Supreme Court Justice O'Connor submits resignation

[webb]

It would be absolutely incredible to have a 'legal mind' like that of Gonzalez nominated, but it's probably going to happen. Ask any decent constitutional law prof. what they think of the torture memo if you really want to hear something bashed.

how so? my access to law professors is limited...

[gonzo]

Anything less would not be in keeping with the intentions of the founders and would be a victory for the degradation of America as a whole

If only the constitution required adhearance to your interpretation of the intentions of the founding fathers, you would have a solid argument...

[mr_gyptian]

I expect Bush to appoint someone controversial and expect an "up or down vote". Funny thing about that is that it's the senate that decides, not the house where all they have is the up or down vote. It's amazing how much foresight the founding fathers had. They understood the need for super majority and the need to carefullly consider lifetime appointments. Bush and the idiots are merely trying to bull their way past the standards created by our founders.
The democrats must stand their ground on this. If the nomination is unacceptable they must fillibuster and if frist uses the nuclear option the Dems must shut down the senate for the duration. Anything less would not be in keeping with the intentions of the founders and would be a victory for the degradation of America as a whole

wrong. Madison actually wanted a 2/3 majority to REJECT nominees within a specified period of time.

it's just a majority and the dem's cannot do shit if they get nuked.

[gonzo]

It would be absolutely incredible to have a 'legal mind' like that of Gonzalez nominated, but it's probably going to happen. Ask any decent constitutional law prof. what they think of the torture memo if you really want to hear something bashed.

A liberal con. law professor would bash it, a conservative would support it. However, I am guessing your definition of "decent" may be synonymous with "liberal"...

[13]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the "nuclear" option?

[mr_gyptian]

Ha...I was just posting the same thread. She was our liberal swing vote and I am sure that GWB is dancing a jig over this one.

One appointment that they mentioned is from the Texas Supreme Court (I believe, Texas government official atleast) and was seen as not quite conservative enough. He is Pro-Life (which is exactly what the female population is fearing) and they compared him to Justice Souter, who was BLATANTLY Pro-Life.

It is only one position, but the impact of the Sup. Ct. opinions is bound to change with just one person. This guy, Gonzalez, could be a swing in the wrong direction...

didn't you just get out of law school?

she voted with Rehnquist most of the time.

[Monique]

Bud G I am with you completely, I refuse ever to use the term pro-life (well, except in this sentence I guess). Adopting it is one of the best tactical moves the anti-choice movement ever made, with the implication that the antonym would be pro-death or even just pro-abortion, both of which are a long way from the reality of simply believing women should be free to make their own reproductive decisions without government interference.

And if you round up anti-choice voters I'd bet the farm (if I had one) you'd find a disproportionate number of pro-death penalty voters who support the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq, have Iran next on their list, and think of Iraqi civilian deaths as "collateral damage" in a "greater cause." The anti-choice movement is about controlling women, not about preserving life.

The bigger irony in my mind is this debate is going on while insurance companies cover prescriptions for Viagara but not for birth control pills or other contraceptives; in a country where a huge proportion of children live in poverty and the safety net for after they're born is continually weakened; and in a world where the last Pope gave a speech that simultaneously condemned overpopulation, birth control, and reproductive rights. (At this point one had to wonder if his next topic would be the little green aliens driving his Popemobile...)

The freedoms established by Roe v. Wade can be attacked from any number of angles, from establishing parental consent requirements to implementing waiting periods to cutting government funding for reproductive health services, including abortion--effectively denying reproductive rights to women without health care insurance or the money to pay for their care. The Bush administration has already done so overseas.

Wait, I can do all this in three words: we are fucked. Gotta go, I have an appointment to get measured for my burka.

[Steven S. Dallas]

Rare appearance from Arthur Gonzarelli. Living in CA's gotcha hitting the smileys pretty hard, eh brah?

Now Bush can appoint a total psychopath to this seat and still appease lefties by naming a only somewhat insane CJ. Sweet. I got $5 on Mike Luttig.

At this rate Stevens will be on the bench until his heart-lung machine craps out.

[pube-in-my-taco]

I refuse ever to use the term pro-life

That's kind of intellectually dishonest because the opposite is also true: pro-choice, particularly from the standpoint of a pro-lifer. To a pro-lifer, the central issue is life - that is the reason for the position and the concept of "choice" is largely irrelevant to them.

On the other hand, choicers see it as a women's rights issue - and since they don't see a fetus befoe a certain point is a life, the concept of "life" is largely irrelevant to them, too.

