O'Connor resigns

[Justice 0]

Not only that, but in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), the Court upheld a Missouri State Law that said 'life begins at conception', and that there is no Constitutional infringment in doing so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow. So it really doesn't have to be true to be made law. And that, I think, is where a lot of people get the heebie-jeebies about letting states decide possible life and death matters. Or government at all, but at least the higher governments appeal to a larger variety of constituents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*Shrugs* It's easier to change state law than some so-called 'fundamental' right. It should be decided in legislatures and other places as such, so it can be changed and modified if needed.

[SuperJerk 0]

So, once again, you have no constitutional leg to stand on, idiot. The 9th Amendment isn't important here, the 10th Amendment is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, yes. The old "only the parts of the constitution that can be twisted to my point of view count" argument. I'm not impressed.

 

 

None of those cases you cited overturned the Roe decision.

Here's what the actual Roe v. Wade decision had to say on the subject:

 

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the l9th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F. Supp. 751 (WD Pa. 1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 286 N. E. 2d 887 (1972); Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), [] Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U. S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 470 P. 2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 Ohio St. 2d 65, 275 N. E. 2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U. S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.

 

Also

 

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

 

 

Not only that, but in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), the Court upheld a Missouri State Law that said 'life begins at conception', and that there is no Constitutional infringment in doing so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow. So it really doesn't have to be true to be made law. And that, I think, is where a lot of people get the heebie-jeebies about letting states decide possible life and death matters. Or government at all, but at least the higher governments appeal to a larger variety of constituents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Except Justice is wrong, JOTW. The Court didn't say what he's claiming.

 

That language that said that "life begins at conception" was in the preamble, and the Supreme Court said was that it does not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble. In other words, they ignored it.

 

In other words: the Supreme Court DID NOT uphold that life begins at conception.

 

If you don't believe me, please note that abortion is still legal in Missouri.

[Justice 0]

Except Justice is wrong, JOTW.  The Court didn't say what he's claiming.

 

That language that said that "life begins at conception" was in the preamble, and the Supreme Court said was that it does not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble.  In other words, they ignored it. 

 

In other words: the Supreme Court DID NOT uphold that life begins at conception. 

 

If you don't believe me, please note that abortion is still legal in Missouri.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You idiot. You still don't get it, do you?

 

They didn't ignore it. They said that it hadn't been applied in any unconstitutional way in the statues. It's not that they ignored it, it's that the State can declare that. It simply said that it was within the bounds of the restriction of abortion thus applied towards Roe. You know shit about case law, and it shows. It was still said and established, but it being used to justify the laws wasn't concrete and thusly

 

You didn't question whether they held up the right to life, dumbass. You asked for anything that allowed a state to say so. Remember:

 

Please show me in any constitution (state or federal) where it says the state should be deciding when life begins.

 

Whoops! Look, I just did. The Court upheld the line as within the state's power, and said that it didn't influence the restrictions in any concrete way.

 

So please, shut up. You don't know what the hell you are talking about.

 

It's not that Abortion is legal or not. I don't care about that. I personally don't like it, but whatever.

 

It's not a Constitutional Right. As many times as I can say it, it's not a Constitutional guarentee, nor should it ever be. It is the decision of a state to regulate abortion however they want. That is the right place for it to be. That's what my entire argument is about, yet you seem too dense to grasp that simple concept. It's not a place for the federal government, but the State.

 

On your quote from Blackmun: Almost all of Roe was thrown out in Casey, including the Trimester system. Roe today hardly qualifies as anything substantive in an argument. It kept the idea of abortion free, but much of the original decision is useless since so much of it hinged on a trimester system.

 

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

 

Thank you for bringing up the point that proves my idea: The idea of when life is created is not entirely sure. Thusly, your idea that it's a 'bag of tissues' doesn't apply as there is still the very real chance that it was alive, and a 'right to privacy', held in the loosest manner, is insufficent to override that right to life. You can't have your rights override anothers.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You know, after all this talk recently about embryos and what they are and, more to the point, what they aren't, that people would begin to see this whole "life begins at conception" thing as fraudulent, or at least scientifically dishonest.

 

This conversation is supposedly about whether or not there's a fundamental right to an abortion, but it seems to be going on more and more about what is alive, and far from about why the constitutional DOESN'T guarantee abortion rights, but why the constitution allegedly outlaws abortion.

