O'Connor Hangs 'em up
If the Supreme Court is everybody's stepchild, O'Connor is the stepchild's stepchild - she outraged both right and left. She was at heart a conservative but would err on the side of individual liberty against legislative prerogative and minorities against majorities when in doubt. And she was in doubt alot - in Casey she was happy to admit that abortion isn't really a constitutional right but couldn't bring herself to overturn precedent. In the U of Michigan affirmative action decision, she threw out one approach while supporting another, all thru splitting hairs of what was a quota and what wasn't. But as Steve Sailer has pointed out, this was mostly the fault of Bush, who didn't have the balls to argue against the despicable notion of "diversity" itself - if Bush didn't have the balls , she sure wasn't going to let him off the hook by taking it on herself.
She also could have taken a back seat to Scalia, and joined onto his decisions rather than feeling she had to take control. Scalia, unlike O'Connor, is not plagued with doubt. But he's also seldom giving the majority opinion - and that's where the glory comes from.
It will be critical for Bush to name a real conservative to replace O'Connor. Given the disastrous track record of moderate Republican appointees - Warren, Stewart, Blackmum, Stevens, Souter - any choice but a staunch conservative must be viewed as (yet another) betrayal of the 60 million+ people who voted for him.
She also could have taken a back seat to Scalia, and joined onto his decisions rather than feeling she had to take control. Scalia, unlike O'Connor, is not plagued with doubt. But he's also seldom giving the majority opinion - and that's where the glory comes from.
It will be critical for Bush to name a real conservative to replace O'Connor. Given the disastrous track record of moderate Republican appointees - Warren, Stewart, Blackmum, Stevens, Souter - any choice but a staunch conservative must be viewed as (yet another) betrayal of the 60 million+ people who voted for him.
posted by ziel | 7/01/2005 06:33:00 PM
5 Comments:
I feel comfortable that GWB will at least try to make you happy by trying to appoint a "reliable" conservative who will toe the line, ala Thomas.
Given the current environment, I think we are in for an interesting and entertaining process. I imagine Renquist has been told to sit back and suck it up until "we see how this goes".
I, as you might expect, think O'Connor has been great. I think all Supreme Court Judges should be centerists. That's my dream. They actually look at the law, the Constitution & the times and make reasoned, realistic decisions. A dream, I know.
What Rove will do (like GWB actually makes any decisions) will be interesting. Do they want the national showdown on "family", "morals", "ethics", or are they going to try to find someone everyone can be painfully happy with and safe the big shot for Scallia or Thomas to Chief and a big conservative then to take that seat?
Please put me down for one vote for Charles J. Stevens III to fill the current vacancy. He's fair, he's smart and he runs alot and is very healthy, he'll serve until he is 105...
Harlem
They actually look at the law, the Constitution & the times and make reasoned, realistic decisions.
How about they actually look at the press, the political climate, then the scour the Constitution and the law to come up with excuses for the decisions they make. That's a more honest assessment of O'Connor's role. I'd say her decisions on medical marijuana and the takings clause were among (perhaps the only?) principled decisions of her career.
Still, I'd be happy with an O'Connor - but, as history has shown, if you go for a centrist, you're more likely to get a liberal, so that's why W needs to go for a true conservative.
If he chooses that anti-American bastard Gonzales I'll never say George Bush's name again without an expletive attached.
Maybe I´m a bit naive, but I wouldn´t worry too much about Gonzalez, so recently confirmed AG. But with the arrogance of the Bush Adm., anything is possible.
any choice but a staunch conservative must be viewed as (yet another) betrayal of the 60 million+ people who voted for him.
Right on Z man- Bush has turned out to be a real Dem on many issues.
This won't really have success, I believe this way.
here
Post a Comment
<< Home