William Rehnquist, and Aftermath

[OldGreyEagle]

Once again I am confused. With the passing of William Rehnquist I heard some things by which I am confused. When Rehnquist was placed on the Court, it appears he was one of very few conservatives and over the years the Supreme Court is being described as getting more and more Conservative yet it seems to me that I hear alot about the country being led to ruin by the activist liberal judges so I have to ask, How can the Supreme Court be described as Conservative and the rest of the judicial system be described as Liberal, is that a disconnect? WHat am I missing?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Several things are happening. The first is one's personal perspective of what is liberal. It is fashionable to call anything a person disagrees with as being liberal these days, so it may depend on who you are speaking with as to what is liberal. Many even like to think of themselves as being conservative until some of their hidden liberal laws are tampered with and then they find a way to call it even. The next is that some laws that were thought of as liberal have become acceptable and are no longer thought of as liberal but as good laws. Then there are laws that are liberal and many think of them as being liberal but they have been accepted as being "the law" and few want to change them. The Supreme Court is made up of individuals not political pawns that only think with their political party. Some consider the law as being a way to make society better and politics and labels do not always fit. Some know that the law represents society as a whole and believe that it should reflect those values or it is no longer law.

 

Justice Rehnquist made it his personal goal to make abortion illegal and remained steadfast until the end. It just happens that the justices are not simple minded but intelligent, independent people with families and goals of their own. I consider it a very good thing that "stacking the court" does not sweep away all laws at once that one feels is wrong. If it did, people would recognize those changes and would feel that our government is unstable and unreliable.

 

FB

[Kahuna]

OGE: While I agree with FB, I would also throw in that judges and justices are appointed by different presidents. Some of them are activist liberals and some are activist conservatives. They also tend to reflect the area of the country they serve in. The Ninth Circuit in San Francisco is hands down the most activist judicial circuit in the U.S.

 

The Supreme Court is composed of nine people who are appointed by different presidents. They also change over time. Some become more liberal with time, as did Sandra Day O'Conner. By and large, the Supreme Court is much more conservative than it was under Earl Warren and his successors until Rehnquist. Still, it takes a 5-4 vote to change anything. Also, judges like Rehnquist tend to believe in stare decisis, which means that they don't like the idea of revisiting the same issues over and over again. It creates chaos in law. A lot of them, as Roberts claims to be, are strict constructionists, who believe if you can't read it in the Constitution you shouldn't read it into the Constitution. Others think it's just fine to interpret the Constitution to suit your ideas of right and wrong.

 

So, IMHO, the Supreme Court has become more centrist rather than conservative at the same time that other courts have become more liberal and activist. In the opinion of many liberals in the media, centrist means conservative and they don't like it, which is why you hear a lot about how conservative the Court has become.

 

I don't know if this makes any sense, but it's how I see it.

[matuawarrior]

Most far right extreme conservatives believe that many of the Supreme Court Justices are liberal even though majority of the Justices are conservatives. I believe Fuzzy's assessment is correct.

 

I believe though that many of the so-called "activist" judges are at the appeallate and state courts. It does seem that the judicial system is not in one accord. That's largely due to each judges interpretation of the law based on their individual beliefs. That should be a good thing.

 

One example is the judgement made on Kamehameha Schools in Hawaii. A 3-panel at the 9th circuit decided that the school should open its enrollment to non-natives, even though this school takes in no federal funding. I understand that the school is appealing to the full panel at the 9th Circuit. This is of great interest to many Chamorros out here because we have a similar private school. I believe this will go to the US Supreme Court, If the school has the financial resources to do so.

 

It will be of great interest who President Bush will nominate as the next Chief Justice and to fill the open seat.

[Kahuna]

Well, now we know. It's Roberts. Bush must feel pretty good about the reception Roberts has been getting so he got the nod. I was betting on Scalia or Thomas, but this guy will have an easier time getting confirmed than either of them.

 

As to Kamehameha Schools, I'm sure if anybody has the funds to go to the SCOTUS, it would be them. I don't know if they will win or not. I think that, like the BSA, a private school is private. They should be able to set their own admissions agenda. But that standard has not been universally adhered to by the courts.

[John-in-KC]

I agree with Kahuna. President Bush is using political capital wisely here. He built a lot up with Judge Roberts running the cycle this summer. Many Senators are already pretty well committed to him; they'll look like horse's A__es if they turn away now.

 

It also gives President Bush an opportunity to find another candidate for Justice O'Connor. That there are world class women out there I have no doubt of ... but is there one who will meet President Bushs' personal preferences as a conservative?

 

As for Justice O'Connor, I don't think she ever shifted HER personal positions on the law, but I do think the relative balance between conservatism and liberalism shifted from where she was far right of center in 1981 to where she was at center in 2005.

 

[packsaddle]

I too find it difficult to disagree with FuzzyBear. And I think Roberts will be confirmed as Chief Justice quickly unless something big and unexpected crawls out of the woodwork. Bush needs this to bolster himself politically - to blunt the edge of his Iraq-come-Katrina incompetence.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Supreme Court justices have a habit of going their own way once they've been placed in office. Not that many stray from their well-known philosophies much, but they don't always vote the way of political expedience.

 

Roberts is probably a shoe-in at this point. From all reports, he is a very intelligent person, and seems to know how to "play the Washington game", which will serve him well. Chief Justice Rehnquist was known to have a desire to not have the the court review the same issues over and over. He felt that this just confused the judiciary and caused more problems than it solved. Whether Roberts will follow that path as well remains to be seen.

 

I think the trick in all this is to find judges who can set their own ideologies aside when dealing with the law. The fact that we have judges that can be labeled as conservative or liberal is, I think, a bad thing. They should be impartial in their interpretation of the law. I don't think we're doing a very good job of selecting impartial judges these days, from either side of the aisle.

[Hunt]

I acually think Roberts will be easier to confirm as a replacement for Rehnquist than as a replacement for O'Connor. He's really a lot like Rehnquist, and he just doesn't have much baggage, except that he's conservative. The interesting questions now is who Bush will pick for the second seat--will he pick more of a centrist to avoid divisive controversy, or will he pick somebody far to the right in order to push the Court more to the right? I really don't know what he will do.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Hunt, I don't know either. I hope that he'd pick a centrist next, but this president sure seems to love to pick a fight. I wouldn't be surprised to see him pick someone like att. gen. Gonzalez, who's name was bantered about before.

[Hunt]

Actually, Gonzales may be too much of a centrist for some Republicans.