 

Myself, I'm in the middle. I don't think it should be a guaranteed yes or a guaranteed no, it's one of those things that is open to discussion and were opinions may sway with the flow of time.

[SuperJerk 0]

The Court upheld the line as within the state's power, and said that it didn't influence the restrictions in any concrete way.

 

No, they didn't.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_v._Re...Health_Services

 

 

 

So please, shut up. You don't know what the hell you are talking about.

 

You SAY I don't know what I'm talking about. AND YET...

 

 

Abortion is legal.

 

 

 

Strange how that works, isn't it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The idea of when life is created is not entirely sure.

 

Then why are you trying to argue it should be legislated otherwise?

 

 

YOU. DON'T. MAKE. SENSE.

[Justice 0]

This conversation is supposedly about whether or not there's a fundamental right to an abortion, but it seems to be going on more and more about what is alive, and far from about why the constitutional DOESN'T guarantee abortion rights, but why the constitution allegedly outlaws abortion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah. I only say 'what's alive?' because it deals with the idea of 'You can't have right infringing upon others'. You can't have a right that raises that question with it's very existance.

 

Whatever people want to do is whatever they want. I just want it to be with the States rather than anywhere else, because public health is their domain. Abortion, for or against, has little to nothing to do with the Constitution.

[SuperJerk 0]

You're arguing from a Strict Constructionist viewpoint that the federal government can only do what is specifically identified by the Constitution.

 

 

This viewpoint often completely ignores Section 8, Article One, as well as the 9th Amendment.

 

Fortunately, you're not the one who gets to decide.

[Justice 0]

No, they didn't.

 

Yes, yes they did. Read any summary of it. They don't ignore it, they say there's no concrete evidence that says that

 

You SAY I don't know what I'm talking about.  AND YET...

 

 

Abortion is legal.

 

 

 

Strange how that works, isn't it?

 

You don't know what your talking about because I never said abortion wasn't legal. I'm only arguing that it's not a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. Whether or not abortion is legal does not affect my argument in any way as long as the States are the one making it legal and regulating it as they see fit.

 

And you wonder why it's not

 

 

 

 

 

Then why are you trying to argue it should be legislated otherwise?

 

 

YOU.  DON'T.  MAKE.  SENSE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...

 

*Sigh*

 

Look, this is fairly easy. I'll try to explain it WITHOUT USING ANY BIG WORDS (OMG!).

 

I don't care if it is legal or not. My personal choice is no, but that's just me.

 

What I'm saying is that that the Constitution is not something that can be applied to Abortion, nor can Abortion be applied to it. It is the domain of the States to handle such matters dealing with health, and it is theirs to decide and regulate.

 

There is no fundamental right to abortion guarenteed in the Constitution, nor is there a conclusive ban on abortion. Texas argued for a ban hence the dismissal of the 14th amendment argument. I argue that there's nothing in the Constitution that would say anything about abortion at all, and that there is no right or wrong one way or the other mentioned in the Constitution. All the case law I've stated (Which you've cleverly ignored, for the most part) that it's the States themselves that have ultimate control over this, and that is more and more becoming the reality of things from decisions.

 

All in all, I say that the Constitution need be left out of this useless argument and leave it to the polticians and state legislators to decide the laws around this.

 

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

[SuperJerk 0]

You don't know what your talking about because I never said abortion wasn't legal. I'm only arguing that it's not a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.

 

If it wasn't a right, then it wouldn't be legal.

 

You're actually arguing that its SHOULN'T BE a right.

 

 

But it is a right, because the Supreme Court ruled that is part of a woman's right to privacy, and that the government wasn't qualified to determine when life begins.

[Justice 0]

You're arguing from a Strict Constructionist viewpoint that the federal government can only do what is specifically identified by the Constitution.

 

 

This viewpoint often completely ignores Section 8, Article One, as well as the 9th Amendment.

 

Fortunately, you're not the one who gets to decide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is Congress deciding this? Is any of this a Congresional Decision?

 

No.

 

Please, please, please stop trying to read the Constitution. Because nothing in Sec 8, Art 1 supports your idea in any way. Unless you are trying to argue federal power over general welfare, which is actually a concurrent power of the state as well.

 

And, considering CONGRESS has nothing to do with the current situtation, since we are talking about the Supreme Court of the United States at moment making a decision, this is essentially useless.

