| Author | Message | ||
| Denisegilmore Registered user Username: Denisegilmore Post Number: 104 Registered: 10-2000 |
"Ralph Neas Message Regarding the Supreme Court" Ralph Neas, President of People for the American Way, http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/, writes: October 20, 2004 George W. Bushs Winter Surprise -- a New Supreme Court? At a closed-door luncheon in September with high-dollar Republican donors, President Bush bragged that an election victory would give him an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice shortly after his inauguration, and perhaps three more high-court vacancies during his second term, according to a report in Sundays New York Times Magazine. Gushed one enthusiastic attendee, Wont that be amazing? Can you imagine? Four appointments! This time, President Bush has his facts straight. It is almost certain that the president elected this fall will have an opportunity to nominate two, three, or four justices. It has been more than ten years since the last vacancy, the longest interval between openings on the Court in 181 years, since the administration of James Monroe in 1823. Over the past 50 years, there has been a vacancy on the average of about once every two years. We are long overdue. In fact, we could be entering an era comparable to the four vacancies between 1969 and 1972 and the five between 1986 and 1991. President Bush isnt talking about multiple appointments on the campaign trail, but his secret briefing raises a couple of interesting questions that deserve immediate scrutiny from the media. First, how does the president know he would get a chance to name a justice so soon after the inaugural? Who has he been talking to? Does he have a nominee waiting in the wings? Second, what would it mean to Americans if President Bush follows through on his stated plan to nominate justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- the most extreme and aggressive right-wing activists on the current Court? People For the American Way Foundations Courting Disaster report, originally published in 2000 and recently updated for 2004, examines concurring and dissenting opinions by Scalia and Thomas and asks, what if their views commanded a majority on the Court? The answer is stunning -- more than 100 Supreme Court precedents and the legal protections they safeguard would be at risk. This is not just about privacy and reproductive choice -- though Scalia and Thomas are eager to overturn Roe v Wade and its recognition of a constitutional right to privacy. This is also about radically restricting the Voting Rights Act to exempt, for example, state nominating conventions and judicial elections. It is about stripping Congress of the constitutional authority to protect Americans drinking water and other environmental resources. It is about dismantling protections against religious coercion by government officials. It is about eliminating remedies for Americans victimized by abusive employers or government agencies. It is about rolling back basic legal equality for gay and lesbian Americans. This is not political rhetoric -- it is straightforward analysis of the written opinions of Justices Scalia and Thomas. It reflects the legal philosophy and goals of the so-called federalist movement -- the right-wing legal movement that is pushing to bring back a pre-New Deal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and return America to a legal era when states rights and property rights trumped the protection of individuals interests and liberties. A Supreme Court majority dominated by this judicial philosophy would drastically limit the ability of Congress to pursue the common good -- and would in effect eliminate the constitutional basis for progressive government. All these are within reach with just one or two more justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Three or four such justices could cement a disastrous far-right Court majority for decades to come. I urge you to pursue these questions in the days remaining before the presidential election. See PFAW Foundations Courting Disaster 2004 at http://www.pfaw.org/go/courtingdisaste Justice@jfanow.org | ||
| Dane Registered user Username: Dane Post Number: 54 Registered: 4-2004 |
While Bush may or may not have nominees waiting in the wings, it does seem likely that a high potential exists for the next President to make several appointments. In fact that is one of the reasons why I believe that this election could be a turning point for the nation. In reading the above message by Ralph Neas I see more of the same fear mongering that the nation has been getting from the far-left for years. Roe v Wade: Even if this were overturned by the Supreme Court, each state could still decide to extend a right to abortion. This in fact would be more in keeping with the Constitution. As for the other issues presented, I have generally kept abreast of the opinions of the various justices and I see nothing fundamentally wrong or dangerous with the opinions of justices Scalia and Thomas. On the other hand, I have major problems with most of the opinions expressed by justices Soter, Ginsberg and several others. In my opinion these justices are doing everything they can to destroy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I fervently pray that Bush is elected and that he does nominate justices which will restrict their activities to a Contructionist interpretation of the Constitution instead of making law from the bench as the "activist judges" on the left have been doing for the past three decades. Incidentally, the above post is copied from the "People For the American Way" organization. This is an organization of extreme-radical leftists with ties to the American Communist Party. I believe that this organization is one of the most dangerous anti-American groups in existence due to their completely distorted views of the Constitution and the whole issue of civil liberty. However, I do appreciate it being posted because I feel that it is important to look at various ideas. Dane | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 172 Registered: 7-2004 |
Here's something to think about... President Kerry nominates Hillary Clinton... | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 543 Registered: 7-2003 |
The media has been talking about the supreme court potential nominees for months. It is certainly not a secret, and is certainly not "bragging rights". Stating a fact is hardly a crime. I'd rather have Bush, who tends to be on the conservative side, nominate court judges than Kerry who tends towards the liberals. With Kerry's liberal potential, I wouldn't be surprised that the disabled become as "optional" as unwanted pregnancies are. Pretty soon we'll be able to euthanize our disabled and say we are doing society a service. Remember, I have a disabled child. This issue is of significant importance to me as well. My uncle, who had a mentally retarded sister, broke his long tradition (in a family that has held local office as democrats) and began voting republican years ago because even with his 8th grade education he started to see trends that would bring the disabled up on the auction block of life next. Any nation that can somehow endorse the murder of unborn are not that far away from mercy killing because "people wouldn't want to live that way"....blah blah blah. I remember back a few years, the conversation in the media was how unprecidented it was that so many of Bush's court nominees weren't accepted ... they said no one in history had had so many judges rejected because of their conservative views and moral ideals. I know those are characteristics I hate to see in the court... (tongue in cheek). I'd take Bush over Kerry any day. No offense to anyone intended. Each should vote their conscience. |
