Supreme Court rules Supreme Court rules.

[zotz]

There's an old Onion story of that title which now, sadly, is only available to their subscribers. We are, though, definitely in a life-imitates-Onion moment. I notice also that the dissenters from yesterday's most excellent verdicts (overturning the President's attempts to rule by decree on this matter) were the usual crabbit old fascists - Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist.

At least two justices may retire soon. I wonder who Bush would appoint to replace them should he be re-elected? Anyone reckon he'd be bipartisan on this issue?

Comments

[robinbloke.livejournal.com]

Best news I've heard in a while asregards to that whole affair.

The Onion and the Supreme Court, Monster Loonies and the Conservatives. Well, everyone gets inspiration from somewhere.

[deliberateblank.livejournal.com]

Don't appointments to the SCOTUS have to be approved by at least one of the houses? (ISTR Clinton having trouble getting his appointments through.) Any chance they'd delay any appointment till after he's had a chance of being voted out? (Though I guess the retirements might not be till after that?)

[zotz]

Absolutely. It takes some months to trog through, though, I think, so I guess we won't see any until after the election. The rumour is apparently that Rehnquist will retire if Li'l Shrub wins a second term, another is due to retire soon for standard retiral-type reasons and a third might have to due to ill-health. Most have been appointed by Reublicans for thirty years now, so having a couple of the moderates replaced by conservative or even reactionary judges would be Very Very Bad, IMO.

[king-prawn.livejournal.com]

I've only just gone online for 5 minutes after a week of abstaining (so have only just begun to catch up on the news)

Scalia...</>
Salon reports: "For the Bush White House and for its Republican supporters, the toughest blow was the one delivered by one of their own. Antonin Scalia, deified by the right and held up as a model justice by the president, dissented from the plurality view in the Hamdi case -- not because it was too hard on the administration, but because it was not hard enough."

At least two justices may retire soon. I wonder who Bush would appoint to replace them should he be re-elected? Anyone reckon he'd be bipartisan on this issue?

It's been said more than once that Eugene Volokh is a dark-horse contender, so if you're curious you can follow his thinking here. I'd be pleased as punch if it happened, but of course the person(s) Bush nominates would depend on so many factors (the mood of the news media on the day, who's in the Senate, who owes whom a favour, who needs to be thrown a bone, who's up for re-election, what appointments are coming up next). I think a fair thumbnail sketch of EV would be that he's quite libertarian (pro-2A, very pro-1A, pro-choice, tentatively pro-gay-marriage) but strictly conservative in interpretting the Constitution....so if there's nothing in the Constitution that says gives the federal government the power to regulate mathematics, then he'd strike down any federal law saying 2+2=4 and say "the C gives state governments the power to say 2+2=5" or whatever.

Actually, now that I think of it, keeping a blog may keep him out of the SCOTUS. From what I've read, SCOTUS-nominees get through Senate hearings by being coy and vague. Having made too many off-the-cuff remarks along the lines of "I basically believe ____________ but the C says _____________" he could get chased all over the floor...

[zotz]

That sounds fascinating. I'll certainly have a look at that. Cheers.