Supreme Run Down
The general feeling towards the current make up of the Court is that it is closely divided with conservatives holding a slim 5-4 majority, with Sandra Day O'Connor as a swing vote of sorts. But let's break this down.
On the Liberal side of things there are 3 rocked ribbed liberals who always vote with each other - David Souter (Bush I), John Paul Stevens (Ford) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton).
On the conservative side, there are only two rock ribbed conservatives - Scalia (Reagan) and Thomas (Bush).
(Liberals 3 - Conservatives 2)
Each side also has a 90-10 guy - someone who would be considered rock ribbed except for a few issues. For the liberals it is Breyer (Clinton) and the conservatives have Rehnquist (Reagan) who takes some liberal views on campaign finance. But overall, each side can pretty much rely on these guys.
(Liberals 4 - Conservatives 3)
In the middle we have a couple of GOP appointees who lean right, but surprise no one when they veer left. Anthony Kennedy is generally with the conservatives and I'd score him a 75-25. We lost him on Kelo, the property rights case, and a few other annoying decisions.
(Liberals 4.25 - Conservatives 3.75)
Sandra pretty much split the difference and approached the bench like a politician. If the decision was quietly conservative on issues like federalism, should could be counted on. On larger issues such as abortion, affirmative action, church and state issues - she would stick her finger in the air, take a poll, hold a focus group - and base her decision on the best marketing info Madison Avenue could buy.
(Liberals 4.65 - Conservatives 4.35)
Ideally our judges would make sound law based on the principles outlined in the constitution - liberty, life and freedom - and let popular opinion be damned. Sandy was a former politician, and you know what they say in the hood - you can take the girl of out politics, but you can't take the politics out of the girl.
The problem with political decision making by judges is that the difference splitting fails to settle the point of law and leads to a defacto "Lawyer Employment Protection Act of 2005". So I won't miss O'Connor.
The subtraction of O'Connor and the inclusion of Roberts will certainly shift the court away from a politically influenced court, to a slim conservative majority with the occasional shockingly bad decision by Kennedy. My assumption is that Roberts will mimic his mentor William Rehnquist and will behave as a 90-10 conservative. This might be optimistic, but we shall see.
(Liberals 4.35 - Conservatives 4.65)
Besides O'Connor, there are potentially 3 more judges who will need replacing during Bush's second term. He may have the opportunity to complete re-shape the court.
Rehnquist is on his way out, one way or another. Conservatives need an equal replacement in terms of ideology, but it is highly unlikely that a jurist will meet his legendary greatness as a judge. Rehnquist will go down with the likes of Oliver Wendell Holmes and John Marshall in the history books.
Ideally Bush will use this pick to put in a rocked ribbed Hispanic conservative along the lines of Miguel Estrada. This would be good politically and replace one conservative lion with another. This would also ensure a conservative majority for the next 10 years. However is AG Alberto Gonzalez were the pick, we would revert back to the court we have today, assuming Roberts in a 90-10 guy.
(Liberals 4.25 - Conservatives 4.75)
Liberal John Paul Stevens is 85. There is nothing other than his advanced age that suggests he will need replacement. But at 85, and 3 years to go in the Bush term - it doesn't take an actuary to deny this guy a life insurance policy. Stevens will go down as a footnote on the court. He didn't embarrass himself or wow the legal minds. But he is a staunch liberal and losing him will be a blow. Here I'd like to see Bush celebrate his liberal legacy by appointing the first black female to the court - Janice Rogers Brown - who of course was recently appointed to federal appeals court and consistently won 70% of the vote in the San Francisco area for re-election to the California Supreme Court. This would lead to a solidly conservative court and negate the weird decisions of Kennedy. At this point, you would see a lot of abortion laws short of Roe v. Wade being overturned - such as parental permission and partial birth.
(Liberals 3.25 - Conservatives 5.75)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is young by Court standards at 72, however she is a recent colon cancer survivor and her health considers to suffer. Her vacancy on the court would be no loss to the legal community. She is considered the high court's only lightweight and struggles not to embarrass herself or liberals. She does best when she keeps quiet and just joins Souter or Stevens.
Her loss would decimate the liberal influence on the court, leaving just Breyer and Souter. If Bush had it in him to eliminate Roe, he would put in another good conservative. If he wished to keep Roe around, we could expect Alberto Gonzales to be appointed.
Alberto Court (Liberals 2.65 - Conservatives 6.35)
Assuming this scenario, Bush would have established himself as the greatest consolidator of government power since Andrew Jackson. He would be credited with painting Texas a deep shade of red at every level, solidifying the GOP majority in the US House which was slowly eroding in 1998 and 2000. He will have completed a solid 10 seat GOP senate majority - not filibuster proof, but plenty big to offset crackpot moderates. And the court will have gone from a slight lean to solid right for the next 15-20 years.
And if, just if, a GOPer can take the Presidency in 2008, the impact on the federal bureaucracy will be cemented with an onslaught of retirements and replacements that are due. Something like 50% of all federal employees are retiring in the next 10 years. If a GOP administration can guide that process for the next 7-8 years, the impact will be significant.
