People are worried about the make up of the Supreme Court. If who the president nominated mattered so much the current make up of the court would be 7-2.
A democratic president appointed only 2 of the current Justices. Clinton nominated Breyer and Ginsburg. Rehnquist was nominated by Nixon. Stevens was Ford. O’Connor, Kennedy and Scalia were Uncle Ronnie. Thomas and Souter were Bush I nominees. So by liberal thinking, with an overwhelming right leaning majority, Roe v. Wade should already be overturned. This is an opinion that has stood the test of time. It's been on the books for over 31 years now!
George W. Bush never said that he would nominate a justice that would oppose abortion. He said he would nominate judges for the Supreme Court that would strictly uphold the Constitution of the United States. I understand this to mean, he would nominate a person who would not legislate from the bench. The Supreme Courts job is not to make new law but to administer the laws we already have on the books. At least that’s the way I understand it.
I think it’s premature to worry about any nominations that George W. Bush might make until after he makes them. I think it’s sort of like saying you don’t like peas before you ever even taste them.
Article comments
1 - Jim Harrison
Your understanding of the high court could use some study. The court has rarely in its history EVER revisted previous court decisions and overturned them.
Secondly, the court's role is to handle CONSTITUTIONAL issues - not simply act as a municipal court.
You might try reading a few books on the court.
And unfortunately court packing has a long a ugly history by both sides.
2 - Eric Olsen
I don't see any particular lack of understanding here - I believe the point is that jduges often turn out to be far more independent and unpredictable than the ideologues wish them to be. I sure don't want to see a court any MORE conservative than he current one, though.
3 - bhw
Unfortunately, Eric, the Ohio vote [along with all the other Red states] just helped ensure that very thing. Bush has said he will nominate judges like Scalia and Thomas, the two most conservative judges of all. That will make six ultra-conservative judges, potentially. And for another 30 years, potentially.
4 - Mark Edward Manning
Bush will simply put justices on the Court that understand their duty: To enforce the law first, and to interpret the law a distant second. And never to rewrite the law ...
Any judicial nominees that Bush may appoint need not be conservative; they will simply be as close to pure constitutionalists as he can get. In other words, his nominees won't see the constitution as a script to adapt for the 21st century. (Yes, I know Bush wants a marriage amendment, which I oppose ...)
5 - andy marsh
but like I said in the post...the court should already be lopsided...if you went by who appointed them...and I don't see it that way...W said he would appoint judges that would follow the constitution. I don't believe he said like thomas and scalia.
and I understand that there job is to interpret the constitution. I never said anything about them acting as municipal judges...but they are not supposed to write law either...only try to figure out what does and doesn't agree with our constitution.
6 - bhw
I don't believe he said like thomas and scalia.
He didn't have to. He said "strict constitutionalists," which is what they are.
7 - boomcrashbaby
Andy, I can't speak for others, but my concern for the Justices can't be compared to the past, because I believe that the 'party' that is leading the Republican party now, has a far different agenda than the Republican party which ran itself when Reagan was in office.
8 - boomcrashbaby
only try to figure out what does and doesn't agree with our constitution.
The problem is, should a judge determine that extending benefits to some families but not others doesn't agree with our constitution, then they are labeled 'activist' judges, who Pat Robertson gets his millions to pray for, for their 'early retirement'.
Let's be clear, judges have always determined what fits the constitution. Should they make a ruling that we, the general public don't like, then they are activists judges who are rewriting the constitution.
9 - bhw
In other words, his nominees won't see the constitution as a script to adapt for the 21st century.
Why shouldn't it be adapted? It's simply absurd to suggest that a 200+ year old document, written by men who were reacting to a very specific set of circumstances, and who believed [among other things] that women shouldn't vote or own property, that people with dark skin should/could be enslaved, and that leeches cured disease, should be held up as the *unchanging* standard upon which we base our laws and civil liberties.
The men who wrote the Constitution were extremely well educated and bright. But they were not gods who could predict the future or even men who believed in equality for all men and women. The document should be interpreted to reflect life TODAY.
10 - andy marsh
bhw - obviously I am no constitutional scholar but, I believe that's why the constitution can be amended. It is a living document. That's why they made it possible to add amendments to it, because they knew they couldn't see into the future. It is why people that did not have the rights they had in the 1700's have some of them today! But it's also not the Courts job to add those amendments and until everybody moves a little closer to the center I don't think a whole lot will change.
Boom - I can't say I feel your pain, I wish I could, I've told you in the past, that I do understand that the relationship you have with your significant other can be as meaningful and as important as the one I have with mine. Like Mike, I DO NOT support a constitutional amendment defining marriage. I also know that what I'm about to say isn't enough for you but, I would vote in a heartbeat for civil unions. I think anyone should have the right to share with someone else the things I share in my house. I guess it goes back to those nuns beating catholicism into me when I was a kid, but marriage is a religious sacrament, at least that's how it started out and I believe that word only has one meaning. But see, I see that as a move towards the center. Some on here only see it as bigotry.
11 - boomcrashbaby
but marriage is a religious sacrament, at least that's how it started out and I believe that word only has one meaning.
Marriage started out as a transfer of property, not as a religious sacrament. It changes to meet societies needs. It included polygamy, concubines, and harems. Marriage has been as mutable as society itself.
Thank you for the rest of your comment.