The real thing at stake this election

[Popmartijn]

No, it isn't Iraq, the economy or social security. The real thing at stake for this election is the Supreme Court.
Here's an excerpt from today's Electoral Vote editorial (http://www.electoral-vote.com):

Supreme Court news: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, has thyroid cancer and had an emergency tracheotomy at Bethesda Naval Hospital according to a report in today's Washington Post. Thyroid cancer has several forms, but all are difficult to treat in older patients according to medical experts. Rehnquist is not the only member of the Court to have been diagnosed with cancer. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 71, had colon cancer, Sandra Day O"Conner, 74, had breast cancer, and John Paul Stevens, 84, had prostate cancer. This latest occurence of cancer once again spotlights the age of the current justices and the fact that the next president is almost certainly going to have multiple vacancies to fill, probably including the Chief Justice. With respect to judicial apppointments, it is harder to imagine two candidates whose judicial appointments would differ more than Bush and Kerry's. Will the next president appoint Justices determined to reverse Roe v. Wade or to reaffirm it? What about teaching of creationism in schools, separation of church and state, medical research using stem cells, and so many other issues on which the candidates differ? Ultimately, practically all of them end up in the Supreme Court. Ten years from now the war in Iraq will be over (hopefully), but the justices the next president appoints will still be on the Court making decisions that affect many aspects of life in America. Think carefully about this issue before voting next Tuesday.

In the editorial of 22 October (http://www.electoral-vote.com/oct/oct22.html) there was also this interesting piece of information:

Justice Appointed by Sworn in Age
Stephen Breyer Clinton 1994 66
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Clinton 1993 71
Anthony M. Kennedy Reagan 1988 68
Sandra Day O'Connor Reagan 1981 74
William H. Rehnquist Nixon 1972 80
Antonin Scalia Reagan 1986 68
David H. Souter Bush 1990 65
John Paul Stevens Ford 1975 84
Clarence Thomas Bush 1991 56

As you can see, 5 of the 9 judges have been appointed before 1990 (so more than 15 years ago), with 2 of those even being appointed in the Seventies! So the new judges will be in the Supreme Court for a long time. And by the look of it, the new president may even appoint 4 new judges. So do not (only) consider where you'd like the USA go in the next 4 years, but maybe even more important, where you'd want it to go the next 24 years.

C ya!

Marty

 

[diamond]

all the more reason to vote Bush

 

[joyfulgirl]

No, it isn't Iraq, the economy or social security. The real thing at stake for this election is the Supreme Court.

That's what I keep telling people who don't want to vote because they don't like either candidate.

 

[Boston01]

whoever wins .. I just hope they appoint judges very much unlike the ones here in MA that have taken away our right to vote on core social issues.

 

[nbcrusader]

This is nothing new. The issue has become a recurring theme for Presidential elections following the full politicization of the Supreme Court with the Bork nomination. Prior to that, the only politics involved with the Supreme Court dealt with the suggestion that there was a "Jewish seat" or an "African-American seat".

 

[boosterjuice]

Excellent point.

 

[verte76]

This is definitely a reason to vote.

 

[Popmartijn]

This is nothing new. The issue has become a recurring theme for Presidential elections following the full politicization of the Supreme Court with the Bork nomination. Prior to that, the only politics involved with the Supreme Court dealt with the suggestion that there was a "Jewish seat" or an "African-American seat".

Indeed, it is nothing new (can remember that points like these were also raised for the 2000 elections). The difference now is that no judge has resigned in the past four years (i.e. they all have gotten 4 years older) and that 4 have been diagnosed with cancer. I hope they all recover quickly and completely, but I do think these four seats will become vacant in the next four years. Either because they lose the fight against cancer, or because they want to step back to fight the disease. So the situation (that the president has to appoint new judges for the Supreme Court) has become more realistic for the next four years.

C ya!

Marty

 

[dazzledbylight]

thanks for posting this, Marty.

it's something I have been talking about w other voters!

 

[ShellBeThere]

Yes, thanks Marty for posting on that....

The pollsters (hard to type that word sometimes...I wonder if they do blowbyblow cortisol level reactions on this topic as well as campaign ad soundbytes) keep saying that voters never consider the Supreme Court when making their choices in the privacy of the curtained booth, but the situation this year seems hard to ignore.