[Justice 0]

If it wasn't a right, then it wouldn't be legal.

 

...

 

...

 

...

 

...

 

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!? There's no fundamental right that allows you a driver's license, but you still are allowed, to aren't you? There are way too many things out there that are not rights in any real sense of the word that are still legal.

 

You're actually arguing that its SHOULN'T BE a right.

 

BINGO! It shouldn't be a fundamental right. Thank you.

 

 

But it is a right, because the Supreme Court ruled that is part of a woman's right to privacy, and that the government wasn't qualified to determine when life begins.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The only reason Abortion is still a right is not because of privacy, but because of precedent. Casey v. PP of S Penn is basically an admission of that mistake, but holding it up due to precendent.

[SuperJerk 0]

You're arguing from a Strict Constructionist viewpoint that the federal government can only do what is specifically identified by the Constitution.

 

 

This viewpoint often completely ignores Section 8, Article One, as well as the 9th Amendment.

 

Fortunately, you're not the one who gets to decide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is Congress deciding this? Is any of this a Congresional Decision?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was actually an argument against the Strict Constructionist view of the Constitution, fool.

That has EVERYTHING to do with the Congress.

 

 

 

There is no fundamental right to abortion guarenteed in the Constitution, nor is there a conclusive ban on abortion.

 

The 9th Amendment specifically says that a right does not have to be enumerated in the Constitution to exist.

 

Because a state cannot prove that life begins at conception, and a woman has a right to privacy and control of her own body, then she should also have a right to an abortion.

[Justice 0]

That was actually an argument against the Strict Constructionsit view of the Constitution, fool.  That has EVERYTHING to do with the Congress.

 

You make no sense. Article 8, Section 1 would make sense if Congress had acted in some way, but they haven't. So what are you trying to say here, that Abortion is a right because Congress is supposed to provide to the General Welfare?

 

The 9th Amendment specifically says that a right does not have to be enumerated in the Constitution to exist.

 

But it doesn't confirm it's existance at all, either. The 10th rules it out because it makes it a State's issue, thusly it is enumerated to the duty of individual states under the Police Powers. It's not undefined, you just simply ignore where it is.

 

Because a state cannot prove that life begins at conception, and a woman has a right to privacy and control of her own body, then she should also have a right to an abortion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because you can't prove that it doesn't, you can't create a right that intrinsically infringes on another. It's not a fundamental right because it automatically infringes on one's right to live (Since it can't be proven it isn't living), which immediately invalidates it.

[SuperJerk 0]

That was actually an argument against the Strict Constructionsit view of the Constitution, fool.  That has EVERYTHING to do with the Congress.

 

You make no sense.

 

Then learn how to read.

 

Here's another try for you:

 

You're arguing from a Strict Constructionist viewpoint that the federal government can only do what is specifically identified by the Constitution.

 

This viewpoint often completely ignores Section 8, Article One, as well as the 9th Amendment.

 

I mentioned Section 8, Article One because said I was arguing against the STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST VIEWPOINT. I wasn't attempting to use that particular clause to justify the legalization of abortion.

 

 

 

The 9th Amendment specifically says that a right does not have to be enumerated in the Constitution to exist.

 

But it doesn't confirm it's existance at all, either.

 

It doesn't HAVE to name everything.

 

The 10th rules it out because it makes it a State's issue, thusly it is enumerated to the duty of individual states under the Police Powers. It's not undefined, you just simply ignore where it is.

 

The 10th Amendment never mentions abortion. And according to you, the Constitution has to specifically mention something in order for it to be valid.

Your own logic disproves your argument.

 

Because you can't prove that it doesn't, you can't create a right that intrinsically infringes on another. It's not a fundamental right because it automatically infringes on one's right to live (Since it can't be proven it isn't living), which immediately invalidates it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

edit: It simply isn't rational to presume that something you can't even prove is a person not only has rights, but is entitled to the legal protection of a person.

Edited July 11, 2005 by Y2Jerk

[Justice 0]

Then learn how to read.

 

Here's another try for you:

 

You're arguing from a Strict Constructionist viewpoint that the federal government can only do what is specifically identified by the Constitution.

 

This viewpoint often completely ignores Section 8, Article One, as well as the 9th Amendment.

 

I mentioned Section 8, Article One because said I was arguing against the STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST VIEWPOINT. I wasn't attempting to use that particular clause to justify the legalization of abortion.