That is why debates between the two sides are usually a waste of time. They're arguing from different paradigms. "This isn't a choice issue, it's a life issue" means nothing to a person who doesn't recognize it as a life in the first place.

That said, I've always seen RvW as a states rights thing - the court ruled that a state can't make it illegal to have an abortion. An overturning of RvW would not make abortion illegal - rather, it would leave it up to the individual states as to whether it should be legal or not.

[Dexter Rutecki]

A liberal con. law professor would bash it, a conservative would support it. However, I am guessing your definition of "decent" may be synonymous with "liberal"...

Well, yes, nearly all the decent law profs are left of the American 'center', but I don't think that's a coincidence....
But in this case, actually, I think a majority of conservatives would bash the memo as well (I've heard at least one do that on radio). It's just so intellectually baseless and self-serving, with no legal merit as far as anyone can tell. Conservatives may be evil in many ways, but even they (usually) stop short of torture (Alan Dershowitz aside).

[Dexter Rutecki]

That's kind of intellectually dishonest because the opposite is also true:

Not really--calling oneself pro-life while supporting murder is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical, though. The point wasn't that the term is wrong, just that people use it purely for propaganda purposes. It's like Bush trying to call the SS private accounts 'personal' simply because it polls better.

[pube-in-my-taco]

Not really--calling oneself pro-life while supporting murder is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical, though. The point wasn't that the term is wrong, just that people use it purely for propaganda purposes. It's like Bush trying to call the SS private accounts 'personal' simply because it polls better.

Right. But my point was you can say the same thing about pro-choice: It's not that the term is wrong, just that people use it purely for propaganda purposes. Otherwise, the terms would be "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion."

[Squirrel99]

I'm convinced that Bush and the ultra wacko Right - who think this is a such a blessing- will end up being their undoing. The media will be all over this- forget any other conflicts going on. They are not smart enough to nominate somebody who will truly be a postive contributer and benefit to the American people and Supreme Court. It's all about corporate donors and pressing ultra conservative right wing beliefs. Seriously.

So For them to make this a Positive gain, they will need to nominate a moderate-someone with past and present praise from not only both sides of the aisle, but also from public opinion and previous rulings. Abortion will be a stickler- but you can assume the person will be against abortion- but perhaps their past rulings would show moderation- a judge with a history of reasonable balanced judgement, but supports anti-abortion. Picking someone in the middle would be a smart move to curtail Bush's sagging ratings and his place in history as a lame duck president. But he/they won't. They'll go for the jugular because they are arrogant.

I'm counting on them trying to confirm someone that has extreme views - enough to piss off more than 50% of the country. And then when they don't get what they want, they'll try the 'nuke' option (so fucking arrogant with a divided country- it wasn't like the elections gave them a 'mandate' ).

Combining a hotbed of topics with Justice nomination from the extreme right and nuclear option- public opinion will sharply turn on them. They'll shoot themselves in the foot basically and in next year's election, if the Dems are smart- they'll place a heavy emphasis on the Republican corruption (re: tom delay) and these proceedings. Not that I really like the Dems either- but anything's better to sweep these arrogant pricks from office.

On an interesting note, you can already see the shift from various GOP leaders concerned about their future now taking a stand against Bush. At least They're smart enough to jump off a sinking ship when they see one. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. If GOP isn't smart about it, this will cost them the House and Senate in 2006.

[Monique]

That's kind of intellectually dishonest because the opposite is also true: pro-choice, particularly from the standpoint of a pro-lifer. To a pro-lifer, the central issue is life - that is the reason for the position and the concept of "choice" is largely irrelevant to them.

I understand your point but disagree with the premise that life is the central issue for reproductive freedom opponents. In the interest of intellectual honesty, try this: the vast majority of people who oppose the right to terminate a pregnancy support an exception for cases of rape or incest. If the issue here truly were the sanctity of life, they would make no such exception--the fetus would have a "right to life" that would be sacred under any circumstances, no matter how sad.

And life IS the central issue for pro-choice women, they just define it more broadly to include a child after it's born, and to include women after they reach reproductive age.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Pro-abortion is pretty misleading, though. Pro-choice does logically imply that one is against killing (people?), and so shouldn't be applied to people who support killing in war/prisons. Anti-abortion or anti-choice is fine, I think, and I don't see pro-choice as difficult to understand or potentially misleading.

edit: see pube's post two above, I didn't refresh/quote before posting.

[SkiEvil]

This is what is scary:

Bush Appointments

[webb]

Well, yes, nearly all the decent law profs are left of the American 'center', but I don't think that's a coincidence....

