home

Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems?

By Jeralyn, Section Judiciary
Posted on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 11:16:11 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Josh Marshall posits that the retirement of Chief Justice Rehnquist bodes well for Dems:

Perhaps another way to put this is that I think it would be much easier for President Bush to push through one hard-right nominee now and another next spring or next summer than it will be for him to push twice at once.

Personally, I think we're going to get two staunch conservatives either way. I think the best we can hope for is that the Dems will will mount a filibuster as to the most objectionable. In other words, one will be horrible and one not as bad. But I think both will be hard right.

It's just another reason why Kerry not winning the election was a disaster for the next generation. The freedoms and rights we have known in this country will not be there for our children. As a parent, I find that truly sad.

< Say Hello | Say Hello >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? | 27 comments (27 topical)
    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:59 PM EST
    "It's just another reason why Kerry not winning the election was a disaster for the next generation. The freedoms and rights we have known in this country will not be there for our children. As a parent, I find that truly sad." I hear that. Not enough parents are paying attention, still! They need to wake up and smell the coffee...

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:59 PM EST
    It's just another reason why Kerry not winning the election was a disaster for the next generation. The freedoms and rights we have known in this country will not be there for our children. As a parent, I find that truly sad.
    Yup, I was no fan of Kerry, even though I voted for him out of sheer lesser of two evilism, which I detest, but whatever. But like you said, if there was only one reason it sucks that Kerry didn't win, this is surely it.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:59 PM EST
    because heaven forbid we have judges on the supreme court who have morals that actually line up with the majority of the country...

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#4)
    by fafnir on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:59 PM EST
    Kerry nor the Democratic Party establishment fought like everything depended upon him winning the election in 2004. Democratic Party’s partnership with capitulation since the late sixties ultimately led to the most astonishing political power grab in 2000. The Party’s abdication of progressive, populists values for “centrist” corporate interests is the essential reason why we find ourselves here today.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#5)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:59 PM EST
    "It's just another reason why Kerry not winning the election was a disaster for the next generation. The freedoms and rights we have known in this country will not be there for our children. As a parent, I find that truly sad." That says a lot about the Left's over-reliance on the courts. Relying on courts to keep law settled is a bad idea regardless of your politics. Better to rely on the legislature, which can be voted out if they make wildly unpopular decisions.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#7)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:59 PM EST
    JR- For once I agree! JPollard, When the majority view accepts torture, the courts are supposed to step in. Majority rule is not, and should not, always be the law

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#8)
    by LorettaNall on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    I am neither Republican nor Democrat although I share some views of each. However, in two of the last SC rulings (Medical Marijuana and Eminent Domain) it looked to me like the "conservative Justices" were the ones protecting (or trying to protect) our rights and keep government interference to a minimum and it was always the "liberal Justices" who voted to take them away and give the government almost unlimited power. It's funny how those considered to be "liberal" have lined up on the side of Bush and those who are considered "conservative" have lined up on the side of the people. If that was all I had to go on then I would be much more worried about "liberal Justices" being appointed to the bench and a lot less worried about "conservative Justices" being appointed to the bench. But nothing is what it seems in todays world. It's all very confusing.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    We aren't just talking about decadent left coast abortion/gay rights stuff (though I support both). Minimum wage...gone Miranda...gone EPA, SEC, OSHA...gome Fair Housing/Lending Act...gone Voting Rights Act...probably gone In Scalia Court America, employers, and providers of public accommodations (hotels, restaurants) will be free to discriminate on whatever basis they please, including race and religious affiliation.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#10)
    by wishful on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    The only bright spot in having our civil rights decimated is that the terrorists will lose interest in attacking us. The reasoning uses a very small extrapolation from the observation that U.S. prisons are probably not even on the terrorists' radar for attack targets. And we know that this is because inmates have no freedoms. Voila!

