September 27, 2004
WHY 60 MATTERS:
Bench mark: Election winner will have lasting impact (Greg Gordon, September 27, 2004, Minneapolis Star-Tribune)
With one or more Supreme Court justices inching toward retirement, the November election could reshape the court and dramatically affect laws covering everything from abortion to civil rights to environmental regulation, legal experts say.If President Bush wins, his appointments are expected to give conservatives a vise grip on the nation's highest courts for years to come. If Democrat John Kerry prevails, he is expected to swing the high court to the left of center.
"Clearly, the next president will be able to shape the course of justice in this country not just for four years, but for 40 years," said Nan Aron, president of the liberal-leaning Alliance for Justice.
If a Bush victory were followed by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, widely viewed as the court's pivotal swing vote, "then I think rights and protections that we Americans cherish will be gravely threatened, particularly in the areas of [abortion] choice, civil rights and gay rights," Aron said.
Glenn Lammi, chief counsel for legal studies at the conservative-leaning Washington Legal Foundation, agrees that the election's effects on the courts could be huge, but he doesn't expect drastic change. He said that the Republican-appointed majority on the current court has issued no "outrageous" opinions.
And it's unlikely that Bush would choose nominees seeking "radical change," Lammi said, because they would almost assuredly provoke a fierce confirmation battle with Senate Democrats.
What's really exciting is that the President will have the opportunity to nominate qualified young conservatives who just happen to play to political constituencies. Here's a trifecta for you: Janice Rogers Brown, Miguel Estrada, and Viet Dinh. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 27, 2004 12:49 PM
Two things:
1) heard all the same speculation about multiple retirements 4 years ago...
2) Justices, particularly those appointed by Republicans, have proven to be notoriously unpredictable (Blackmun, Stevens, Souter etc etc), and I would expect similar surprises from one or more of the candidates mentioned by OJ
Posted by: curt at September 27, 2004 1:46 PMI liked the way the Democrats handled these matters. Abe Fortas was more than willing to call LBJ and receive his "advice" in controversial cases. If LBJ wanted Goldberg off the court, then he would call him and tell him to resign, so that he could appoint him as Ambassador to the UN. Douglas could be depended to vote with the Union in any case, over a 30 year time frame.
Oh, the good old days.
Posted by: h-man at September 27, 2004 6:26 PMI am a Catholic who is personally against abortion but doesn't believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. The question of the legality or illegality of abortion (i.e. is it the same as murder?) depends on one's religious belief. Does life begin at conception or at birth? Since the answer is based on religious opinion and I am a firm believer in the separation between church and state, abortion should remain legal.
That being said, the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church for condemning Catholic pro-choice politicians (i.e. John Kerry), despite the institution's own grievous failure in protecting children from pedophilia is infuriating. What I find more offensive are reports alleging that the staunchly pro-life President Bush paid for an illegal abortion in 1970 of a 15 year-old girlfriend he impregnated. What this election should be about is each man's actions and not the rhetoric that comes out of his mouth.
Posted by: Julie at September 27, 2004 9:06 PMJulie:
Then why should murder be illegal at all, if the question of life and its value, as you correctly point out, is religious?
Posted by: oj at September 27, 2004 10:04 PMRobert Bork, COME ON DOWN!!!
Posted by: Matt Murphy at September 27, 2004 10:46 PM