are the few that try....and those damn mormons! I apologize if I offend anyone by saying that, but they knock on my door EVERYDAY. Sheesh! I thought about putting an upside-down cross on my door, not because I want to look at it or I believe it, but just to scare them off. Actually, that would probably make them try harder. :)

[Gronk]

Meant to mention this...

I didn't want to turn the whole SC discussion into strictly a religion thread either..my apologies. It's just one of my concerns, surely not the end all be all to SC appointments. As Cav mentioned in an above reply..the two do seem to get tangled together at times.

I was reading an article yesterday on the possible selections for this open seat. The writer of the article gave a good balanced view on how it is the President's privilege to select an appointee that favors his views. The article also mentioned that Presidents do normally solicit a lot of opinions from both "sides" before making selections.

Again, as I tried to say in my first post...It's my hope (naive tho it may seem)..that the eventual new Justice's strength will lie in interpreting constitutional law, regardless of political leanings.

[Emanon]

Gronk, I do not think that you came off as anti anything. You were only stating your views on things. No worries!

I think that there is nothing wrong with choosing someone who favors your views. After all, that is why you were elected. Whenever the pres is on the other side of issues as I am I know that the justice selected will lean the other way. It is a given. Personally I would like a conservative justice who is not a judicial activist. While I have a very strong and real faith in God I do not believe it is the job of the courts to make anyone believe the way I do and I would not want them to do so! The same way I do not want them to try and make me believe in some of the things they have ruled on as being correct.

While I disagree with several of the topics which were previously mentioned before as far as hoping that they support this and are not in favor of that I understand that each person with their views are going to hope that the justice is like they are. As I hope that the justice shares views which are similar to mine :cool:
Cheers,
S