Nope. Not realistically. Not unless a fetus does sign language.
if the court has a majority of neocons in it like you originally stated, it could be any kind of case that only has ideological merit. im sure TRO could give you a 20 page post of examples if you ask nicely.can anyone describe a potential case in which roe v wade could be overturned?
I hope your wrong, but I tend to agree with you.
The Roberts nomination is a signal the Dems are winning. The Repugs control the Senate and the Executive branch so they should be able to get who they want. Dems have to accept the nominee will be conservative, period. Yet Bush nominates the guy with the smallest paper trail and only a limited tenure on the bench.
While he will never admit it, if he was still spending that "capital" he ac ulated, he could have nominated a real kook like Janice Rogers Brown, Bork or even Ann Coulter for God's sake but with the recent turn of events:
His Social Security plan about as popular as the Bird Flu
Bolton twisting in the wind
The nuclear option compromise
His negative polling higher than his positives
Rove being exposed for the slime ball that he is
The administration is in a weakened state and had no stomach for the showdown that a flame thrower would have caused. It's called being a lame duck.
Shrub is still the president and Bill Frist and Tom Delay still call the shots on the in Congress.
Grill this guy, confirm him and move on with taking back the House and Senate.
Focus.........."It's the corruption, stupid."
Initially, you wouldn't see a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade itself, just a bunch of opinions that will begin to erode the house that is built on Roe. By that, its my su ion that initially you'd see the Court take long looks at things like: (1) laws permitting abortion without the consent of the father (or laws requiring the father's consent); (2) laws requiring that minors obtain parental consent before undergoing abortions (Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England (No. 04-1144, to be argued on Nov. 30, 2005) presents a question concerning the cons utionality of requiring parental consent for a minor's abortion); and (3) a challenge to any law that permits partial-birth abortion.
As the Court takes hold, if Roberts' presence allows the Court to limit abortion through those questions, I suspect that you'd see a conservative state pass a law banning abortion within its borders (perhaps with some limiting language for cases of incest or rape) for the express purpose of having the law challenged and presented in that context to the Supreme Court. Only then would the Court have an invitation to reconsider Roe v. Wade in full.
We're several years away from that, though -- nobody is going to do much until they find out if Roberts is the conservative that Bush says he is, or more of a David Souter or William Brennan -- a non-conservative judge appointed by a conservative President. There is some reason to think that Roberts might not be the conservative that the White House is painting him to be. Apparently, while much has been made of his argument in a brief to the Court that Roe was wrongly decided, Roberts wrote a separate scholarly piece in which he basically said that the positions he took as a governmental lawyer weren't necessarily those he holds privately. That's cryptic, but it may suggest that there's some blue sky between Roberts views and those of the conservatives who are Bush's main cons uency.
I read that somewhere.
yes chipping away at rights, and chipping away at freedoms that the governments do is the most likely thing to happen.
The Roberts nomination is a signal the Dems are winning. The Repugs control the Senate and the Executive branch so they should be able to get who they want. Dems have to accept the nominee will be conservative, period. Yet Bush nominates the guy with the smallest paper trail and only a limited tenure on the bench.
Bush also nominates a white conservative who is a spritely 50 years old. If he was ready to surrender he'd go with a non-white and/or female judge with a demonstrated moderate judicial viewpoint.
After Roberts is confirmed and Rehnquist steps down expect Janice Brown to be Bush's next nomination. What Democrats will be brave enough to vote against an African American female for Supreme Court Justice? (Kennedy will of course but because of stupidity not bravery) This will bring the female Court Justices back up to two and will be a landmark for African American women. Bush knows exactly what he's doing with his nominations!
She's a real kook? Could you be a little more vague?
What about her makes her a kook?
Surrender ? To who ?
The thing that always amazes me about people and republicans in general, is believing YOU are like George Bush or Cheney. GW made what, 20 million off of the Texas Rangers sale ? Cheney is worth what...200 million dollars ?
Hey man, even if you're worth FIVE million, and that's a lot of money, you ain't one of them and most of US aren't one of THEM. The middle class is dying.
It's a true problem and one that can't be shuffled aside wrapped in a banner of 'America' or 'capitalism'. Both sides are guilty.
It will be very tough to challenge Roberts, for reasons above the fact he was unanimously confirmed to the appeals court... he doesn't have a lot of history of a judge, so the opposition will have to focus on his work as a lawyer... but even then Roberts was only acting as a lawyer on behalf of his clients, not necessarily his personal position on a number of issues.
I predict some tough questioning before the judiciary committee, then a cake-walk vote (70% + approval)
Eventually, they'll appoint a child for the lifetime terms on the federal bench.
He's too young. He could be on the bench for 30 years.
BTW 2 abortion and 1 assitant suicide case on docket for next suprmee court
In regards to 'name a case that the SC could overturn RvW.