<paging a certain student of a conservative law school... paging a certain student of a conservative law school... time to tee up, homes>

as a former worker on nader's 2000 campaign, a strong supporter of bill bradley, and somebody who really, really wishes that obama would just shut up until 2008, I gotta tell ya that you shouldn't mistake someone who agrees with you with competance. that's not a good move, no matter what political label you adhere to yourself.

[pube-in-my-taco]

See, this is what I was talking about. You, as a choicer, do not see it as an issue of life vs. death. Therefore, you think that the term "pro-life" is misleading. But it's not misleading to a pro-lifer, who does see it as an issue of life vs. death, regardless of what positions they hold on other issues.

Lifers don't oppose abortion because they want to suppress women's rights - they oppose abortion because they want to preserve a child's life. A choicer will yell at a lifer saying, "You don't support a woman's right to choose!" What's this supposed to mean to such a person? That they should have the right to choose between life and death?

When you see it from both the viewpoint of both sides, it becomes immediately obvious why this is such a polarizing debate, hypocrisy about murder notwithstanding.

[Steven S. Dallas]

Yeah, I would disagree with Dex on that one. Strong to very strong. Some of the better professors at my school are quite conservative.

Buddy who works at the DOJ says people are talking like Gonzales is a done deal.

[Core Shot]

Well, yes, nearly all the decent law profs are left of the American 'center', but I don't think that's a coincidence....

Ummm, how about Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, Richard Epstein.
Pretty decent and pretty conservative.
Oh, wait, I forgot that "decent" in Dexterspeak means "lefty liberal communist"



interestingly, I got the following link in an email this morning
http://legalaffairs.org/poll/

[Dexter Rutecki]

IMO the reason the academy tends toward the left is that thoughtful, well-educated people (who are often smart, as well) naturally see things in a more sophisticated, liberal way than their conservative counterparts. My impression has always been that the majority of prof.s at the better law schools are 'liberal', although law schools tend to be more conservative than the rest of the university (outside of the business schools/dept.s).
I don't mistake ideology for competence, though it currently seems that the Republicans are trying for a monopoly on incompetence (pick one of 20 examples).

See, this is what I was talking about. You, as a choicer, do not see it as an issue of life vs. death. Therefore, you think that the term "pro-life" is misleading. But it's not misleading to a pro-lifer, who does see it as an issue of life vs. death, regardless of what positions they hold on other issues.

Again, that's not the point. If one describes oneself as pro-life, then the person should fit that description. And whether or not they like it, they are anti-choice. It doesn't have anything to do with the merits of the argument--if you favor the death penalty or other murder, you shouldn't call yourself pro-life.
I understand what you're saying about the two sides being unable to debate the issue, but that's no reason to accept inaccurate terminology chosen by one of those sides (I'm not sure that pro-choice is at all misleading).

[gonzo]

Ummm, how about Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, Richard Epstein.

Those are my dawgs! Even though they are branded as conservative, Epstein says he is a liberitarian and Posner and Easterbrook probably would say they are economic pragmatic idealists. Too bad Posner is sticks to his guns so hard - would love to see him in SCOTUS. Apparently Epstein turned down a circuit court call a while back, and apparently you only get one. Cool thing is those guys get along very well with and have normal, healthy debate with the likes of Sunstein, one of the lefter of the left.

It is true that at least +50% of law profs. are on the liberal side of the spectrum, but that is a statistic that has so many variables built into it there is virtually nothing you can get from it.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Ummm, how about Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, Richard Epstein.
Pretty decent and pretty conservative.
Oh, wait, I forgot that "decent" in Dexterspeak means "lefty liberal communist"



interestingly, I got the following link in an email this morning
http://legalaffairs.org/poll/

Heh, I think all those guys are Chicago--I was going to make a Chicago Law School crack before, but for some reason didn't.
Is that where you are? Must be hell...

edit: and actually, I'd be surprised if at least two of those guys weren't substantially against the 'logic' underlying the memo.

[gonzo]

Heh, I think all those guys are Chicago--I was going to make a Chicago Law School crack before, but for some reason didn't.
Is that where you are? Must be hell...

It's where I am...and define "hell." It is flat and paved, so that sucks. But there is an incredible value placed on ideas backed with logical reasoning...and firebrand ideology is scorned. So yeah, that would probably be hell for you.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Oh, I meant Core Shot actually. I guess you're the guy who got sentenced to life at the world's most conservative law school (OK, I don't know how you'd measure that, but that seems to be its reputation). Good luck, and wear your brain shield...