Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Stephen Maturin · 11-11-2002, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psycho Economist:


Doesn't the person who's been on the supreme bench longest ususally get rubber-stamped to be Chief Justice?

Not at all. We've had sixteen chief justices over the years and, if memory serves, only five (John Rutledge, Edward White, Charles Hughes, Harlan Stone and Wild Bill Rehnquist) were promoted from within.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen Maturin ]

Bokonon · 11-12-2002, 07:06 AM

Let's not forget, Earl Warren was appointed by Ike. Judges have a way of being very different than expected.

Toto · 11-12-2002, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bokonon:
Let's not forget, Earl Warren was appointed by Ike. Judges have a way of being very different than expected.

That was in the old days. Souter was the last justice of that type. The current religious right has been grooming candidates who are young, ideologically pure, and politically reliable, in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Layman · 11-12-2002, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:


That was in the old days. Souter was the last justice of that type. The current religious right has been grooming candidates who are young, ideologically pure, and politically reliable, in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

You do know that Souter and Kennedy were appointed many years after Scalia.

Don't you?

Psycho Economist · 11-12-2002, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin:
Not at all. We've had sixteen chief justices over the years and, if memory serves, only five were promoted from within.

That's what I get for not being a historian, i guess.

Toto · 11-12-2002, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


You do know that Souter and Kennedy were appointed many years after Scalia.

Don't you?

Of course. What's your point?

I recall Souter's nomination by Bush the first, after Bork was rejected. He was chosen because he was extremely scholarly and had no published opinions on anything controversial.

Scalia got through his confirmation process because there was no danger of a conservative majority on the court at that time, and the Democrats wimped out.

I have heard religious right leaders swear that Souter would be the last stealth liberal who got through.

Layman · 11-12-2002, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:

Of course. What's your point?

My point is pretty obvious. No president, no party, no panel, no interest group, can gaurantee how a Supreme Court nominee will act as a Supreme Court Justice.

Quote:

I recall Souter's nomination by Bush the first, after Bork was rejected. He was chosen because he was extremely scholarly and had no published opinions on anything controversial.

Yes. And Kennedy was chosen while he had solid conservative credentials.

What is your point?

Quote:

Scalia got through his confirmation process because there was no danger of a conservative majority on the court at that time, and the Democrats wimped out.

Scalia's impeccable academic and judicial credentials helped. But you are right. I do not think they realized what a force Scalia would become.

Quote:

I have heard religious right leaders swear that Souter would be the last stealth liberal who got through.

They are dreaming. This is something that is simply beyond the President's control. There are probably a few nominees you can be "sure" about, but most of them -- like Bork -- would have problematic nomination hearings.

Throw in Bush's desire to nominate a Latino, and there are few guarantees in this process.

Toto · 11-12-2002, 10:48 AM

My point? I guess it is that the right has tried to lull middle of the road voters to sleep with the thought that nothing bad would happen if a Republican became president. They wanted the economic conservative but social liberals to think that even though they might disagree with Bush's position on abortion, the Supreme Court is not about to overturn Roe. Nader's supporters tried to downplay the dangers of a Republican president by claiming that Supreme Court justices so often turned out to be more liberal than expected.

This is dangerous thinking. My only hope is that the libertarian faction of the Republican Party will do pitched battle with the religious conservatives over the issue.

Layman · 11-12-2002, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
My point? I guess it is that the right has tried to lull middle of the road voters to sleep with the thought that nothing bad would happen if a Republican became president. They wanted the economic conservative but social liberals to think that even though they might disagree with Bush's position on abortion, the Supreme Court is not about to overturn Roe. Nader's supporters tried to downplay the dangers of a Republican president by claiming that Supreme Court justices so often turned out to be more liberal than expected.

This is dangerous thinking. My only hope is that the libertarian faction of the Republican Party will do pitched battle with the religious conservatives over the issue.

Oh. If you wanted to scare-monger then go ahead. I'm skeptical that it will work though.

Quote:

Then respondents were asked: "Now that Republicans control the Senate, most of the people that President Bush nominates as federal judges will be approved for those positions by the Senate. Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?" Sixty-percent said it was a good thing, while 31 percent said a bad thing (four percent gave a mixed answer, and five percent had no opinion).

<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york111202.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york111202.asp</a>

Toto · 11-12-2002, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york111202.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york111202.asp</a>

That poll doesn't ask about specific issues, so I don't see the relevance.

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40763-2002Nov11.html" target="_blank">Lott's Promise to Bring Up Abortion Worries Bush Aides </a>

Quote:

On Thursday, the White House held a conference call with social conservatives and pleaded with them to be patient. "They're saying the president's priorities are already known, but let's be prudent and not just aggravate the Democrats by putting it in their face," said Deal Hudson, the editor of Crisis Magazine and an ally of the White House. "It may not be the first thing that this administration pushes because it's not this administration's style to get the controversial thing out there at the beginning."

. . .

Bruce Fein, a Reagan administration lawyer. . . said the courts will let stand the landmark Roe v. Wade decision because undoing it would be "too wrenching," . . .

Too wrenching to Bush's reelection chances.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-12-2002, 07:06 AM	#22
Bokonon Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Left of the Mississippi Posts: 138	Let's not forget, Earl Warren was appointed by Ike. Judges have a way of being very different than expected.

11-12-2002, 10:48 AM	#28
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	My point? I guess it is that the right has tried to lull middle of the road voters to sleep with the thought that nothing bad would happen if a Republican became president. They wanted the economic conservative but social liberals to think that even though they might disagree with Bush's position on abortion, the Supreme Court is not about to overturn Roe. Nader's supporters tried to downplay the dangers of a Republican president by claiming that Supreme Court justices so often turned out to be more liberal than expected. This is dangerous thinking. My only hope is that the libertarian faction of the Republican Party will do pitched battle with the religious conservatives over the issue.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.