 

Okay, so you spout off crap. I've never ignored Art 8, and I don't see why I would. But hey, I guess when you don't really have any other argument, you gotta say anything you can...

 

It doesn't HAVE to name everything.

 

But it doesn't HAVE to cover everything. You lack the ability to notice ambiguity. Just because it isn't there doesn't mean it's necessarily still covered by the 9th Amendment, lest everything would be a fundamental right.

 

The 10th Amendment never mentions abortion.  And according to you, the Constitution has to specifically mention something in order for it to be valid.

Your own logic disproves your argument.

 

...

 

You are a fucktard. It gives the State's police powers over the general welfare, which covers health, which covers abortions. It allows the State to regulate them as such they decide.

 

And while I'm not exactly a strict Constitutionalist, the 10th does give any powers that aren't strictly held by the Federal Government, thus including health care and, oddly enough, abortion. So please, shut up. You don't even know what a strict Constitutionalist SHOULD believe.

 

It simply isn't rational to presume that something you can't even prove is alive not only has rights, but is entitled to legal protection.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It isn't rational to say that something you can't prove is dead doesn't get the rights of the living. You can't prove it's dead, so why must we treat it as such? Welcome to the grey area I was talking about this entire time. You can't prove it's dead, I can't prove it's alive. To try and make a fundamental right without the absolute assurance that it doesn't automatically infringe on something else's right immediately invalidates it.

 

To make an exact judgement and a Constitutional right on something so flimsy is foolish. It should be left up to debate, which is why the States should have it.

[SuperJerk 0]

It doesn't HAVE to name everything.

 

But it doesn't HAVE to cover everything. You lack the ability to notice ambiguity. Just because it isn't there doesn't mean it's necessarily still covered by the 9th Amendment, lest everything would be a fundamental right.

 

I already covered this when I explained WHY abortion should be (and is) a right.

 

It gives the State's police powers over the general welfare, which covers health, which covers abortions. It allows the State to regulate them as such they decide.

 

No, it doesn't specifically mention any of those things. YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT is that something has to be specifically mentioned for it to be true.

 

So please, shut up. You don't even know what a strict Constitutionalist SHOULD believe.

 

I seem to know it well enough to be consistently pointing out the inherit contradictions, don't I?

 

 

It isn't rational to say that something you can't prove is dead doesn't get the rights of the living.

 

 

I thought we were talking about abortion.

[Justice 0]

I already covered this when I explained WHY abortion should be (and is) a right.

 

"It's cool under the 9th Amendment!... Uh, that's all I got."

 

No, it doesn't specifically mention any of those things.  YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT is that something has to be specifically mentioned for it to be true.

 

No it doesn't. I've said that the 9th Amendment shouldn't be used willy-nilly to cover anything and everything we want it to. Example: Under your current logic, gambling would be a fundamental right. It's your money, which you should be able to spend privately without the government regulating it. A great quote from Justice Goldberg

 

''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.'

 

The 9th doesn't include or cover everything. Abortion isn't 'deeply-rooted' in our society. It's not a 'right so basica and fundamental' that it has to be a Constitutional right.

 

What you are arguing is that anything can be a Constitutional right if we want it to be.

 

I'm saying that's a misuse of it, and that to do something like that is infringing on other key areas of the Constitution when it comes to something like abortion, most visible being

 

I seem to know it well enough to be consistently pointing out the inherit contradictions, don't I?

 

I'm not even a strict constitutionalist, you fucking moron! I, though, like many, don't believe that the 9th was intended to just simply create rights whenever we wanted to, and that to just simply say 'It's okay, the 9th covers anything we want!' is childish. I believe that abortion is covered under police powers, which are granted under the 10th Amendment no matter what fucking view of the Constitution you hold. I feel that this entire thing is a matter of the individual states, and not a right of the individual. It isn't beyond reproach, and it is something that should be handled by the states. I've provided case law that would argue the same thing, showing that Abortion can be regulated by states, and that the States ARE allowed to decided when conception begins (It held up because the state didn't ban it, only merely cut off state funding for it), and that States DO have the final say in right to life and death.

 

I don't know how many times I can express that, and how many times it will take for it to get through your thick skull.

 

 

 

I thought we were talking about abortion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If it's not alive, than what is it? Is there some other state that I'm missing here? Because inanimate objects can't turn animate. So something that isn't alive is dead, correct?