I hope it changes the fear spotlight from terrorist attacks, over which bush and kerry likely have similarly little control, to the 'supreme' power the highest court has to seriously affect basic rights and interpret the constitution!

cheers all!

 

[U2Kitten]

all the more reason to vote Bush

I'm not a Bush lover, but it does scare me to think of John Kerry appointing a bunch of liberal judges we'll be stuck with for years to come And I absolutely love the way republican presidents have chosen minority conservatives that can't be voted against due to pc-ness that's the biggest in your face turnabout to the liberals I've ever seen. Very clever!

Not meaning to joke, seriously, I mean it, could there be something in the court building making all these people sick? That's a very above average high incidents of cancer per capita is it not? Any other workplace in America have a 50% or higher rate? Maybe they should investigate this, really.

 

[Popmartijn]

Not meaning to joke, seriously, I mean it, could there be something in the court building making all these people sick? That's a very above average high incidents of cancer per capita is it not? Any other workplace in America have a 50% or higher rate? Maybe they should investigate this, really.

Well, I think that a lot probably also has to do with the fact that they are 71, 74, 80 and 84.

And BTW, I'll be more worried for the US when Bush wins and he appoints judges from the fundamental right.

 

[sharky]

Kitten -- with a Republican president and Republican controlled Congress, Bush can grab from as far right as he wants to.

Boston -- sometimes the people are wrong and the court has to decide a case based on what is just, not what is popular. You have to look no further than Brown v. the Board of Education. And guess who Brown's lawyer was? Former Justice Thurgood Marshall.

The court has been unchanged for the past ten years -- the longest uninterrupted court in almost 200 years I believe. And this is not a normal one judge here, one judge there thing. The youngest is 65 years old. Whoever wins could truly shape judicial law for the next twenty years. Now what do you want -- restrictions on women's rights and religious tolerance? And think about this: Bush won his election court case by a vote of 5-4 -- guess how the justices voted? Now granted, the justices are now doing whatever they can to stay out of this election. They know the decision damaged their reputation and unlike politicians, they try to be non-partisan and I believe they take their positions much more seriously than the congressional or executive branch. Regardless of the candidate, the next four years will be quite interesting.

 

[nbcrusader]

Kitten -- with a Republican president and Republican controlled Congress, Bush can grab from as far right as he wants to.

More fear mongering to incite the left to vote.

Bush has had the "opportunity" to grab as "far right" as he wants to for the last four years.

Obstruction from the Democrats has made that impossible.

With Supreme Court nominations far more politicized, Bush will not have free reign on his appointments.

 

[deep]

i would not put a recess apointment passed him

 

[nbcrusader]

On a Supreme Court position? Nonsense.

I guess it has gotten to the point where people will say anything to make GWB look bad.....

 

[Inner El Guapo]

More fear mongering to incite the left to vote.

You have no problem with the poster who comments on being afraid Kerry might appoint a bunch of liberal judges, but as soon as someone says that Bush will reach as far right as he can it's "fear mongering". Be consistent.

 

[Inner El Guapo]

I guess it has gotten to the point where people will say anything to make GWB look bad.....

I hear ya, but it's not like there are a bunch of righties out there lobbing compliments at Kerry. You'd think both of these guys are Satan if you didn't have a mind of your own.

I have never in my life seen a witchhunt like the one pulled on Clinton, it forced me to wash my hands of the Republicans for good (I was already leaning that way). And I'm no Democrat either or even a big fan of Clinton, but that was just ridiculous to the point it was disgusting.

And here we have a President who has waged two wars, has seen the economy tank under his term, seen the most divided nation in decades and is a polarizing character all by himself because of his policies. The only point is, maybe it's easy to see why he gets a lot of heat, some deserved, some undeserved.
But it's a contentious time, people are fired up about the direction of their lives and their country.

IMO, Clinton was villified far worse, for far less than what Bush has done, Clinton was berated on cable news, talk radio, non-stop. At least Bush has allies on those fronts Besides the fact that Willie was actually impeached. I don't think Bush is going to get many breaks, probably never was after what happened to Clinton, who had attempts to tear him down for 8 years. Bush is only a four years in, I wouldn't expect it to ease up if he gets re-elected. And I woouldn't expect an easy ride for Kerry either, I'm sure he'll have a hell of a time trying to get anything done.