On the Liberal side of things there are 3 rocked ribbed liberals who always vote with each other - David Souter (Bush I), John Paul Stevens (Ford) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton).
On the conservative side, there are only two rock ribbed conservatives - Scalia (Reagan) and Thomas (Bush).
(Liberals 3 - Conservatives 2)
Each side also has a 90-10 guy - someone who would be considered rock ribbed except for a few issues. For the liberals it is Breyer (Clinton) and the conservatives have Rehnquist (Reagan) who takes some liberal views on campaign finance. But overall, each side can pretty much rely on these guys.
(Liberals 4 - Conservatives 3)
In the middle we have a couple of GOP appointees who lean right, but surprise no one when they veer left. Anthony Kennedy is generally with the conservatives and I'd score him a 75-25. We lost him on Kelo, the property rights case, and a few other annoying decisions.
(Liberals 4.25 - Conservatives 3.75)
Sandra pretty much split the difference and approached the bench like a politician. If the decision was quietly conservative on issues like federalism, should could be counted on. On larger issues such as abortion, affirmative action, church and state issues - she would stick her finger in the air, take a poll, hold a focus group - and base her decision on the best marketing info Madison Avenue could buy.
(Liberals 4.65 - Conservatives 4.35)
Ideally our judges would make sound law based on the principles outlined in the constitution - liberty, life and freedom - and let popular opinion be damned. Sandy was a former politician, and you know what they say in the hood - you can take the girl of out politics, but you can't take the politics out of the girl.
The problem with political decision making by judges is that the difference splitting fails to settle the point of law and leads to a defacto "Lawyer Employment Protection Act of 2005". So I won't miss O'Connor.
The subtraction of O'Connor and the inclusion of Roberts will certainly shift the court away from a politically influenced court, to a slim conservative majority with the occasional shockingly bad decision by Kennedy. My assumption is that Roberts will mimic his mentor William Rehnquist and will behave as a 90-10 conservative. This might be optimistic, but we shall see.
(Liberals 4.35 - Conservatives 4.65)
Besides O'Connor, there are potentially 3 more judges who will need replacing during Bush's second term. He may have the opportunity to complete re-shape the court.
Rehnquist is on his way out, one way or another. Conservatives need an equal replacement in terms of ideology, but it is highly unlikely that a jurist will meet his legendary greatness as a judge. Rehnquist will go down with the likes of Oliver Wendell Holmes and John Marshall in the history books.
Ideally Bush will use this pick to put in a rocked ribbed Hispanic conservative along the lines of Miguel Estrada. This would be good politically and replace one conservative lion with another. This would also ensure a conservative majority for the next 10 years. However is AG Alberto Gonzalez were the pick, we would revert back to the court we have today, assuming Roberts in a 90-10 guy.
(Liberals 4.25 - Conservatives 4.75)
Liberal John Paul Stevens is 85. There is nothing other than his advanced age that suggests he will need replacement. But at 85, and 3 years to go in the Bush term - it doesn't take an actuary to deny this guy a life insurance policy. Stevens will go down as a footnote on the court. He didn't embarrass himself or wow the legal minds. But he is a staunch liberal and losing him will be a blow. Here I'd like to see Bush celebrate his liberal legacy by appointing the first black female to the court - Janice Rogers Brown - who of course was recently appointed to federal appeals court and consistently won 70% of the vote in the San Francisco area for re-election to the California Supreme Court. This would lead to a solidly conservative court and negate the weird decisions of Kennedy. At this point, you would see a lot of abortion laws short of Roe v. Wade being overturned - such as parental permission and partial birth.
(Liberals 3.25 - Conservatives 5.75)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is young by Court standards at 72, however she is a recent colon cancer survivor and her health considers to suffer. Her vacancy on the court would be no loss to the legal community. She is considered the high court's only lightweight and struggles not to embarrass herself or liberals. She does best when she keeps quiet and just joins Souter or Stevens.
Her loss would decimate the liberal influence on the court, leaving just Breyer and Souter. If Bush had it in him to eliminate Roe, he would put in another good conservative. If he wished to keep Roe around, we could expect Alberto Gonzales to be appointed.
Alberto Court (Liberals 2.65 - Conservatives 6.35)
Assuming this scenario, Bush would have established himself as the greatest consolidator of government power since Andrew Jackson. He would be credited with painting Texas a deep shade of red at every level, solidifying the GOP majority in the US House which was slowly eroding in 1998 and 2000. He will have completed a solid 10 seat GOP senate majority - not filibuster proof, but plenty big to offset crackpot moderates. And the court will have gone from a slight lean to solid right for the next 15-20 years.
And if, just if, a GOPer can take the Presidency in 2008, the impact on the federal bureaucracy will be cemented with an onslaught of retirements and replacements that are due. Something like 50% of all federal employees are retiring in the next 10 years. If a GOP administration can guide that process for the next 7-8 years, the impact will be significant.
posted by Bill Gilles | 9:07 AM
1 Comments:
You're assuming a GOP Congress and GOP President will attempt to reduce the size of government, or even make it more efficient. We've learned that electing Republicans at every level doesn't necessarily yield Republican policies.
Post a Comment
<< Home