 

But hey, perhaps we should bring up Article 8 for no other reason than to try and distract everyone from a losing argument.

[SuperJerk 0]

So please, shut up. You don't even know what a strict Constitutionalist SHOULD believe.

 

 

Hey, I just realized I'm arguing with Tom Cruise.

 

"You don't know the history of the Supreme Court...I do!

Do you even know the history of Strict Constructionists?

You're glib!"

 

 

Dude, just because I disagree with your interpretation of the 9th and 10th Amendments, it doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. It just means that I agree with what's actually been established by the Supreme Court, and you don't.

Quit stating your opinions like they're facts.

 

Abortion is legal. Get over it.

Edited July 11, 2005 by Y2Jerk

[Justice 0]

Hey, I just realized I'm arguing with Tom Cruise.

 

"Do you know what abortion is? You don't even know what Article 8, Section 1 of the Constitution is!"

 

And, to be frank, you have great confusion on what a strict constitutionalist is. I'm not one, yet you keep trying to peg me as one and use that as an argument agaisnt me, which is extremely fucking frustrating when one is trying to explain one's view.

 

*Calms down*

 

Okay, moving on.

 

Dude, just because I disagree with your interpretation of the 9th and 10th Amendments, it doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

It just means that I agree with what's actually been established by the Supreme Court, and you don't.

 

Okay, okay, here we go.

 

The entire problem that I have with the current view on Abortion is that it, right now, is based simply on the idea of precedent. The court has admitted it wasn't a good decision, and it's only held on the idea that "We got it wrong, but we need to keep it to hold up jurisprudence". That's why don't consider it a real right: Because the only decision that still upholds it does so not to protect it's own rights, but moreso to protect precedent.

 

I've cited all my argument ot make you understand that it's not completely out there to believe that it's covered as a State's issue. If you'd listen and really considered my arguments rather than just trying to push them down or peg me as an 'OMG STRICT CONSTITUTIONALIST!', I wouldn't be so combative. I'm not Harlan Black.

 

But.

 

I do see necessary dangers in the mis- and over-uses of the 9th Amendment for anything that isn't something 'ingrained and fundamental to our society'. Anyone who simply tries to claim that something is a right through use of the 9th needs to find more grounding than that. I support the right to individual privacy within one's own home, which is understandable under the 9th. But the right to privacy today is utter crap and needs to be seriously revised.

 

Abortion is legal. Get over it.

 

This is why I was pissed you.

 

I never cared whether it was legal or not.

 

I hate it being talked about as a 'fundamental right', which it isn't. I'd like to think that we have a bit better standards on what constitutes something fundamental to American Life. It's not Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Abortion, is it?

[SuperJerk 0]

You're hung up on the word "fundamental"? No, I agree its not a "fundamental" right, although I'm not aware of any hierarchy of rights. Abortion, in my opinion, falls within other rights which would be more likely be considered "fundamental".

 

As far as you not caring whether abortion is legal or not...it would seem that there are several statements you made earlier in this thread that make it seem like you did.

 

And if you have some explanation of the term "strict constructionist" that varies from what I've been saying it means, please share. I know you've been saying you're not one, but your anti-abortion argument sure made it sound like you're one to me.

[Justice 0]

Fair enough. I was hung up on 'Fundamental' because that's the only rights I really think of when I think of the Constitution. They are what make up the basic necessities of America, and while there are others that might not be there exactly (Privacy), abortion is too specific as a right, too controversial, and just doesn't belong with anything as a right. It's more of a practice and priviledge. I don't even connect it with privacy. It's more of something that falls under public health, and it should be handled by the states how ever they see fit. It just doesn't make sense to try and put something in stone that changes so damn often, and every time I've read anything on abortion it just becomes more and more a mistake the Court never should have gotten involved in.

 

And on other comments: I personally object to abortion. But I understand it's not my decision, it's the people's and the states themselves. I'd just like to see the Constitution stay the heck away from all this mess, though.

 

Well, our main miscommunication was that I don't like using the 9th for just anything, and abortion is not one of those exceptions. You took that as 'it's not there, it doesn't count'. I'm not a strict Constitutionalist, and there are times where I like to fudge things. But when it comes to deciding federal rights, I really don't like fucking around and putting in just anything. I prefer most things to stay in the hands of the people because SCOTUS decisions can be very debillitating to any changes that might arise in a constantly changing subject.

