The election, the Supreme Court, and YOU

[fossilfuel]

This year's election might mean a lot more than a new president - it may mean a huge shift in the constitution of the Supreme Court.

For those of you that don't know - Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President. The choices must be approved by Congress but they go through for the most part. When Justices are appointed - they are appointed for life - until they retire, resign or die - no Justice has been impeached, although it is possible.

The current make up of the court looks like this:

Ginsberg - Dem - liberal
Breyer - Dem - liberal

Souter - Rep - centrist/liberal
Kennedy - Rep - centrist/liberal
O'Connor - Rep - centrist/conservative

Stevens - Rep - bit of a wiildcard

Rehnquist - Rep - conservative
Thomas - Rep - conservative
Scalia - Rep - conservative

This is a generalization of their views, sometimes they will surprise people and vote completely contrary to their usual beliefs. The court is somewhat evenly split right now - which gives its opinions a somewhat centrist flavor.

We've got an old court. The oldest Justices are Stevens (84), Rehnquist (80) and O'Connor (74). The others are no spring chickens either and may retire soon. There is a very real possibility that the 3 mentioned will retire (or die) during the next 4 years - which could give a mediocre president a huge legacy.

This has far reaching effects on everything from abortion rights (Roe v. Wade) to detainment/war powers issues (Hamdi) to who the next president might be (Gore v. Bush) - virtually anything that deals with the Constitution.

A vote for Kerry may possibly mean packing the court with liberal judges and a vote for Bush could be strengthening the conservative team of Scalia + Thomas.

So why did I post all this crap? So people can get out of the mindset that the election only affects the next 4 years - it may very well affect the next 20.

*Of course - there is also the possibility that those old geezers will continue for the next 10 years and none of this matters, or that an appointee will act completely contrary to the party philosophy (souter)

[Yeahman]

*Of course - there is also the possibility that those old geezers will continue for the next 10 years and none of this matters, or that an appointee will act completely contrary to the party philosophy (souter)
Cha-ching!
This IMO is the stupidest reason some people raise for voting for A or B. They raise this issue every 4 years saying "This election is the one! We're have to overturn/protect Roe v. Wade!"

[yoMAMA]

Very interesting, indeed.

[fossilfuel]

Cha-ching!
This IMO is the stupidest reason some people raise for voting for A or B. They raise this issue every 4 years saying "This election is the one! We're have to overturn/protect Roe v. Wade!"

"Turncoats" on the court are relatively rare - there are only 2 (Souter and Kennedy to a lesser extent) of them on the court now really. For the most part they do stay generally loyal to their ideologies. I think Bush - of all people - will pick a very conservative justice like Scalia or Thomas. Funny that his Dad is the one that picked the two least conservative republicans.

I also think that at least Stevens and Rehnquist are gonna quit this term - they may be eating what Strom Thurmond ate though.

If you think this is the "stupidest" reason - i really hope you're using hyperbole because I can think up a lot more stupid reasons people use - things like supporting a candidate because he happened to be born in the same state.

[yoMAMA]

Thomas and Scalia are disgraces to the human race IMO.

[Shuriken]

Courting Disaster (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=11122)

[Mr.Lum]

They should not be appointed for life. You have to wait for all those conservative assholes to die before you can get soemthing good done, even then they may just put in some more conservative geezers.

[ism]

I normally wouldn't have too much problem since the SCOTUS tends to be pretty balanced over time, but Bush's track record in appointing judges is pretty bad. Ideology aside, nominating people who are hardly qualified for a federal judgeship is not something I want. Griffith, who practiced law without a license in Utah, nominated to the Federal Appeals Court, and Miguel Estrada, a lawyer, are prime examples. The fact that he's trying to put these people on the fast track to the SCOTUS is disturbing.