Funny how it works both ways, there should be no one who thinks it doesn't. well...what was that Jon Stewart said?.....partisan hacks? Yeah that's it.

 

[DrTeeth]

Bush has had the "opportunity" to grab as "far right" as he wants to for the last four years.

Obstruction from the Democrats has made that impossible.

This looks like an important piece of information.

 

[Diane L]

On a Supreme Court position? Nonsense.

I guess it has gotten to the point where people will say anything to make GWB look bad.....

Doug, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But IMHO, Bush does so much to make himself look bad that other people don't have to say anything at all.

And the thought of Bush appointing Supreme Court judges frightens me.

 

[nbcrusader]

You have no problem with the poster who comments on being afraid Kerry might appoint a bunch of liberal judges, but as soon as someone says that Bush will reach as far right as he can it's "fear mongering". Be consistent.

Before you appoint yourself policeman for my posts, I do not recall a thread that argued against Kerry because he could reach as far left as he wanted to.

The argument is made of Bush. It is more hype than reality. The claim is part of the standard repertoire of the left going back to 1980.

 

[nbcrusader]

has seen the economy tank under his term

GWB inherited an economy headed to recession. It overheated in the late '90's and the dot.com bubble burst. Add a major attack on US soil and you have one nasty economic situation.

You should support your statement with the policies that caused an economic decline.



And, yes, I will agree with you.
Clinton got a raw deal. But he could have easily avoided the whole thing with one truthful statement.

 

[U2Kitten]

Well, I think that a lot probably also has to do with the fact that they are 71, 74, 80 and 84.

Not all old people get cancer. Young people get it too, even babies. That doesn't mean anything. The fact that so many closely associated people are getting it leads me to wonder if there is a common factor causing it.

 

[Scarletwine]

And, yes, I will agree with you.
Clinton got a raw deal. But he could have easily avoided the whole thing with one truthful statement.

That's not true. Clinton was dogged by the Reps. the minute he started to run. Time after time they found no reason to prosecute him, including Whitewater.

They finally hit paydirt.

 

[sharky]

That's not true. Clinton was dogged by the Reps. the minute he started to run. Time after time they found no reason to prosecute him, including Whitewater.

They finally hit paydirt.

Indeed. Bush lied about yellow cake when he knew it was a lie. He took us to war under false pretenses. But hey! At least he didn't get a blow job -- ya know, that's impeachable.

And nbc -- Bush has not had an opportunity to grab from the far right because no SC seats have opened up. But if you look at his lower court appointees, they are some scary conservatives in that bunch. In fact, he had to push one through against the Democrats and Republicans in Congress because the guy was so conversative no one wanted to appoint him and have that around their neck in an election year.

 

[nbcrusader]

And nbc -- Bush has not had an opportunity to grab from the far right because no SC seats have opened up. But if you look at his lower court appointees, they are some scary conservatives in that bunch. In fact, he had to push one through against the Democrats and Republicans in Congress because the guy was so conversative no one wanted to appoint him and have that around their neck in an election year.

Take a look at the track record of court nominations and confirmations and you will see the difficulty GWB has had with lower court positions. The scrutiny at the Supreme Court level is exponentially higher.

But, for some, any conservative on the bench is "scary".

 

[anitram]

Not all old people get cancer. Young people get it too, even babies. That doesn't mean anything.

Review the statistics on cancer rates. Comparing childhood carcinoma to geriatric carcinoma is completely baseless.

 

[Judah]

I agree with nbcrusader. Too much fear mongering re: the supreme court. The appointment process is pretty thorough. You'd need pretty extreme judges to change momentum of society on the big questions. I think it's naive to think that a couple more conservative judges will end up reversing R. v. Wade, or the like. That would be seen as too "activist" by half the country...and "activist judges" is something the Repubs should continue to oppose.

(Though the Supreme Court DID supremely hurt its credibility -- at least the five conservative judges -- on 2000 Election issue.)

 

[starsgoblue]

Pop, I commend you for posting about this. Soooo many people I know don't know this little piece of vital information....

 

[Scarletwine]

I disagree, most Bush appointment worm through. Only the worst of the misogynist attack.

So theirs been less filibusters thean approves.