[SuperJerk 0]

Now that THAT'S over, its time for an update....

 

 

Sources: Senators suggest court candidates

President meets with Senate leaders about high court choices

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Top Senate Democrats floated the names of potential candidates for the Supreme Court on Tuesday in a meeting with President Bush, describing them as the type of nominee who could avoid a fierce confirmation battle.

 

Several officials familiar with the discussion said Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Ed Prado of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Hinojosa, all of whom are Hispanic, were among the names mentioned as Bush met with key lawmakers from both parties to discuss the first high court vacancy in 11 years.

 

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, noting a commitment by those involved not to discuss names.

 

Several hours after the meeting, Leahy declined to confirm the names as having been mentioned. Referring to Sotomayor and Prado, he said, "those are two of the three I would think would have good support from both parties."

 

Bush was noncommittal about his choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has resigned effective with the confirmation of her successor. "I'm going to be deliberate in the process," he told reporters at the White House.

 

Bush "didn't give us any names" Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said after the session had broken up.

 

Besides Reid and Leahy, Bush met with Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee. Vice President Dick Cheney and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card also attended.

 

The administration has consulted widely with Democrats in the 10 days since O'Connor announced her plans to resign, and the early morning session at the White House was part of that effort.

 

The meeting came at a time when the president is under pressure from conservatives who want a court that will reverse precedent on abortion rights, affirmative action, homosexual rights and other issues. Some conservatives have criticized Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is close to Bush and frequently mentioned as a potential candidate, questioning whether he would vote to overturn the landmark 1973 court ruling that gave women the constitutional right to an abortion.

 

For their part, Democrats are urging Bush to seek a "consensus candidate," one who would win confirmation without a bitter struggle. But they have relatively little leverage in purely numerical terms. Republicans hold 55 seats in the Senate and can confirm any of Bush's picks unless Democrats mount a filibuster. The White House would need 60 votes to overcome that.

 

Democrats have done extensive research on dozens of potential replacements for O'Connor and the names of Sotomayor, Prado and Hinojosa have emerged, along with others, as among those viewed as acceptable. Leahy suggested the names in the meeting, although Reid's presence signaled his approval.

 

According to an official government Web site, Sotomayor was named a U.S. District Court judge in 1991 by former President George H.W. Bush, the president's father, and confirmed in August 1992. President Clinton nominated her for a seat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997, and she was confirmed in 1998.

 

President Reagan nominated Prado to a seat on the U.S. District Court in 1984. The current President Bush picked him for his current post in 2003, and he was confirmed on a vote of 97-0.

 

Reagan appointed Hinojosa, as well, and he was confirmed in 1983.

 

Frist praised Bush for reaching out to Democrats, saying that what the administration is doing "is pretty unprecedented if you look back in history. He is reaching out aggressively. He has contacted -- he or his staff have contacted over 60 United States senators, each of the members of the Judiciary Committee, over half or two-thirds of the Democrats."

 

Democrats said that was fine -- as far as it went.

 

"This certainly is a good first or second step," Reid said at a news conference outside the White House. "This process needs to move forward. And I was impressed with the fact the president said it would; there will be more meetings, consultations."

 

Officials familiar with the meeting said Reid was more blunt in private, telling Bush he didn't want to wind up reading about the president's eventual pick in the newspaper without having had a chance to offer his views beforehand.

 

Laura Bush, too, got in some gentle lobbying during the day.

 

"I would really like him to name another woman," the first lady said on NBC's "Today" show, in an interview from Cape Town, South Africa, where she is traveling. "I admire and respect Sandra Day O'Connor, but I know that my husband will pick somebody who has a lot of integrity and strength."

 

Bush seemed a bit surprised that Mrs. Bush told reporters what she thought. "I can't wait to hear to her advice -- in person -- when she gets back," he said in the Oval Office after a meeting with the leader of Singapore.

 

McClellan would not say whether the president was leaning toward selecting a woman. "The president is going to consider a diverse group of individuals for the vacancy that is available," his spokesman said.

 

Asked about Democrats' objections to specific candidates said to be under consideration, McClellan said, "No individual should have veto power over a president's selection."

 

Bush and Senate Republicans have said they hope to have O'Connor's replacement confirmed and sworn in before the court convenes for its new term in October.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/12/sco...h.ap/index.html

 

 

I love that quote from Laura Bush towards the end.