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#11)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    That says a lot about the Left's over-reliance on the courts. Relying on courts to keep law settled is a bad idea regardless of your politics. Better to rely on the legislature, which can be voted out if they make wildly unpopular decisions.
    This says a lot about the conservative/right's willful refusal to understand what the "Left's" been relying on the courts to do. We've been relying on the Court to protect minorities and individuals from what can sometimes become the tyranny of the majority. In short, we've been relying on the Court to give effect to what the Bill of Rights was designed to do. That being said, jpollard's remark that the present Court doesn't reflect the morals of the majority doesn't square up either. The "moral" issues that get made into political hay every election season (flag burning, abortion, prayer in school, what have you) are red meat for certain interest groups, nothing more. Survey after survey shows that the Court's decisions in these areas are pretty much in accord with social trends -- here's a link to recent polls regarding abortion as an example.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    Shall we start a poll on who will be nominated for the 2 positions? Judge Karen Williams from the 4th and Alberto Gonzales are my picks with Luttig as an outside shot.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    I agree with Loretta. With "liberal" justices that will side with the state (and against the citizenry) on denying property rights and denying the right of the individual to medicate themselves, I'm starting to wonder how much I want a "liberal" justice. The only absolute I require of any potential nominee is that they value and respect true freedom and the rights of the individual. Whether their personal politics lean right or left is of less importance. Both camps in the other branches have a tendency to get tyrannical when it suits them on a particular issue, and the Supreme Court is the last check against tyranny. Show me you believe in freedom and protecting individual rights, and I'll support you regardless of personal political philosophy.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    For example, Gonzalez is unacceptable to me because he hasn't shown support for or belief in due process.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    Kerry only has himself to blame for being the political coward he was. I have no reason to believe he would've done anything differently as president. Which means, I think his Supreme picks might have been marginally better than Bush's, but they still would've been safe. Now, Bush has an approval ratings plummeting by the second, and we don't think we can kick his ass on these nominations? That's pathetic. There isn't a single individual of imaginative ability in the democratic party. Period. No one.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    minimum wage-created by statute; protection of minorities-created by constitutional amendment/fought by courts; cabinet agencies-not a part of the judicial branch. it lets you know how silly/ignorant the opposition is when they try to predict the parade of horribles. it is a simple fear of democracy that drives the left-they can't convince voters to elect them, so they know their ideas won't pass muster. thus, they have to rely on the undemocratic branch of the government to make their policy dreams into reality.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#17)
    by LorettaNall on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    The only absolute I require of any potential nominee is that they value and respect true freedom and the rights of the individual.
    I'll second that emotion. If they support the Constitution, every time, without fail then that is really all that matters. The titles "liberal" and "conservative" are useless because you can't tell the difference anymore anyway. Seems to me that the "liberals" want to create a new government program to address every facet of our daily lives and when those programs fail they want to create another government program to fix the one that failed and the "conservatives" do nothing to stop it because they benefit from this power grab. They (with the exception of very few) are all pigs at the trough. It's time for a revolution y'all.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    Ed, The minimum wage was created by UNIONS, whose members risked their lives for it. Protection of minorities was gained by those same minorities, again, risking their lives for their rights. By the way, striking down separate but equal wasn't a court decision?