The SC did overturn the 'Miranda Law', what is known as the reading of our Miranda Rights, named after an Arizona man, for example. The cops don't have to do that any more. The SC can overturn their own rulings.
Your 'Miranda Rights' are still in force, but the police now give them to you as a courtesy, as it were.
Last edited by word; 07-20-2005 at 08:47 PM.
then why is it that renquist is always prasied for sabing maranda ?
b=v
link
Here we goIt will not take long to determine if John Roberts will shift the Supreme Court to the right. Abortion, gay rights and assisted suicide are among the first issues the court will consider in the fall
The left has a real problem in that there is a very deep pool of excellent conservative judges right now from which Bush can pull.After Roberts is confirmed and Rehnquist steps down expect Janice Brown to be Bush's next nomination. What Democrats will be brave enough to vote against an African American female for Supreme Court Justice? (Kennedy will of course but because of stupidity not bravery) This will bring the female Court Justices back up to two and will be a landmark for African American women. Bush knows exactly what he's doing with his nominations!
She's a real kook? Could you be a little more vague?
What about her makes her a kook?
I'm not sure Brown is near the top of Bush's list. She's more of a judicial activist, though a profoundly right-wing one. Bush appears to prefer the "strict constructionist" variety of judge.
I think he'd go with McConnell next. He's the superstar among superstars in the legal academic community, and if you couple his winsome demeanor with Roberts', that's quite a persuasive front for the conservative viewpoint on the court.
Wilkinson has to be near the top as well.
I'd agree with that proposition.
But I'm not sure I agree with this one.
Given the demographics of the situation and the opportunity to appoint someone who will be the first {something} Chief Justice, I suspect that Bush will go with a woman and I'd think the contenders would really be either Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit or Janice Rogers Brown. Frankly, since Edith Jones was rumored to be the runner-up to Souter and among the finalists for O'Connor's position this time, since it will be much easier to replace Rehnquist with a very conservative judge, and since Jones is both very conservative (more conservative, probably, than Brown) and female, she strikes me as a logical and likely choice.
There's little doubt that McConnell, Alito, Luttig, and Wilkinson are eminently qualified, though.
What people don't realize is that we do not need radically right-wing judges on the supreme or federal courts. We just need MODERATE ones to offset the 11th circuit court of appeals and their like. Don't listen to extremists on the left crying wolf the moment someone who doesn't have purple hair and nose piercings is nominated to become a judge, supreme court or otherwise.
The 11th Circuit (which deals with cases from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida)? Do you mean the 9th Circuit (which deals with cases from California, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Alaska, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, and Arizona)? I'd think you're talking about the 9th, but I hate to suppose that when I could be wrong.
For what it's worth, here are the reversal rates from the Supreme Courts October 2004 term, by circuit (the Court reversed 73.23% of all cases arising from the federal circuit courts):
1st - 100% (3 cases/3 reversed)
2nd - 100% (2/2)
3rd - 75% (4/3)
4th - 66% (3/2)
5th - 75% (8/6)
6th - 64% (11/7)
7th - 50% (2/1)
8th - 75% (4/1)
9th - 84% (19/16)
10th - 100% (3/3)
11th - 50% (10/5)
Fed.- 50% (2/1)
There's an article in the Hartford Courant that implies that McConnell and Wilkinson, along with Roberts, would be likelier to meet with the approval of the "Gang of 14." If those seven Democratic senators allow a vote on a candidate along with the 55 Republicans, the Dems don't have enough votes left for a filibuster.
Oops. You're right, the 9th Circuit on the west coast. I guess I had 11th on the brain from all the media coverage of the Alabama Ten Commandments thing.
See, I don't think the Gang of 14 is going to be a huge concern to Bush after this confirmation -- if Roberts is acceptable to all, the perception will be that Bush nominated someone who was fairly moderate (or at least not supremely-conservative) to the Court to replace the departing moderate in O'Connor. Since there's some degree of placating going on with the Roberts nomination, I'd expect that the Rehnquist replacement will be a much, much more conservative (read: controversial) choice, which leads me away from another man and to a hard-line conservative female. I've read discussions in several blogs run by Supreme Court prac ioners and former Supreme Court clerks that suggest that Bush will make no compromises with his next appointment and that Judge Jones will be at the very top of the list headed into that process.
Ultimately, none of us really knows what will happen -- less than 6 hours before Roberts was nominated, the whole world was pretty sure that Edith Clement was the choice. Roberts, until that point, had received some discussion, but hardly as much discussion as people like McConnell, Luttig, Alito, and even Jones. What the Hartford Curant reports now is interesting, but it's not going to dissuade me from my belief that Jones will be a finalist for the Chief Justice position.
Is it me or did he have a hair piece in the front top?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
