Supreme Court Nominees

[DownWithTheLeft]

Say one of the Supreme Court justices were to step down or die in the next few months.  Would which justice steps down change who Bush appoints in your opinion?  For example would Bush have to appoint a more moderate voice if Kennedy all the way to the left were gone as opposed to Scalia?  I think if Michael Luttig is the best choice either way, but do you think the justice that is gone makes a difference?

[MaC]

Next to step down is likely Stevens because of age.  However, I don't doubt he would wait until after the 2008 election to step down.  Most at this point probably assume the Democrats will win the Presidency or at least keep their congressional power by 2008, thus making it an instant in for any Democratic President to appoint a liberal nominee or very tough for a Republican to appoint a conservative nominee.  (although the latter is true now because of Bush's current lack of political power).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think he'll nominate a conservative (at least as conservative as possible) if he can get away w/ it.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I remember Stevens saying something about a Republican appointed him, so he'd leave with a Republican in office.  Anyone else remember this at all?

[MODU]

I think he would probably go for another conservative.

[Emsworth]

Luttig is out of the question. He has resigned his position as a federal judge, and has become general counsel to Boeing. Of course, there is no legal barrier to his return to the judiciary. However, the Democrats would find it very easy to attack him as a "corporate lawyer," rendering the confirmation process quite difficult.

[Wakie]

I don't think it matters to Bush as I don't see him interested in having a "balanced" court.  I think he would look for another Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito clone.

[MODU]

I don't think it matters to Bush as I don't see him interested in having a "balanced" court.  I think he would look for another Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito clone.

I think it is a misnomer that there should be a "balanced" court.  The court could be full of liberals or conservatives in their private lives, but there is only one law, and the judges are there to weigh decisions based upon the law, and not personal biases.  Now, it is true that no one can really turn off their own personal feelings on issues, so you will get some bleed through in controversial decisions, but for most cases, the rulings should be fairly dominant in one direction or another.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Based on the current composition of the Senate, I'd say Bush might be able to push a mainstream conservative to replace one of the conservatives on the bench, but he'd have to settle for a more moderate choice if it was a liberal who retired.

I know Senate Democrats don't have much of a spine, but I figure they at least won't let Bush go that far.

[Wakie]

I don't think it matters to Bush as I don't see him interested in having a "balanced" court.  I think he would look for another Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito clone.

I think it is a misnomer that there should be a "balanced" court.  The court could be full of liberals or conservatives in their private lives, but there is only one law, and the judges are there to weigh decisions based upon the law, and not personal biases.  Now, it is true that no one can really turn off their own personal feelings on issues, so you will get some bleed through in controversial decisions, but for most cases, the rulings should be fairly dominant in one direction or another.

Well, if you go through the court's decisions you see that the majority of them are unanimous or close to it.  But we don't hear about those cases.  We really only hear about the contraversial ones wherein those "personal feelings" you mentioned bleed in.

I agree that for 95% of all cases there is one law and it should be interpretted by the justices the same way.  But on those contraversial issues I do believe there should be balance.

Take an issue like weapon sales and the 2nd Amendment.  There should be one justice who champions the cause that says the 2nd Amendment grants the people right to any and all "arms" they want.  There should be one justice who argues that the 2nd Amendment grants that to the states, not the people.  And one justice who says that there is some gray area here.

[Emsworth]

Take an issue like weapon sales and the 2nd Amendment.  There should be one justice who champions the cause that says the 2nd Amendment grants the people right to any and all "arms" they want.  There should be one justice who argues that the 2nd Amendment grants that to the states, not the people.  And one justice who says that there is some gray area here.

Why don't you add one justice who says that it grants individuals the right to wear sleeveless shirts? I don't see why there should be justices on the Supreme Court who disregard the plain meaning of the Constitution's text, merely for the sake of "balance."

[Wakie]

Take an issue like weapon sales and the 2nd Amendment.  There should be one justice who champions the cause that says the 2nd Amendment grants the people right to any and all "arms" they want.  There should be one justice who argues that the 2nd Amendment grants that to the states, not the people.  And one justice who says that there is some gray area here.

Why don't you add one justice who says that it grants individuals the right to wear sleeveless shirts? I don't see why there should be justices on the Supreme Court who disregard the plain meaning of the Constitution's text, merely for the sake of "balance."

I cite the 2nd Amendment as an example of an issue wherein the language of the Constituition is debatable.  The intentions of the framers is not clear.  There should be someone who sits on both sides of this fence who can argue either side when the justices sit down behind closed doors to discuss a case.

[HardRCafé]

Luttig is out of the question. He has resigned his position as a federal judge, and has become general counsel to Boeing. Of course, there is no legal barrier to his return to the judiciary. However, the Democrats would find it very easy to attack him as a "corporate lawyer," rendering the confirmation process quite difficult.

The Democrats would not need to attack him.  After the tantrum he threw, no Republican would touch him with a ten-foot pole.