In that closing line, Turkana, you have expressed the single most important reason to coalesce behind the Democrat who wins next week. We can NOT allow the last, third leg of the democracy stool to be corrupted by anti-democratic forces.
The Supreme Court is absolutely our last, best line of defense.
Posted by DemnNewJ at February 29, 2008 04:19 PMI think this is a little bit misleading. The 4 to 4 tie part makes it seem like the court is already controlled by a conservative majority, and I dont agree with that. I dont consider Kennedy, who is "pro-choice", who wrote the Lawrence vs Texas decision,..., to be a conservative. I actually consider him to be more a part of a liberal/moderate 5 to 4 majority. I think he's with the liberals as much or moreso than the conservatives. I also think its more effective politically to argue that the court can still be saved rather than suggesting that Kennedy is a conservative and its already lost.
The point about how important this election is for the supreme court is obviously correct though. The next president will set the course of the court of the next several decades. Not just one, but three liberals (Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter) may retire during the next presidents term.
Posted by Jonesy at February 29, 2008 08:11 PMjonesey,
your definition of conservative is a little different than mine. on almost every key vote, kennedy has sided with the rats (roberts, alito, thomas, scalia).
Posted by Turkana at February 29, 2008 10:07 PMi read somewhere this week, maybe nytimes; can't recall, that republican presidents had made 12 of the last 14 supreme court nominations -
12 of the last 14.
that got my attention.
and "oleaginous" is precisely the right word for john roberts - from his slick physiognomy to his slick legal sophistry.
roberts, in my opinion, is precisely the kind of republican Operative (with a capital "O") that william rehnquist and alan greenspan were -
always, for them,
it's the party's benefit first and the nation gets whatever's left.
Posted by orionATL at March 1, 2008 11:09 AMI had the numbers from last term at some point, but I think J. Kennedy sided with the RATS on every "ideological" 4-4 split but one last term.
So the Court is already controlled by "conservatives". The question is whether the 4 RATS who are actually movement conservatives masquerading as "judges" will get a fifth activist. That will mean the end of most of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence as we have come to understand it over the past 50-60 years.
With the Dem primary race going as badly as it is, I think McOld is the likely winner and the Court is doomed.
Posted by euzoius at March 1, 2008 01:05 PMRight-wing judges will always side with Big Business and Big Government against the individual.
Justice Kennedy is a conservative, but you have to understand that Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are reactionaries, not conservatives. The rest of the court is moderate.
Posted by gay veteran at March 1, 2008 02:37 PMI think that's the correct take, GV, FWIW.
The RATS are conservative activists, not really judges. Kennedy still bears some relation to a judge, and can conceivably cast a vote against conservative "interests" or political ideology---the RATS simply can't.
Posted by euzoius at March 1, 2008 03:41 PM