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    your knowledge is underwhelming-do you think minimum wage laws are created by the court? if yes, you might want to go back to school/if created by unions, how is that of relevance to an argument involving the Court. as to separate but equal, the Courts failed to enforce our Constitution for their own political reasons. or do you think they were in the forefront of fighting segregation for the 100 years following the Civil War. if the Court wants to practice politics, then it should be elected.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Unsyndicated on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    Prediction: Bush picks minority candidates that the dems won't even consider opposing.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    Loretta, Do your homework. Think much harder and longer than you have. I would agree, however, the word "liberal" has no real meaning anymore, since it's been used as a scarlet letter, a curse word for years. The term "conservative" has no such baggage because conservatism is about doing nothing but maintaining the staus quo. "Right wing" is more appropriate for today's neo-cons. Explain, using examples please, how "liberals" want to get into every facet of your daily life. Conservatives, after all, are the ones who wouldn't let Terri Shaivo die with dignity; who want to decide what reproductive rights women should have; who want the tax burden to fall most heavily on those with the least money; who support the government's idiotic war in Iraq for EXACTLY THE SAME REASON THEY OPPOSE the gov't involved in stem cell research. And on and on. These are things that get right into your house, your wallet, your womb. Though you rightly suggest both parties are feeding at the trough, you over-generalizing about liberals and conservatives were nowhere near the mark.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    I forgot to add-allowing separate but equal was also a court decision(Plessy-a novel interpretation of the actual language/I guess that their constitution was living as well). getting right the second time what one screwed up the first time is not a really great selling point.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    Ed, There are facets to every discussion. You are speaking in absolutes and generalizations. Obviously the legislature acted, but only after unprotected citizens acted first. The reason we have a minimum wage today, or labor protections of any sort, is because actual workers took to the streets and risked their lives and forced the hand of the government, which was, as always, in the hand of business and money and difficult to move. Or do you think these rights were given out of the goodness of the hearts of those in power? People died in the streets, unarmed people, so we could have those rights. THEY ARE THE REAL REASON THOSE RIGHTS EXIST!! Same with civil rights, my friend, or did all those images and stories of death and terror and intimidation and violence heaped on blacks escape you. The gov't only acted after the REAL WORK OF RISKING LIVES had been done by unarmed citizens in the streets. They were set upon by dogs, sprayed with firehoses, shot at, jailed...no judge or politician ever faces that. And Ed, I was talking about the courts during the Civil Rights movement. I didn't realize you wanted to carry this court argument back hundreds of years, which doesn't make much sense to me, since the courts were OBVIOUSLY tainted and not very just, as almost all of our racist, slave-holding society was back then. Of course I'm not going to argue about courts that upheld Jim Crow. Of course!!! But that wasn't what I thought we were discussing. The Supreme Court evolved for the better, in my mind, during the Civil Rights period. Now it may be devolving. That's my fear. We are in complete agreement about the court's lack of justice in the early 20th and 19th centuries.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    Ed: of course all those acts (voting rights, minimum wage, endangered species) were created by Congress; the point is that a Scalia Court is likely to find them all unconstitutional. The Scalia/Rehnquist/Thomas bloc is already the most activist (in terms of voting to overturn legislation); they will be even more radical when there are five of them and their votes can actually change the laws.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    the basis for that statement is? a PFAW e-mail? there is nothing wrong with overturning unconstitutional legislation-hence the Brown decision, relying on the language of the 14th Amendment. when you do it based on policy, you are a politician-stand for election and don't hide behind a robe.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#26)
    by LorettaNall on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    Dadler, You are absolutely correct that I over generalized and did not make my point clearly in my earlier post. I meant to add that the many of the current officials masquarding (sp?) as Republicans and in fact neo-cons who have hi-jacked the party. Not exactly sure how that got left out. I'll give you an explanation of "liberals" wanting to control our daily lives shortly... I have a meeting in a few minutes and don't have time to type it out right this second.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#27)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    TL that's exquisitely put. Probably one of the best written, most dead-on blog posts of the year.

    Re: Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    Kerry WON the 2004 election. Handily. It is rather shocking that TL and others still don't understand how the rightwing managed to take over our government. THEY DO NOT HAVE THE VOTES. • Diebold memory cards have been PROVEN to have illegal .exe files on them -- in spite of their lies to the contrary. • Actual Diebold systems used in 2004 have been EASILY hacked (in March 05, in front of gov't officials), allowing for the addition of over 100,000 votes to a single tabulator without any record whatsoever. • Other massive irregularities have been documented. • In Ohio, the paid-for, court-ordered recount was blocked by Bush's campaign chair, but also by the DOCUMENTED felonies of Triad Systems workers who swapped out circuit boards in tabulators statewide, and also supplied FALSE NUMBERS to be reported "regardless of what the machines say." • The Ohio Coingate scandal has sparked numerous political donation investigations, as it appears that the rightwing took $25 million from the Ohio Workers Comp fund, and distributed it to their candidates. Blackwell, Bush's campaign chair, is embroiled in the scandal, failed to respond to the early discovery of the missing funds, and tried to cover it up. Oops. And more. So let's have an end to the 'Kerry didn't win' bit, and get with the facts: which are that we have had a second coup, we no longer have legal elections, and won't until all the for-profit, partisan vote-fraud companies are dismantled like they have dismantled our democracy. California is slated to have an $80 million special election ONE MONTH before our right to a paper trail is reestablished. That same lack put the vote-fraud governator into power -- now he calls another election and times it so it can also be stolen by the same means. S.O.S. Save Our System.

    Rehnquist Retirement: Good for Dems? | 27 comments (27 topical)