The Mother of All Battles: Around the Corner?
NewsMax speculates that Justice Stevens, the worst of the current Supreme Court justices, might have the decency to retire during a Republican presidency, since it was a Republican (Jerry Ford, if memory serves) who committed the colossal blunder of putting him there in the first place. I’d have to give him credit for being decent about things if he did.
Next Court Pick: Mother of All Battles
If Sam Alito, as beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt qualified as he is, could only get 58 votes to replace muddling-middler-mediocrity Sandy O’Connor, the fight over another constructionist being named to replace arch-liberal Stevens will be the mother of all battles. But it is absolutely critical to the future of this country, so…bring it on.
And let’s talk up Janice Rogers Brown, who’d make an excellent justice and who’d tie the liberals in knots…watching Teddy and Chuckie try to attack the first black woman nominated to the high court…I’m salivating as I write this (better stop before the keyboard shorts out).
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
5 Responses to “The Mother of All Battles: Around the Corner?”
Another constructionist? There aren’t any strict constructionists on the court now that Rehnquist is dead. He was the last one. There are three originalists (Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) and one conservative with more eclectic foundations (Roberts). There are four living constitutionists (Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter) and one swing voter who seems to have no overarching judicial philosophy (Kennedy). Chances are pretty slim that a strict constructionist will rise to the Supreme Court anytime soon given that the originalist revolution in conservative judicial thinking has pretty much marginalized that older view. Most conservatives now are either originalists or more eclectic like Roberts.
Stevens, by the way, is politically conservative. No matter how liberal his jurisprudence is, that must be remembered. He says he doesn’t approve of certain social practices that conservatives generally oppose but that he thinks the Constitution guarantees a right for people to engage in them. When you call him a liberal, it’s best to make it clear that you mean to say he’s a judicial liberal, because he’s not a political liberal. This very fact is what made Ford think he’d be a good choice, and it may also explain this desire to have a Republican president replace him if indeed this report is accurate. On the other hand, someone could just as easily think it’s not as fair to have only two of nine justices appointed by Democrats and want to even the scales. I wouldn’t put it past someone like him to think that way.
Jeremy Pierce ~ Feb 3, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Jeremy, your points are well-taken. I tend to confuse the two, constructionists and originalists, because they tend to rule similarly, but you’re right; there is a distinction, and I need to get that clear in my mind. Interesting as well that you say that Stevens is politically conservative; I’d not heard that, and that’d sure make him an enigma, it seems to me; those of us who are political conservatives tend to be very much opposed, of course, to the judicial activism that Stevens seems to revel in. And I sure hope that he thinks, as has been suggested, that a Republican prez should name his replacement.
My choice, by the way, is Janice Rogers Brown. Sure, it’s partly for political reasons; I just lick my chops trying to imagine Teddy and Chuckie and Dickie fumbling all over themselves as they try to walk a fine line with a black sharecropper’s daughter!
Byron ~ Feb 3, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Here’s Wikipedia’s take on the difference between originalism and constructionism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
Byron ~ Feb 3, 2006 at 11:03 pm