 

CAN NO ONE IN WASHINGTON SPEAK WITHOUT SOUNDING LIKE A CAMPAIGN AD THESE DAYS?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Run for cover, but Bill Clinton of all people was mentioned for a couple of seconds on CNN yesterday during discussion about a Chief Justice replacement, since the Taft thing came up.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I know the Clinton's and the Bush's seem like best buddies these days but there is a greater chance of hell freezing over than seeing Bill Clinton be a Supreme Court justice, let along the CHIEF justice.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Clinton as Chief Justice would be pretty bitchin', I think. People would also start paying more attention to the oft-neglected third piece to the Republic's puzzle.

[SuperJerk 0]

Didn't he loose his law license, though? Not to mention the whole perjury thing...

 

 

Looks like Bush might get two picks soon...

 

Chief Justice Rehnquist hospitalized

 

From Bill Mears

CNN Washington Bureau

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist is under observation in a northern Virginia hospital Wednesday after complaining of a fever Tuesday night, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said.

 

An ambulance took Rehnquist, 80, to Virginia Hospital Center on Tuesday night, and he was kept overnight for tests and observation, spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said. She did not indicate when he might be released.

 

Rehnquist has been battling thyroid cancer since October and underwent a tracheotomy as part of that fight.

 

He has received chemotherapy and radiation treatments since the diagnosis, but his office refuses to characterize the seriousness of his illness.

 

The hospital, located near Rehnquist's home in northern Virginia, also treated the chief justice when he had problems with his tracheotomy tube in March.

 

Rehnquist has served on the Supreme Court since 1972 and became chief justice in 1986.

 

His age and health have led to widespread speculation that he will announce his retirement before the court reconvenes in October.

 

He has shown up for work daily since the court's term ended in late June. Reporters started inquiring about him when he failed to show up at his office on Wednesday.

 

Word of Rehnquist's hospitalization came after court security personnel went to his Arlington home twice Wednesday. Officers were observed taking clothing, shoes and Rehnquist's cane before driving off.

 

Earlier this month, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said she was retiring, paving the way for the first opening on the court in 11 years.

Mum on plans

 

Rehnquist has given no public indication of his plans. "That's for me to know and you to find out," he told reporters Friday.

 

Sources close to Rehnquist have said the chief justice deliberately has kept his staff and friends in the dark about his future, believing it would be a distraction to the court's business if the speculation became too rampant.

 

"I think he's happy now just getting his work done, and the work of the other justices done. He takes that leadership role seriously," said Richard Garnett, a University of Notre Dame professor and a former law clerk for Rehnquist.

 

"And if it comes to a point where he says, 'I can't do the job,' then I think he'll just quit. But we don't know if he's at that point yet."

 

After his initial diagnosis and treatments, Rehnquist remained off the bench and away from his court office, although he continued to work from home with the help of his clerks and staff.

 

He returned to his office in December and was back on the bench in March. Rehnquist braved the cold in January to uphold tradition and swear-in President Bush for a second term.

 

Rehnquist's trachea tube remains in place, leaving his voice scratchy, and he uses a wheelchair to get around on long trips.

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/13/rehnquis...alth/index.html

[Art Sandusky 0]

Possibly three, you know. John Paul Stevens is no spring chicken. Dude's 85 or something.

[SuperJerk 0]

I have to admit there's a certain amount of entertainment value to a right-wing Supreme Court.

 

For example, the religous conservatives trying to explain why a return to mandatory school prayer didn't automatically increase classroom discipline the way they've been claiming it would. Or seeing a few hundred pro-life poltiicians get voted out of office once Roe v. Wade is inevitably overturned.

[Art Sandusky 0]

It's entertaining if you don't live here, sure.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Well even if Roe v. Wade was overturned it wouldn't necessarily make abortion illegal, that issue would just go back to the states. I imagine states like California and New York are still going to allow it.

 

Plus, the major push from the religious right (or at least the mainstream of it) is moving away from a total abortion ban, which the public doesn't support. Instead, they are supporting more restrictions on an abortion such as parental notification and a ban on partial birth abortion (which a majority of Americans support). Plus, the religious right is branching themselves into other, more liberal venues such as environmental protection (which they deem "creation care") and debt relief to poor countries.