Supremes - now that no one's mentioned retiring.....

[MsTryska]

I would have no problem with a strict constitutionalist on the bench.


Not a conservative idealogue mind you, but someone who believes in the Constitution.

[aden_nak]

1. No one but Scalia or Thomas would let Bush replace them.

Even the normal conservatives there realize that Bush would replace them with a complete whackjob.

[MsTryska]

2. I think you're right on that....however....

after the last few rulings, i'm beginning to appreciate THomas a bit more. He does stick to the Constitution, as far as I can tell.

i still can't forgive him for Bush v Gore tho.


but still it would appareciate someone who takes a rational approach to jurisprudence, even if they were to be considered "conservative".


(i'm extremely disappointed in this sessions "liberals" too.)

[aden_nak]

12. Thomas isn't AS BAD as Scalia.

Though that's much in the same way that being shot in the thigh isn't as bad as being shot in the kneecap. I keep hoping that as he matures, Thomas will step away from being Scalia's second vote and just vote like a sane conservative. Hell, on that court, a "sane conservative" is practically a moderate compared to Scalia.

[SteppingRazor]

3. The fact that they're not retiring yet could mean very little.

None of them would retire in the midst of the current judicial fight. That'd be a foolhardy thing to do, at least for the conservatives. As for the liberals, I think they'll try to soldier on until 2008. But after the current judicial fight dies down, it's still very possible that we'll see several SCOTUS openings in the latter half of Bush's term.

[MsTryska]

4. what judicial fight do you mean?

the current slate of appointments?

[SteppingRazor]

7. Right.

Until any and all heat dies down from that, we won't see a conservative SCOTUS retire, in my not-so-humble opinion. :)

As for liberals (such as they are on the Supreme Court), I think they'll try to hold out until at least the '08 elections.

[MsTryska]

8. I see your point....

and it's a good one.


And i'm OK with the status quo for now. it gives us a little time, at least.

[Lexingtonian]

5. But that's a contradiction

in the issues that really matter.

[MsTryska]

6. how so? nt

nt

[Lexingtonian]

10. Well, no one seems even to remember what

a "loose constructionist" is, and what the real distinction is between 'strict' and 'loose' construction. Or that formally, there is no way of being a pure 'strict constructionist'- like being a fundamentalist Christian, a 'strict constructionist' is just another form of selective interpretation because truly literal adherence is impossible. The Bible is vague and strictly speaking selfcontradicting in many ways, and the Constitution is similar.

And then there's the distinction between what a 'strict constructionist' is in theory, and what s/he has to be in practice. Here's John Dean on what the practical, on-the-ground, definition amounts to in Washington back when it was fixed in the Nixon era:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20011101.html

Q: The book refers to a document in which Rehnquist defines or describes a "strict constructionist." Given the fact that President George Bush said that was what he would appoint to the Court during the 2000 presidential campaign, let me ask as a final question what you think of Rehnquist's explanation of what a strict constructionist is.

A: It is the most honest definition or description of a strict constructionist I have ever seen, and given the fact it was provided by the Chief Justice of the United States, a jurist who considers himself a strict constuctionist, I don't believe anyone can ignore it. However, I think that if the president ever appoints a strict constuctionist as defined by Rehnquist, he should be tarred and feathered by the media. And I think anyone who is aware of the Chief Justice's explanation and who has any sense of decency would agree.

The Rehnquist definition was in a memo he sent to the White House when he was an Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel and was vetting Judge Clement Haynsworth. It is quite remarkable, but he asserts that a strict constructionist judge is one who favors criminal prosecutors over criminal defendants, and civil rights defendants over civil rights plaintiffs. It is, for me, a description of a person who should be automatically disqualified from sitting on any court. Under Rehnquist definition a strict constructionist is obviously a biased judge as well.

At the time of the definition, Civil Rights/minority rights was the dominant political and judicial issue. The basic guarantees that 'strict construction' of this sort wipes out are those on which all claims of the time rest, and most/all of the present do, which is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

And if you do look at the persistent injustices at issue in the present, social or economic, isn't the politics of them all about 'conservatives' persistently denying citizenship rights, due process, and equal protection demands to abused groups?

So I agree with your desire to see the Constitution enforced. It's just that 'strict constructionism', while it sounds nice, is a Potemkin village the Right has put up to minimize and void portions of the Constitution. Bush v. Gore is the kind of verdict that results.

[MsTryska]

11. Thanks.....

I didn't say "strict constructionist" tho - to me that's the same as a "right-wing idealogue"


i said strict Constitutionalist.

[CityDem]

9. There may still be a retirement

Not all justices announce their retirement from the bench on the last day of the session. I would not be surprised to see one or two justices submit resignation letters to AWOL later this week.